EVIDENCE

(Part VIII of IX)

I. Evidence (Rule 128-133) A. General Provisions 1. Definitions
Rule 128, Sec. 1. Evidence defined. - Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) Evidence – the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. Relevant evidence – evidence which has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence; evidence which tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. Material evidence – evidence which is directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings; evidence of such quality of substantial importance to the particular issue, apart from its relevance Escolin: The terms “relevant” and “material” are practically the same. They are used interchangeably by the SC. Competent evidence – evidence which is not excluded by the law or by the Rules of Court Direct evidence – evidence which proves a fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption Circumstantial evidence – proof of facts from which, taken collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence Expert evidence – testimony of a witness regarding a question of science, art or trade, when he is skilled therein Prima facie evidence – evidence which suffices for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence Conclusive evidence – evidence which is incontrovertible and which the law does not allow to be contradicted Cumulative evidence – evidence of the same kind and character as that already given and tends to prove the same proposition Corroborative evidence – evidence of a different kind and character tending to prove the same point

120

Best evidence – evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question Secondary evidence – evidence which is necessarily inferior to primary/best evidence and shows on its fact that better evidence exists Factum probans – the evidentiary fact by which the factum probandum is to be established; material evidencing the proposition, existent, and offered for the consideration of the tribunal Factum probandum – the ultimate fact sought to be established; proposition to be established, hypothetical, and that which one party affirms and the other denies Factum probandum Proposition to be established Factum Probans Material evidencing the proposition

Conceived of as hypothetical; Conceived of for practical purposes as that which one party affirms and existent, and is offered as such for the the other denies consideration of the court Collateral facts – matters other than facts in issue and which are offered as a basis merely for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue Real evidence – evidence furnished by the things themselves, or view or inspection as distinguished from a description by them of a witness; that which is addressed directly to the senses of the court without the intervention of a witness Rebuttal evidence – evidence which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party Positive evidence – when a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur Negative evidence – when a witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact

2. Distinguish
Admissibility of evidence Weight of evidence Pertains to the ability of the evidence Pertains to the effect of evidence to be allowed and accepted subject to admitted its relevancy and competence Substantive essence or characteristic feature of evidence as would make it worthy of consideration by the court before its admission Proof Effect and result of evidence End Result The probative value of evidence which the court may give to admit after complying with the rules of relevancy and competency Evidence Medium of proof Means to the end
120

121

3. Scope a. Rule 128 §2
Sec. 2. Scope. - The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a)

b. Cases
Reyes v. CA, 216 SCRA 25 (1992) The Rules of Court, and its rules on Evidence, are not even suppletorily applicable to agrarian cases. Special law allows affidavits to be admitted in evidence in agrarian courts, even without the witness testifying nor subject to cross-examination. Escolin: Note that in Reyes, what was presented were affidavits. Ordinarily, affidavits are not admissible before the regular courts because there is no opportunity for the other party to cross-examine. Depositions are admissible because there was an opportunity for the adverse party to cross-examine. Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. v. NLRC, 217 SCRA 237 (1993) The unverified position paper is a mere procedural infirmity which does not affect the merits of the case. Procedural technicalities do not strictly apply to proceedings before the LA. The rules of evidence does not apply to .1 probation board .2 CTA .3 SEC .4 Immigration cases .5 LA/NLRC .6 CAR

B. Admissibility of Evidence
Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence. - Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. (3a) Requisites for admissibility .1 relevant .2 competent

1. Relevancy a. Rule 128 §4
Sec. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. – Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except
121

51 OG 805 (1995) Lopez v. III. Sec. 339 S.2d 448 (1961) State of Missouri v.122 when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. Secs. Art. (3a) Competence – not excluded by the law or the RoC b. houses. Admissibility of evidence. III. Ball. 3. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. 2 and 3 Art. Aparece. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. papers. (4a) Relevance – relation to the facts in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence Evidence on collateral matters allowed only when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. 2) Art. Section 12. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. III. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court. Section 2. Section 3. 12 Art. Heesen. b. Competence a. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. 365 P. III.W2d 783 (1960) 2. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. Cases Bautista v. III. If the person cannot afford the services of 122 . Constitutional rules of exclusion 1) Art. Rule 128 §3 Sec. .

admissible for other purposes) – evidence obtained . violence. issued. nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled. threat. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Statutory rules of exclusion 1) NIRC. III.123 counsel. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. as amended by RA 8424 Sec. Sec. III. Secret detention places. incommunicado.1 from unreasonable searches and seizures. (2) No torture. solitary.2 in violation of the right of privacy of communication and correspondence Relatively inadmissible (inadmissible only against the person whose rights are violated. Failure to stamp a document required by law to be stamped shall render the document inadmissible in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have 123 . or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. or . No notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths shall add his jurat or acknowledgment to any document subject to documentary stamp tax unless the proper documentary stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled. accepted or transferred without being duly stamped. Xxx 3) Art. force.2 from means which vitiate the free will . document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed. Section 17. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. 201. shall not be recorded. 17 Art. — An instrument. Absolutely inadmissible – evidence obtained . These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. §201. intimidation.1 in violation of the right be informed of the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel . he must be provided with one.3 in violation of the right against self-incrimination c.

For bank deposits. Elements of the exclusion . §55. are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined. 2. disclose to any unauthorized person any information relative to the funds or properties in the custody of the bank belonging to private individuals.4 without a court order de Leon: Note that this provision covers only property in the custody of the bank other than bank deposits. employee. or agent of any bank . are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined. or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials. inquired or looked into by any person. No director.124 been affixed thereto inadmissibility.1 written permission of the depositor . corporations. Exceptions .1. 3) RA 1405: Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits Sec. officer. or agent of any bank shall – (b) Without order of a court of competent jurisdiction. officer. bureau or office. inquired or looked into by any person. or 124 . bureau or office. except upon written permission of the depositor. I submit that it is a rule of absolute inadmissibility.3 information relative to the funds or properties in the custody of the bank belonging to private individuals. its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities. GR: All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines.1 (b) Sec. RA 8791. This is an absolute 2) General Banking Act of 2000. the provisions of existing laws shall prevail. government official.2 disclosure to unauthorized person . All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines. Note also that the provision does not state the nature of the inadmissibility. or any other entity: Provided. and cancelled (§201 NIRC). or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.1 director. That with respect to bank deposits. RA 1405 governs. or in cases of impeachment. 55.2 impeachment. Prohibited Transactions. corporations. its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities. or any other entity . employee. 55. government official.

or . either verbally or in writing. or however otherwise described: It shall also be unlawful for any person. or by using any other device or arrangement. intercept.b dereliction of duty of public officials. disc record. or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder.a bribery or . to tap any wire or cable.4 any person to communicate the contents thereof. be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence.4 where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.2 any person to knowingly possess any tape record. or by using any other device or arrangement. of any communication or spoken word secured in the manner prohibited by this law.125 . to knowingly possess any tape record. or to communicate the contents thereof.3 order of a competent court in cases of .1 any person. whether complete or partial. to secretly overhear. or any other such record. or copies thereof. not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word. or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder. to tap any wire or cable. or any other such record. wire record. Unlawful acts . or . not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word. criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof. or to furnish transcriptions thereof. or to replay the same for any other person or persons. to any other person: 125 . whether complete or partial. 4) RA 4200: Wire-tapping Sec.5 any person to furnish transcriptions thereof.3 any person to replay the same for any other person or persons . It shall be unlawful for any person. of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law. disc record. intercept. to any other person: Provided. That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil. 1. either verbally or in writing. or . de Leon: I submit that this is a rule of absolute inadmissibility. to secretly overhear. shall not be covered by this prohibition. or copies thereof. wire record. or however otherwise described: .

sedition. who is authorized by a written order of the Court. espionage and other offenses against national security: Sec. conspiracy to commit sedition.126 The use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil. Sec. espionage. conspiracy to commit sedition. 3. Sec. punishing espionage and other offenses against national security: Provided. rebellion. any of such crimes. permit. sedition. Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid. or to the solution of. or meaning of the same or any part 126 . 4.1 any peace officer . to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of treason. Any communication or spoken word. and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.3 in cases involving the crimes of treason. conspiracy to commit sedition. be punished xxx. inciting to rebellion. Nothing contained in this Act. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. however. rebellion. and inciting to sedition. sedition. 616. permits. as the case may be. criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof. substance. have actually been or are being committed. and violations of Commonwealth Act No. mutiny in the high seas. kidnapping. piracy. or causes such violation shall. or the existence. however. kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code. piracy. xxx Conditions for valid wiretapping . inciting to sedition. or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any order issued thereunder. inciting to rebellion. such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition. 2. inciting to rebellion. provoking war and disloyalty in case of war. purport. or aids. shall not be covered by this prohibition. espionage. That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. contents. (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. inciting to sedition.2 authorized by a written order of the Court . provoking war and disloyalty in case of war. upon conviction thereof. or to the prevention of. mutiny in the high seas. effect. That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion. shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer.

3 the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals . without the introduction of evidence. forms of government and symbols of nationality. executive and judicial departments of the Philippines. of the existence and territorial extent of states. CA. when mandatory. forms of government and symbols of nationality . Gaanan v. their political history. What Need Not be Proved 3 things that need not be proved . the laws of nature. quasi-judicial. Ramirez v. The recording is inadmissible in evidence.1 existence and territorial extent of states. the political constitution and history of the Philippines.127 thereof. the measure of time. legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. Mandatory (Rule 129 §1) Sec.1 matters of mandatory judicial notice .4 the political constitution and history of the Philippines .A court shall take judicial notice.3 judicial admissions 1. Judicial notice. 1.5 the official acts of the legislative. and the geographical divisions. . executive and judicial departments of the Philippines 127 . the law of nations.2 matters of discretionary judicial notice .2 the law of nations . Judicial notice a. the official acts of the legislative. (1a) Mandatory Judicial Notice . CA. 235 SCRA 111 (1994) C. IAC. 248 SCRA 590 (1995) Even a person privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter violates the anti-wiretapping act. their political history. or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial. Information obtained in violation of the anti-wiretapping act is absolutely inadmissible. 145 SCRA 112 (1986) Salcedo Ortañez v. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals.

the court.During the trial. b. on any matter – allow the parties to be heard thereon .1 During trial. The doctrine of constructive knowledge does not apply. Judicial notice. 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. and .2 are capable of unquestionable demonstration.b announces its intention to take judicial notice of any matter .2 After trial.7 the measure of time. Judicial notice. or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. 2.1 of public knowledge. or are capable of unquestionable demonstration.b motu propio. even if it is more favorable to the accused.1 During the trial. on request of a party . 233 SCRA 155 (1994) In determining prescription in a prosecution for bigamy. may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. .A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge. the proper court. the court . or on request of a party. or . CA. when discretionary. or . (1a) Discretionary Judicial Notice – matters which are .3 ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions c. on its own initiative. on its own initiative or on request of a party. When hearing required (Rule 129 §3) Sec. when hearing necessary. and before judgment or on appeal. the reckoning point is actual discovery of the subsequent marriage by the offended party. Discretionary (Rule 129 §2) Sec.6 the laws of nature . and before judgment or on appeal – any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case Hearing is necessary when .128 . not from the registration of the marriage contract. After the trial.(n) When court takes judicial notice . . on request of a party 128 .2 After trial .8 the geographical divisions Sermonia v.a motu propio. 3.a before judgment or on appeal .

de Jalagat. and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge. reference is made to it for that purpose. 42 SCRA 337 (1971) Prieto v. People v. If trial is already over. Judicial admissions a. by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated. the court can take judicial notice of any matter during the trial as long as there is a hearing. Garcia. Sy-Gonzales. at the request or with the consent of the parties. Rule 129 §4 129 . de Leon: Why on earth would a court take judicial notice of a matter which is not decisive of a material issue in a case? City of Manila v. 14 SCRA 549 (1965) Ozaeta Romulo etc. in the adjudication of cases pending before them. even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court. 196 SCRA 650 (1991) As a general rule courts are not authorized to take judicial notice. or when the original record of the former case or any part of it. 88. the court can take judicial notice only of matters decisive of a material issue in the case as long as there is a hearing (p. an exception is when in the absence of objection. Vda. is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction. 92 SCRA 1 (1979) Yao-Kee v. when.129 . CA.c takes judicial notice of any matter. Francisco). of the contents of the records of other cases. However. and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending. 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 its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it. 250 SCRA 676 (1995) 2. and . Arroyo. 167 SCRA 736 (1988) Tabuena v. . Godoy. with the knowledge of the opposing party. 19 SCRA 413 (1967) Baguio v.d if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case Hence.

3 admissions in superseded pleadings. declaration.Object and Documentary Evidence 1.2 no such admission was made b.1 the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document copied or attached to a pleading. (2a) Requisites for judicial admission . CA. examined or viewed by the court. 131 SCRA 24 (1984) D.An admission. Judicial admissions.1 it was made through palpable mistake or . 48 (1914) Torres v. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. except quasi-offenses and those allowed by law to be compromised (Rule 130 §27) . 27 Phil. Sec. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that . when the other party fails to specifically deny under oath (Rule 8 §8) . Calupitan. made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case.6 admission by silence (Rule 130 §32) c. Instances of Judicial admissions Instances of Judicial admissions . Cases Lucido v.2 in the course of the proceedings .3 in the same case de Leon: If the admission was made in outside the proceedings or in another case. it is also admissible under admissions of a party (Rule 130. when the other party fails to specifically deny it (Rule 8 §11) . when offered in evidence (Rule 10 §8) . verbal or written. (1a) 130 . 4. it may be exhibited to. 1. – Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. .130 Sec.1 made by a party .4 act. does not require proof. or omission of a party as to a relevant fact (Rule 130 §26) . Object as evidence.2 material allegations in the complaint.5 implied admission of guilt in an offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue. Rule 130 §1-2 Sec. 26).

Documentary evidence. 250 SCRA 58 (1995) Adamczuk v.131 Object Evidence – evidence addressed to the senses of the court Ocular inspection qualifies as object evidence. 2. (n) Documentary evidence – any material containing modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents 2. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. Tatum. exceptions. words. and (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. Sec. (2a) Best Evidence Rule – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. numbers. 131 . 13 A. Bardaje. – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. 360 P. (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. 3. or cannot be produced in court.2d 2 (1940) State v. Holloway. figures. – Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters. except in the following cases: (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed. 2d 754 (1961) E. or cannot be produced in court. Rule 130 §3-4 Sec. Best Evidence Rule 1. People. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents. Original document must be produced.1 has been lost or destroyed. 99 SCRA 388 (1980) Sison v. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself Exceptions: When the original . Cases People v.

2 is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. Gregorio. .2d 1504 (1986) – US BER “or their equivalents” vs. . Reyes. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction. . 105 Phil. 17 Phil. Carrascoso. 1242 (1959) Seiler v. 4.3 When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. – (a) The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. 55 Phil 905 (1931) Sec. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction.3 consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. Tan.” is a disputed work in an infringement case object or documentary? US v. all such copies are equally regarded as originals. (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. (3a) Original documents . Philippine BER “other modes of written expression. 192 SCRA 28 (1990) The best evidence rule does not apply to the marked money in a buy bust operation because the inquiry is not on the contents of the marked bill.1 one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. 522 (1910) Fiscal v. 171 F.132 . such an inquiry need not be the main issue People v. with identical contents. 18 SCRA 155 (1966) Meyers v. all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals 132 . and .4 the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office 2. all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.2 When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. all such copies are equally regarded as originals. with identical contents. (b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. Lucasfilm.2d 800 (1948) – BER only applies if the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. Air France v. but merely its existence. Original of document. 797 F. US. Tandoy. Cases People v.

with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. as the case may be. under the seal of such court. get affidavits of loss from all the people who possibly has a copy of the original. (28a) To prove loss. must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. 27.1 the original has been lost or destroyed. – When the original document has been lost or destroyed. Irremovability of public record. its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.2 vendee . or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. the offeror. – When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. . upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part. in substance. that the copy is a correct copy of the original. if there be any. . (26 a) Sec. Rule 130 §5-8 Sec. e. except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. 26. or by a copy thereof. 7.g. he fails to produce the document.4 clerk of the court which gave the notary public commission .An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record. Notarized Deed of Sale . – If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party.Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence. an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. or cannot be produced in court. 6. may prove its contents by a copy. 25.a prove execution or existence .Any public record. he must have reasonable notice to produce it. 5. or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. (5a) Sec.1 Vendor . according to grounds . What attestation of copy must state. (27 a) Sec. or a specific part thereof. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence. (4a) Sec. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. (2a) cf Rule 132 §25-27 Sec. Public record of a private document. secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. attested by the legal custodian of the record. Secondary Evidence 1. . or cannot be produced in court . Evidence admissible when original document is a public record.133 F.3 notary public .b prove cause of unavailability without bad faith of the offeror 133 . When original document is unavailable.5 Bureau of Archives Requisites for admission of secondary evidence. the attestation must state.

a Rule 132 §25: What attestation of copy must state )1 )2 the copy is a correct copy of the original.4 the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office – contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof . or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. if there be any. or by a copy thereof )a )b attested by the legal custodian of the record with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody .may be proved by )1 )2 2. or testimony of witnesses . 134 . a party failed to produce the deed of sale.2 the original is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party . or a specific part thereof under the official seal of the attesting officer. Cases Municipality of Victorias v. or testimony of witnesses . CA.a adverse party had reasonable notice to produce the original (Subpoena duces tecum) .c proof of contents in the following order )1 )2 )a )b copy recital of its contents in some authentic document.b proof of the original’s existence .3 the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole.b Rule 132 §27: Public record of a private document . under the seal of such court the original record.c adverse party fails to produce the original .134 . but presented only a Certificate from the Archives Division of the Bureau of Records Management of an entry in a notarial register.d proof of contents in the following order )1 )2 )a )b copy recital of its contents in some authentic document. and . 149 SCRA 32 (1987) Facts: In action to recover land.

135 Held: Certificate is admissible. 8262 (1963)– when the existence of a document is proven.. 33 Phil. Brabangco. 77 SCRA 24 (1977) – voluminous character of accounts must be established. Vda. . Failure to prove loss of all the originals without fault of the offeror renders secondary evidence inadmissible. audit made by or testimony of private auditor is inadmissible as proof of original record or books of accounts. 9. the order of proof is as follows. between the parties and their successors in interest. Inc. and the fact of lost or destruction. However. Inc. Where the original has been lost or destroyed. de Corpus v. 3) loss. testimony of a witness need not be verbatim Compañia Maritima v. a party may present evidence to modify. 8. Ferrer. 87 (1915) – To prove a lost document. explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: (a) An intrinsic ambiguity. (6a) G. Party who calls for document not. agreement have been reduced to writing. mistake or imperfection in the written agreement. 1) existence of the original. it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be.Parol Evidence Rule 1. – When the terms of an. Evidence of written agreements. (c) The validity of the written agreement. Rule 130 §9 Sec. adverse party need not admit that it is in his possession before a copy may be introduced Michael & Co. bound to offer it. (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. de Vera v Aguilar.G. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. and it must be made available to the adverse party before parole. must prove due execution.A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. 218 SCRA 602 (1983) In case of loss of the original of a document. auditor’s opinion not admissible. the offeror may prove its contents by a recital of its contents in some authentic document or by testimony of witnesses. v. Allied Free Workers Union. 25 SCRA 845 (1968) – it is not necessary for a party seeking to introduce copy to prove that original is in actual possession of adverse party as long as it is under his control. it is important to have qualified witnesses Sec. or 135 . v. the court should allow the lost document to be proven by parole. 2) its due execution. The Certificate is one such authentic document.) 59 O. and 4) its contents. (C. best evidence on cost of equipment are sales invoices not testimony of an auditor Villa Rey Transit. Enriquez. delivery (if required).A.

In the following cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action. such evidence is admissible. therefore. PER applies only to the parties to the agreement. unless they are ratified: xxx (2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. between the parties and their successors in interest. mistake or imperfection in the written agreement .g.1 An intrinsic ambiguity. explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading . not of law .3 alleged and put in issue in the pleadings . no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. The following contracts are unenforceable. 2. Requisites for mistake as exception to PER . and subscribed by the party charged.2 failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties . Exceptions: a party may present evidence to modify. unless the same. not merely preponderance of. If the evidence sought to be admitted refers to matters other than the terms of the agreement (e. (7a) Parol Evidence Rule: When the terms of an. be in writing. evidence.2 of fact.1 mutual between the parties .4 proved by clear and convincing. statement of facts). 1403.3 validity of the written agreement.4 The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement If the ground is subsequently-agreed terms. The terms "agreement" includes wills. 1403 and 1405 Civil Code Art. or some note or memorandum. evidence Escolin: Note that the rule on self-defense also requires that the circumstances of self-defense be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The rule applies only to the terms of an agreement. of the agreement cannot be received without the writing. agreement have been reduced to writing. or . then the PER does not apply. the subsequently-agreed terms must also be put in issue in the pleadings. Art. or by his agent. or a secondary evidence of its contents: 136 . It does not apply where PER is invoked against a litigant who is a stranger to the agreement. it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be. thereof.136 (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.

4 agreement for the sale of goods. default. 2 of article 1403.1 not to be performed within a year from the making thereof . chattels or things in action. other than a mutual promise to marry. . chattels or things in action. Statute of Frauds: If the following agreements are not in writing and subscribed. or some of them. terms of sale. Art. are ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same.3 agreement made in consideration of marriage. or sale of real property or of an interest therein. (c) An agreement made in consideration of marriage. or some of them. unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods and chattels. . but when a sale is made by auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales book. (e) An agreement of the leasing for a longer period than one year. at a price not less than P500. Distinguish parole evidence rule from best evidence rule Parole Evidence Rule Best Evidence Rule 137 . or the evidences. or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein.1 failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence. (b) A special promise to answer for the debt. (f) A representation as to the credit of a third person. unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods and chattels. it is a sufficient memorandum.2 special promise to answer for the debt. . Exceptions .137 (a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof. or . it is unenforceable and evidence thereof is inadmissible . or the evidences. . Contracts infringing the Statute of Frauds. 1405. of such things in action or pay at the time some part of the purchase money. other than a mutual promise to marry.2 acceptance of benefit under the agreement 3. or by the acceptance of benefit under them. of such things in action or pay at the time some part of the purchase money. at the time of the sale. default. (d) An agreement for the sale of goods. names of the purchasers and person on whose account the sale is made. of the amount and kind of property sold. at a price not less than five hundred pesos.5 lease for more than 1 year. or miscarriage of another.6 representation as to the credit of a 3rd person. referred to in No. or miscarriage of another. price.

138 No issue as to the contents of a Issue is contents of a writing writing Parol evidence is offered Secondary evidence is offered the original is not Presupposes that original is in Applies when court available Effect is can not add. it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing. 226 SCRA 740 (1993) Facts: Pioneer execute an DoAS of a car in favor of Michael Santos. Pioneer Savings & Loan Bank v. one being a lawyer and supposed to be steeped in legal and banking knowledge and practices. No such stipulation was incorporated in the deed of sale which 138 . Furthermore. 192 SCRA 209 (1990) PER does not apply to receipts because it is not an agreement. subtract. CA. Pioneer claims that the car was merely a security for the time deposit placements of Santos’ relatives. Since Santos’ relatives have recovered their placements. They were expected to know the consequences of their act of signing a document which outrightly transferred ownership over the subject vehicle in favor of Santos. it does not bar evidence as to statement of facts. whether a party to between parties to the the instrument or not agreement Applies only to agreements and Applies to all kinds of writing wills 4. While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of written contracts. were not mere employees of the bank. failure of the adverse party to object renders parole evidence admissible. unless there has been fraud or mistake. or Effect is can not present any evidence explain the contents on the contents other than the original Invoked only if the controversy is Invoked by anybody. contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument. the parole evidence bars only evidence as to the terms. It is proof only of delivery of money. Held: Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary. The receipt of money is merely a statement of fact. Pioneer failed to produce any instrument or written document which would prove that the deed of sale in question was only a security for the time deposit placements of Santos' relatives in Pioneer. They could have incorporated in the deed of sale (if such was the intention or agreement of the parties) a stipulation that transfer of ownership and registration of the vehicle in Santos' name were conditioned on the failure of his relatives to recover their time deposit placements in petitioner bank. Lastly. Pioneer sued for recovery of the car. Cases Cruz v CA. The 2 main witnesses for Pioneer. They were bank officers.

387 (1927) – parol may be received regardless of whether the written agreement contains any reference to the collateral agreement and whether the action is at law or in equity even if it deals with related matters Lechugas v. Serrano. 29 Phil. v. it has therefore been put in issue in the pleadings.139 was an outright and unconditional transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle to respondent Santos. Pioneer should have invoked the exception that the agreement did not express their true intent and agreement. Enriquez v. unless there is fraud or mistake Land Settlement & Development Corp. CA. Furthermore. 143 SCRA 335 (1986) – PER not applicable where suit is between one of the parties to the document and 3rd persons. 526 (1953) – Inducement by fraud may be proved by parol because it goes into the validity of the agreement Robles v. The same may therefore be subject of parole evidence. not before. both parties to the agreement must be parties to the suit 139 . Seeto. Lizarraga. Defendant answers that the contract did not express the true agreement of the parties because it did not include the undertaking of plaintiff to construct roads on the land. Canuto v. which for that reason is a condition precedent. plaintiff invokes the registered mortgage agreement. Gonzales. Garcia Plantation. 50 Phil. since if it is proven. Halili. 7 SCRA 750 (1963) – exception to PER may be put in issue in answer to counterclaim. Held: Since the answer alleged that the contract did not express the true intention of the parties. 756 (1952) – assurances made by an indorser that the drawer has funds. 28 Phil. such may be established by parol evidence. are admissible in evidence Woodhouse v. 840 (1918) – parol may be introduced to prove subsequent agreement regardless of how soon such agreement was made Yu Tek & Co. 384 (1915) – Parol evidence inadmissible to incorporate additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing. Mariano. defendant argues that the ordinance that requires the construction of such roads in the subdivision before the lots could be sold is deemed included in the contract. 640 (1914) – PER does not apply where the purpose of parol evidence is to show that no written contract ever existed PNB v. which assurances induced bank to cash the check. 93 Phil. when operation of contract made to depend upon occurrence of an event. Ramos. 6 SCRA 219 (1962) Facts: In a foreclosure of REM case. 91 Phil. PER does not apply and may not be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other. where at least one of the parties to the suit is not party or privy to the written agreement and does not base a claim on the instrument. de Leon: Note that the PER exceptions of other term agreed by the parties refer to those agreed after. the execution of the agreement. 37 Phil. v. there will be no contract Maulini v.

10. (8) Sec. CA. CA – contemporaneous conditions not referred to in the contract can not be proven by parol. technical. 14. if possible.140 Inciong v. 15. general and particular provisions. and the two are inconsistent. – In the construction of an instrument. 17. is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. to be adopted as will give effect to all. which preferred. (9) Sec. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. (14) Sec. in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. or who understand the language. unless the parties intended otherwise.Interpretation of Documents 1. – In the construction of an instrument where there are several provisions or particulars. – The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation.(12) Sec. Interpretation according to intention. Rule 130 §10-19 Sec. and were so used and understood in the particular instance. the former controls the latter. so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret. may be shown. (11) Sec. the intention of the parties is to be pursued. Peculiar signification of terms. Interpretation according to circumstances. such a construction is. 12. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. the circumstances under which it was made. including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it. 257 SCRA 578 (1996) – PER does not specify that the agreement be a public document. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. 16. the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters. (10) Sec. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. – When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form. and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent. merely alleging that the contract is subject to conditions does not “put” the exception “in issue in the pleadings” H. the latter is paramount to the former. (13) Sec. – When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different 140 . 11. or otherwise peculiar signification. Written words control printed. need not be in any particular form or signed by the parties. fraud must be corroborated Ortañez v. but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local. 13. or the language is not understood by the court. – The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution. Of two constructions. – For the proper construction of an instrument. – When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered.

the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. – An instrument may be construed according to usage. the former is to be adopted. 1371. that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it.2 Instrument construed so as to give effect to more provisions . the latter shall prevail over the former.11 . If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties. Art.9 When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it. technical. or the language is foreign. or peculiar signification use admissible . 18. 1370-1379 Civil Code Art. the evidence of experts and interpreters is admissible .4 particular over general . evidence of local.10 When different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper. If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties.1 Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning in the place of execution .141 parties to it. in order to determine its true character. their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.8 When the characters are difficult to decipher. 1370. one is favor of natural right and the other against it. 19. – When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties. Construction in favor of natural right. Interpretation according to usage. (15) Sec.6 Terms presumed to be used in primary and general acceptation. that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it . that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made . and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper. that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made.3 Interpretation according to intention of the parties .7 Written words control printed . (17) Rules of interpretation of documents .5 Interpretation according to circumstances of the parties and the subject . Arts.12 preference for natural right usage may be considered 2. (16) Sec. 141 .

and the doubts refer to incidental circumstances of a gratuitous contract. If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings. Art.3 In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties. The principles of interpretation stated in Rule 123 of the Rules of Court shall likewise be observed in the construction of contracts. 1373. the literal meaning shall control. the contract shall be null and void. Words which may have different significations shall be understood in that which is most in keeping with the nature and object of the contract.142 Art. 1372. their . If the contract is onerous.1 If the terms are clear. If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract in such a way that it cannot be known what may have been the intention or will of the parties. 142 . the least transmission of rights and interests shall prevail.5 If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together. and shall fill the omission of stipulations which are ordinarily established. 1375. Art. 1374.2 If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties. Art. Art. contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. 1379. it shall be understood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual. the intention shall prevail . attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly. 1378. The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. 1376. When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules established in the preceding articles. Art. Statutory rules of interpretation . Art. the doubt shall be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests. they shall not be understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are different from those upon which the parties intended to agree.4 terms of a contract shall not be understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are different from those upon which the parties intended to agree . . it shall be understood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual. The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract. Art. 1377. However general the terms of a contract may be.

.2 perceiving . . shall not be a ground for disqualification. Cases Lambert v. and perceiving.1 can perceive . their qualifications. .6 The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together.8 The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract. interest in the outcome of the case.a the doubts refer to incidental circumstances of )1 )2 a gratuitous contract. 21 SCRA 1183 (1967) – doubt resolved against one who prepared the document I. .11 The principles of interpretation stated in the Rules of Court shall likewise be observed 3. Rule 130 §20: Qualifications of Witnesses Sec. or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law. (18 a) Qualifications of witnesses . all persons who can perceive. Religious or political belief. Sadang.3 can make known their perception to others NOT ground for disqualification . . can make known their perception to others.1 Religious belief 143 . 20.9 The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. 588 (1914) – If from the words the meaning is plain.10 When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules established in the preceding articles . – Except as provided in the next succeeding section. attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.143 .b If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract in such a way that it cannot be known what may have been the intention or will of the parties. 26 Phil. contract should be enforced according to the words Capital Insurance v.7 Words which may have different significations shall be understood in that which is most in keeping with the nature and object of the contract. the least transmission of rights and interests shall prevail an onerous contract. the doubt shall be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests . the contract shall be null and void. Fox. may be witnesses. and shall fill the omission of stipulations which are ordinarily established. Witnesses.

144

.2 political belief .3 interest in the outcome of the case, or .4 conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, e.g. .a A state witness must not have been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude [Rule 119, Sec. 17 (e)] .b A person who has been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony is disqualified from being a witness to a will (Art. 821 NCC)

1. Mental Incapacity or Immaturity a. Rule 130 §21
Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. – The following persons cannot be witnesses: (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others; (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (19a) For a mentally defective person to be a witness, he must be mentally capable at the time of production, even if he was not so at the time of perception. A child must be mentally mature both at the time of perception and at the time of production. With regards to the subject matter of the testimony, we must make a distinction between absolute disqualifications and relative disqualifications. Objections based on absolute disqualifications may be raised upon the calling of the disqualified witness. Objections based on relative disqualifications may be raised when it becomes apparent that the subject matter of the testimony covers inadmissible matters. Absolutely disqualified witnesses .1 can’t perceive .2 not perceiving .3 can’t make known their perception to others .4 whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, render them incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others .5 whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and relating them truthfully .6 marital disqualification .7 parental and filial privilege Relative disqualifications .1 dead man’s statute
144

145

.2 marital communication privilege .3 attorney-client privilege .4 an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity .5 Physician-Patient Privilege .6 Priest-Penitent Privilege .7 State Secrets

b. Cases
People v. de Jesus, 129 SCRA 4 (1984) – even though feeble minded, there is no showing that she could not convey her ideas by words or signs ___ competent; even if she had difficulty comprehending the questions People v. Salomon, 229 SCRA 402 (1993) – being mental retardate is not per se a disqualification; although speech was slurred, testimony was positive, clear, plain and unambiguous People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791, Feb. 2, 1996 – any child, regardless of age, can be a witness as long as he meets the qualifications for competency: observation, recollection, and communication

2. Marriage a. Rule 130 §22: Marital Disqualification Rule
Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. – During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (20a) Requisites for marital disqualification rule .1 marriage subsists .2 a spouse is a litigant .3 no consent from the spouse-litigant .4 not a civil case by one against the other, or a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. GR: During their marriage, spouses may not testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse Exceptions: .1 in a civil case by one against the other, or
145

146

.2 in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against .a the other or .b the other’s direct descendants or ascendants The marital disqualification rule refers to all matters, whether or communicated by one spouse to the other. It applies only during the existence of the marriage. It can be invoked only if one spouse is a party to the action. It is an absolute disqualification and can be invoked the moment that one spouse is called to testify. This is a testimonial disqualification, as opposed to the testimonial privilege of ascendants and descendants (Rule 130 §25). Hence, the witness has no say whether the objection is to be raised or not. The holder of the privilege is the spouse-litigant. When the spouse-litigant consents to the testimony, the spousewitness must testify whether he wants to or not. cf Rule 130 §24 (a), Marital Communications
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. – The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: (a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;

Marital Disqualification

Marital Communications

Covers all matters regardless of Covers only those communicated by source one spouse to another Applies during the marriage A spouse must be a litigant Applies during and after the marriage A spouse need not be a litigant

Invoked when a spouse is called to Invoked when the testimony appears to testify cover privileged matters Note that the exceptions under the marital disqualification communications rule are the same. and marital

b. Cases
Ordoño v. Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270 (1975) The wife can therefore testify against her husband in such a case for rape against her daughter because it is considered a crime against the wife. When an offense directly attacks, or directly impairs the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the marital disqualification rule. de Leon: Note that when this case was decided, a crime by a spouse against the other’s descendant was not yet an express exception to the marital disqualification rule. People v. Castañeda, 88 SCRA 562 (1979) The wife can testify against the husband in a case for falsification of the wife’s signature in public documents to

146

Clare’s Realty. he waives the marital disqualification rule 3. 4 SCRA 298 (1962) A cross-examination of the disqualified witness is a waiver of the dead man’s privilege. . capacity Abraham v. Besides. Guerrero v. – Parties or assignors of parties to a case. 23. administrator or representative of a deceased person. (20a) Requisites for dead man’s statute . St. Wells.g. 54 Phil 102 (1929) If the witness sought to be disqualified is not the plaintiff (e. IAC. 124 SCRA 553 (1983) Mere witnesses not parties to the case are not disqualified by the dead man’s statute. Recto-Kasten. or the person of unsound mind is the defendant . or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. 78 Phil.3 upon claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind . Dead Man’s Statute a. the dead man’s statute is not applicable. upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind. Lezama v Rodriguez. one sued in their representative. Reyes v. disinterested 3rd party). the rule requires that the defendant must be the estate. “Representatives” are only those who.5 [no counterclaim is filed] b. can not be examined as a hostile witness by the adverse party People v. Rule 130 §23 Sec. not personal. Furthermore. 207 SCRA 234 (1992) The dead man’s statute does not apply where the case is filed by the estate. even if there was a continuing objection. like the executor. against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person.147 sell share of wife in conjugal property because it is a crime committed by the husband against the wife. 23 SCRA 1166 (1968) Wife who is a co-defendant of her husband in a case of collusive fraud. Cases Razon v. It does not apply where the heirs are being sued in their individual capacities.4 as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. 147 . cross-examination of the witness is a waiver of the privilege. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. where their interests are not separate. 694 (1947) – when the husband imputes crime against wife.1 the witness sought to be disqualified is the plaintiff . cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. or against a person of unsound mind.2 Executor. Francisco.

When the holder of the privilege (not necessarily the opposing party) consents to the testimony. the defendant may testify on facts occurring prior to the death of the decedent. it is improper to object to their testimony upon mere subpoena. adverse party may testify to transactions or communications with deceased which were made with an agent of such person if the agents is still alive and can testify as long as it is confined to the transactions J. Each of those enumerated is disqualified to testify as to specific matters only. to be covered under the dead man’s statute Escolin: The dead man’s rule does not apply in cadastral cases. the witness must testify.148 Lichauco v. Though a relative disqualification. when the purpose of their testimony as admitted by the offeror covers privileged matters) before one may properly object. 330 (1949) This in effect ruled that the Dead Man’s statute can not be invoked against a plaintiff-corporation.5 state secrets Sec.4 priest-penitent . 144 SCRA 222 (1986) – heirs of a deceased are “representatives” within the ambit of the dead man’s statute.g. not by the estate. CA. Tongco v. upon asking of a question that covers privileged matters.1 marital .3 physician-patient . It does not disqualify them from testifying on matters not privileged. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. it would be difficult to prove the claim in the estate proceeding because of the dead man’s statute. Interest no longer disqualifies a witness. the witness has no say whether the objection is to be raised or not. 84 Phil. One must wait until it becomes apparent that their testimony covers matters that are privileged (e. it is nevertheless a testimonial disqualification. Privileged Communications Privileged Communications . – The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: This is a rule of relative disqualification. However. if there is such an instrument. Hence. [careful not to be confused in the multiple meanings of the word “privilege”] Hence. Vianzon. 24. Neibert) Goñi v. 148 . waived by defendant if he files counterclaim against plaintiff. Atlantic Gulf. Escolin: If there is no instrument evidencing the claim. as opposed to the testimonial privilege of ascendants and descendants (Rule 130 §25). Officers/stockholder of corporation may testify in a case filed against the estate of a deceased by the corporation Escolin: In an action where the administrator is the plaintiff. it is not barred by the dead man’s statute (Neibert v.2 attorney-client . 50 Phil 698 (1927) – action must be brought against the estate.

In such a case. Where the other party in the privileged communication is a litigant.c during the marriage . The communication that is privileged need not be in any form. the litigant against whom the testimony is offered may object to its admission on the ground of privileged communication. the privilege may not be invoked at all.b in confidence . and privileged communication is offered in evidence without the consent of such party.2 without the consent of the spouse Note that the marital communication rule applies even after the marriage. It can be oral or written. Marital Communications a.149 Note that the wording of the law is to the effect that “(someone) may not be examined without the consent of (another). the privilege can not be invoked if the 3rd person is called to testify. It does not cover knowledge of matters that a spouse obtains from a source other than other spouse. However. 149 . The communication ceases to be privileged if knowingly communicated in the presence of 3rd persons.” The law does not say that one can not testify or be examined over the objection of another.a from the spouse . during or after the marriage. then his failure to object will be taken as a consent to the testimony or a waiver of a privilege. Consent of the other party in the privileged communication is an act that needs to be proved for the testimony to be admitted. The wording of the law is to the effect that an objection of the other party in the privileged communication is not necessary for the privilege to hold. This is to say that where the other party to the privileged communication is not a litigant in the case. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. It applies only to matters communicated by one spouse to another in confidence. However. if the privileged communication was within the surreptitious observation of a 3rd person. Rule 130 §24 (a) (a) The husband or the wife. then the communication can be invoked if either the communicator or communicatee called to testify. Requisites for Marital Communications Rule . This is not to say that failure of a such a party to object will never render such testimony admissible. It can be invoked even if neither spouse is a party to the action. cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other. 1.1 communication received . It is a relative disqualification and can be invoked only when it is apparent that the testimony would cover privileged matters.

It can be invoked only if one spouse is a party to the action. 22. not privilege. Marital Disqualification (Rule 130. Carlos. It applies only during the existence of the marriage.1 in a civil case by one against the other. 22) Covers all matters regardless of source Marital Communications (Rule 130. during the marriage Applies during marriage and after the Applies during the marriage A spouse must be a litigant A spouse need not be a litigant when the to cover testimony privileged Invoked when a spouse is called to Invoked testify appears matters MEMORIZE! b. unanswered letter inadmissible 2. It is an absolute disqualification and can be invoked the moment that one spouse is called to testify.2 in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants cf Rule 130 §22: Marital Disqualification Rule Sec. neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse. 47 Phil. Sec. 24 [a]) Covers only matters communicated by one spouse to another. illegality of seizure must be raised by motion before trial for return of letter. Sec. Disqualification by reason of marriage. Attorney-Client Privilege a. – During their marriage. (20a) The marital disqualification rule refers to all matters. whether or communicated by one spouse to the other. except in a civil case by one against the other. without collusion or voluntary disclosure on the part of either spouse. 626 (1925) – where the privilege communication from one spouse to the other comes into the hands of a 3rd party. Cases People v. or . Rule 130 §24 (b) 150 .150 The exceptions to the rule are . or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.

stenographer. e. 54 Phil. or clerk to testify. Taylor. or his advice given thereon in the course of. 29 Phil. 163 (1915) – communication made by client to attorney for purpose of being communicated to others not privileged. 919 (1930) – introduction in evidence of a part of a paper by one party waives privilege as to other parts of the same writing. However.5 communication was made in the course of.4 the communication was made in confidence . concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. nor can an attorney's secretary. stenographer. or with a view to professional employment The privilege extends to the attorney's secretary. The difference being consent of only the client is needed for the attorney to testify.1 existence of an attorney-client relationship . be examined as to any communication made by the client to him. Union Life. admitted authentic in court. 262 SCRA 124 (1996) – prosecution can not use attorneys as leverage to compel them to name their clients. professional employment. 938 (1924) – letter from client to attorney obtained by adverse party. Cases Uy Chico v.. stenographer. or his advice given thereon . not privileged regardless whether legally or illegally obtained (what about constitutional rule of exclusion on evidence obtained in violation of the right to privacy of communication and correspondence?).3 as to communication made by the client to him. Revilla. b. client’s identity is protected when there is a strong probability exists that revealing client’s name would implicate him in the very activity for which he sought advice Barton v.151 (b) An attorney cannot. or with a view to. Leyte Asphalt and Mineral Oil Co. WP can not be secured without sufficient justification 151 . without the consent of the client and his employer. there is no partial waiver of privilege Hickman v. contract for attorney’s fees is not privileged. 495 (1947) – privilege does not extend to information gathered by an attorney from witnesses. The attorney-client privilege does not apply if the attorney was sued by his client. when a party invokes BER.2 witness is an attorney . or clerk be examined. compromise agreement Regala v. 46 Phil. 329 U.g. it is the party who produces original who is deemed to have introduced it in evidence. the consent of both the attorney and the client is necessary for the attorney's secretary. one who overhears the communication with or without client’s knowledge is not privileged Orient Insurance v. without the consent of his client. Requisites for attorney-client privilege .S. or clerk concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. Sandiganbayan.

Gordon-Nikkar. Sandiganbayan. the court on motion and notice may make an order requiring delivery on such terms as are just. 449 U. communication by client to attorney remain privileged when attorney shares them with co-defendant for a common defense US v. 732 F. Nobles. be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity. and if a physician fails or refuses to make such a report the court may exclude his testimony if offered at the trial.2d 972 (5th Cir.2d 1321 (7th Cir.S. 518 F. (4) Requisites for physician-client privilege 152 . Waivers of the physician-patient privilege. as where the representation itself is part of a larger conspiracy. 1979) – statement made by co-defendant to an investigator acting for defendant’s counsel protected. In re Grand Jury Investigation. regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental or physical examination. 383 (1981) – Privilege extends to information given by employees to corporate not to facts. legal advice exception may be defeated through prima facie showing that the legal representation was secured in furtherance of present or intended continuing illegality. (3a) Sec.2d 447 (1983) – The general rule is the identity of a client is not protected.152 Upjohn Company v. without the consent of the patient. of the same mental or physical condition. disclosure might possibly implicate client in criminal activity not an exception US v. Rule 130 §24 (c) (c) A person authorized to practice medicine. 3. it is the link between the client and the communication. 595 F. which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity. 422 US 225 (1975) – WPD waived when client presents investigator as witness People v. If the party examined refuses to deliver such report. — By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner. and which would blacken the reputation of the patient. After such request and delivery. the party causing the examination to be made shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of the examining physician setting out his findings and conclusions. Sec. 4. 1975) – protection does not extend to the communication regarding an intended crime. the party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy. Waiver of privilege. McPartlin. 3 and 4 Sec. last link exception is abandoned. communication divulged to strangers not protected US v. the party causing the examination to be made shall be entitled upon request to receive from the party examined a like report of any examination. not the link between client and possibility of potential criminal prosecution which is protected. cf Rule 28. previously or thereafter made. US. Report of findings. 275 SCRA 505 (1997) 3. Physician-Patient Privilege a. surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case. — If requested by the party examined.

4 the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity .2 as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character . Rule 130 §24(e) (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards. This is hearsay but there was no objection. Only persons authorized to practice medicine. Hence. 4. CA. surgery or obstetrics are covered by the privilege. Note that the patient need not be the source of the information. 153 . Requisites for Priest-Penitent Privilege . surgery or obstetrics .153 . midwives and other people who attend to the ill can be called to testify as to any matter. The privilege does not cover expert opinion as long as the witness does not testify to matters specifically referring to the patient. nurses. CA. There is no physician-patient privilege in criminal cases. The new rules use the word “reputation” (what people think of the person).1 civil case . 214 SCRA 273 (1992) The physician-patient privilege is not violated by permitting physician to give expert testimony regarding hypothetical facts. Krohn v.3 as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity . be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.5 the information would blacken the reputation of the patient Escolin: The old rule used the word “character” (what the person actually is). Rule 130 §24(d): Priest-Penitent Privilege (d) A minister or priest cannot.1 witness is a minister or priest .3 in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs 5. as to communications made to him in official confidence. without the consent of the person making the confession. de Leon: What about civil cases impliedly instituted with criminal cases? 1) Cases Lim v. 233 SCRA 146 (1994) Non-physician testimony on a medical psychologist’s report is not covered by the physician patient privilege. State Secrets a.2 witness is a person authorized to practice medicine.

Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws. 394 A. editor.S. Requisites of newsman’s privilege . Newsman’s Privilege a. (21a) Requisites for the State Secrets rule . magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher. 1. columnist or duly accredited reporter . the publisher.4 as to the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication . All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by 154 . executive privilege can not prevail over due process Banco Filipino v.2 of any newspaper.3 cannot be compelled to reveal . Monetary Board. a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State. Cases Matter of Farber (A.1 publisher. editor or reporter unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State. but entitled to hearing to prove relevance.B. Nixon. 2. Cases US v. Bank Deposits (RA 1405) Sec. thus not protected. 683 (1974) – absent a claim of need to protect military.154 when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. 142 SCRA 523 (1986) – confidential information is not necessarily privileged. no public interest is prejudiced by disclosure.2 as to communications made to him in official confidence . 418 U.3 the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure b. is there a need for a law to declare it confidential? 6. 7.1 witness is a public officer .). RA 53 as amended by RA 1477 Sec. diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets. magazine or periodical of general circulation . columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper. 2d 330 (1978) – Constitution prevails over shield law. editor. b.5 related in confidence Exception: Court.

155 the Government of the Philippines. are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined. in a criminal case. Note that an ascendant may not be compelled to testify even if it is a crime by the descendant against the ascendant-witness. 7 CAR (2s) 703 (1972) – information given by child to 3rd person is protected L. No descendant shall be compelled.2 Compromises 155 . The ascendant-witness may testify voluntarily though.1 the descendant-witness himself is the victim.2 the descendant-witness’s parent commits a crime against the descendantwitness’s other parent. bank personnel may be examined upon order of a court (Sec. except upon written permission of the depositor. children or other direct descendants. inquired or looked into by any person. General Banking Act of 2000). 55.1 [d]. bureau or office. other direct ascendants. or . Note that the privilege applies only to bank deposits. Publico. 215. Parental and Filial Privilege 1. 25. a descendant may be compelled to testify in a criminal case where . to testify against his parents and grandparents. The relative against whom he is testifying can not invoke nor waive the privilege. or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. 215 of the Family Code Art. Note that this is a testimonial privilege. the witness is the holder of the privilege and has the power to invoke or waive the privilege. found in §22-24 of Rule 130 [careful not to be confused in the multiple use of the word “privilege”]. or in cases of impeachment. its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities. or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials.1 Admissions against interest . RA 8791. Admissions Admissions that are admissible against a party . Here. However this must be construed in the light of Art. Parental and filial privilege. (20a) There is no distinction between legitimate or illegitimate relations. K. (315a) Hence. Case People v. Rule 130 §25 Sec. government official. not a testimonial disqualification. As to other property being held by a bank. 2. except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other. – No person may be compelled to testify against his parents.

a Partner’s/Agent’s admissions . However. and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. COB – president’s admission binds corporation 2. These evidences can either be favorable or unfavorable to a party.3 Exceptions to Res Inter Alios Acta . It allows evidence of AODs prejudicial to the AODer. omissions. Admissions of a party. Selfdefeating statements can not be excluded by the hearsay rule because it is expressly admissible by the rules. Cases Keller & Co. Compromises a. Rule 130. Rule 130.c Admission by Privies . §27 Sec. 27. – In civil cases. except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be 156 . §26 Sec. The argument is “Rule 130 §26 only allows evidence of AODs prejudicial to the AODer. 26.” However. Any doubt as to such evidence refers to its weight or probative value and not to its admissibility. but does not prohibit evidence on AODs favorable to AODer.b Co-conspirator’s statements . (22) The general rule is evidence as to extra-judicial acts. an objection may be raised as to the admissibility of AODs favorable to the AODer on the grounds of that these are self-serving AODs. §26 expressly allows evidence of AODs prejudicial to the AODer. and declarations (AODs) of a party is admissible.4 Admissions by silence 1. Offer of compromise not admissible. declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. There being no express prohibition.156 . In criminal cases. Admissions against interest a. Rule 130. v. an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. any evidence on AODs favorable to the AODer falls under the general rule that evidence not excluded by law or the Rules is admissible (Rule 128 § 3). Is personal knowledge on the part of the AODer required? b. Self-serving statements = hearsay? Declaration against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule only applies if the declarant is deceased or unable to testify. §26 is only a rule of admissibility. – The act.

Ergo. 176 (1924) – evidence on an offer to compromise is admissible even in civil cases if it is to prove amount of a liability and not the liability itself.6 [the offer is made only to avoid the consequences of litigation] Note that the inadmissible offer to pay refers only to expenses occasioned by an injury. it is inadmissible under the following cases: .1 quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) . If the offer of compromise is offered as evidence on other matters (e.3 plea of guilty later withdrawn .g. Though the 3rd paragraph of §27 excludes in civil cases offers to pay only for expenses occasioned by an injury. an offer to pay for expenses occasioned by an injury is in the nature of an offer to compromise which is undoubtedly admissible in civil cases. Torres. hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. It does not include offers to pay other expenses. 46 Phil. The bottomline is: an offer to pay for any expense in civil cases is inadmissible. An offer to pay or the payment of medical. is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. the general rule is an offer of compromise is admissible. b. or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense. 34 Phil. US v.157 compromised. 994 (1916) – offer of compromise in criminal cases inadmissible when accused shows that it was made not under a consciousness of guilt. (24a) Note that the offer of compromise in civil cases is not admissible only as evidence of liability. A plea of guilty later withdrawn. Even if the exclusion was expressly applied to only criminal cases. The exclusion in civil cases of offers to pay for expenses occasioned by an injury is merely a superfluity. an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. then the evidence is admissible.g. but merely to avoid inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other 157 .4 unaccepted offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense .5 offer to pay or payment of expenses occasioned by an injury . In criminal cases. In civil cases. Cases Veradero v. Further note that an offer to pay for expenses other than those occasioned by an injury is inadmissible in civil cases. Insular Lumber.2 cases allowed by law to be compromised (e. an offer of compromise is inadmissible regardless of the cause of action. However. offers to pay for other expenses fall under the general rule that an offer to compromise in civil cases is not admissible. an offer to pay for damages to property is admissible in criminal cases. BIR can compromise tax cases) . amount of liability).

the confession was executed long after the supposed conspiracy had ended. Escolin: Had the co-conspirator taken the witness stand and pointed to his coaccused.158 reason. People v. de Guzman. People v.1 Partner’s admissions . 158 . Tena. except as hereinafter provided. (25a) The general rule is extra-judicial acts of a person other than a party are inadmissible against such party. 268 SCRA 35 (1997) – whether a complaint has been filed or not is irrelevant as to the admissibility of an offer to compromise. Yparriguirre. 215 SCRA 43 (1992) Facts: Accused was convicted of robbery with homicide on the basis of an extrajudicial confession of another admitting his participation in the offense. or omission of another. 27 Phil. the law allowed compromise. People v. Godoy. or other person jointly interested with the party. the testimony would have been admissible. Rule 130.5 Admission by privies Is personal knowledge required for these exceptions to apply? b. thus the offer to compromise is not admitted People v. Admission by third party. . In this case. 97 (1914) 3. 265 SCRA 228 (1996) – the offer to compromise made by a person other than the accused was admitted in evidence because the accused failed to repudiate such acts by raising the trial court’s admission of evidence on such offer as an error. 250 SCRA 676 (1995) – offer to compromise made by a person other than the accused is inadmissible if the accused repudiated the actions of such person by raising the trial court’s admission of evidence of such offer as an error.4 Co-conspirator’s statements . Furthermore. Held: This is not a co-conspirator’s statement because there was no evidence of conspiracy independent of the extra-judicial confession. in this case. However. Res Inter Alios Acta a. – The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act. joint debtor. Cases People v. declaration. §28 Sec. the rules also provide for exceptions . what was presented was a merely his affidavit. 28. Maqui.3 admissions by a joint owner.2 agent’s admissions .

or joint interest is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration b) Cases Ormachea v. Kiel v. rumor. agent need not have personal knowledge of his statement as long as it is within the scope of his authority. between them as against such other partner. or person jointly interested with the party .4 the partnership. Exceptions Note that all the exceptions to res inter alios acta require that the relationship be proven by evidence independent of the act or declaration sought to be admitted. §29 Sec. – The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency. agency or joint interest . not made in the presence of his co-partner. agent. Raquel.2 within the scope of authority . may be used against him and his principal 159 . or other person jointly interested with the party. Wild Canid Survival.2d 626 (8th Cir. 29. 1) Partner’s/Agent’s admissions a) Rule 130. agency.3 made during the existence of the partnership. 588 F. 94 SCRA 109 (1979) – absent independent evidence of conspiracy. are not competent to prove the existence of a partnership. 2 years after the partnership had been dissolved does not qualify as a partner’s admission and can not prejudice or bind the other partners. Trillana. Mahlandt v. 265 SCRA 248 (1996) – extra-judicial confession of accused can not be used to implicate co-accused unless repeated in open court. may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Estate of Sabert.159 People v. extra-judicial confession of the accused is not admissible against others People v. or hearsay. 13 Phil 194 (1909) Discharge of a debt given by a managing partner.1 act or declaration of a partner. joint debtor. 46 Phil 193 (1924) Facts: After a partner died. The existence of a partnership cannot be established by general reputation. the remaining partner sought to recover his share in the partnership. Alegre. c. Admission by co-partner or agent. (26a) Requisites for admission by co-partner or agent . 198) – the jurisdiction in which this case is decided has a law which explicitly declared that an act of a party or his agent is not hearsay. Held: The declarations of one partner. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner.

(27) Requisites for co-conspirator’s statements . Held: The statement was made after. reiterated “in furtherance” People v.4 the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. 941 (1955) – confession regarding conspiracy may be used against confessor (multiple admissibility). b) Cases People v. 30. Cabrera. 23 SCRA 127 (1968) – conspiracy must be proved by independent evidence other than the confession. 105 Phil. in relation to the property. 97 Phil. while holding the title.160 2) Co-conspirator’s statements a) Rule 130. Yatco. is evidence against the former. §30 Sec. or omission of the latter. declaration.2 relating to the conspiracy . 531 (1959) – requirement that conspiracy must be shown 1st other than confession applies only to extra-judicial confessions not to testimony in open court 3) Admission by Privies a) Rule 130. §31 Sec. hence it was inadmissible. the act. the conspiracy. not during. – The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence. statements must be made during the conpiracy and in furtherance of its object to be admissible People v. Chaw Yaw Shun.1 a party derives title to property from another 160 . may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. (211) Requisites for admission by privies .1 act or declaration of a conspirator . 31. 57 SCRA 715 (1974) Facts: Accused was convicted based on the extra-judicial confession of his coaccused. – Where one derives title to property from another. Serrano. People v. Admission by conspirator. Admission by privies. confession regarding conspiracy should be conditionally admitted until conspiracy is proved.3 made during its existence .

declaration. 227 (1905) – admission must be made while one holds title 4.2 act. (23a) Requisites for admission by silence . Del Rosario. “3rd parties” are have not intervened in the execution of the instrument either as witnesses whereby the purchaser at persons who principals or City of Manila v. Admissions by silence a. 2) at liberty to deny. 4) within his knowledge. and when proper and possible for him to do so. and 5) material to the issue People v.3 The act or declaration naturally calls for action or comment if not true . b. 853 (1965) – court may not comment on accused’s failure to testify regarding facts within his knowledge M.4 Such action or comment is proper and possible on the part of the party.2 The party does or says nothing . Rule 130. or omission of the transferor . California. may be given in evidence against him.1 The act or declaration is made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party .161 . – An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true. Requirements for admission by silence: 1) heard and understood. 32. Admission by silence.3 made while holding the title .4 in relation to the property Tequillo: Does this not violate the Property Registration Decree. 5 Phil. Pastor. 84 SCRA 105 (1978) Failure by a supposed rape victim to rebut sweetheart defense based on testimonial evidence may be taken against her. 94 SCRA 109 (1979) – silence of accused in custody during investigation can not be used as evidence against him Griffin v. Alegre. §33 161 .S. that says 3rd parties are not bound unless the encumbrance is registered? b) Cases Alpuerto v. 38 Phil. Confessions 1. Cases People v. 3) affects his rights. execution sale is a privy of the execution debtor. 785 (1918) – “privies” denotes any act successor is substituted in the place of the predecessor in interest. Paragsa. Rule 130 §32 Sec. 380 U.

Rule 115 (e) Sec. it is NOT required to be under oath. intimidation. violence. Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. if it is not in writing. Art. Marra. or of any offense necessarily included therein. Rights of accused at trial. 1987 Constitution Section 12. or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. 162 . Confession. the prosecution may find difficulty in proving it. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. incommunicado. Secret detention places.162 Sec. (29a) This rule is applicable only in criminal cases. 33. 1. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the accused is said to be under custodial investigation. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 4. – The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. 147 SCRA 252 (1987) A confession. Only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture. §§12 and 17. If it is in writing. he must be provided with one. the suspect is taken into custody. Section 17. 3. may be given in evidence against him. must have been executed in the presence of counsel. to be admissible. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. – xxx (e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. it is admissible even if he was not assisted by counsel. Waiver of right to counsel must be with the assistance of counsel. 2. Sarmiento. A confession need not be in writing in order to be admissible in evidence. Escolin: However. Cases People v. force. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. threat. solitary. 236 SCRA 565 (1994) Where the confession was made even before the accused was under custodial investigation. III. People v.

163

People v. Sumayo, 70 SCRA 488 (1976) Where the extra-judicial confessions of the accused are consistent in many material details and manifest amazing consistency and accuracy in the narration of events and of facts which could not have been known to the police investigators if the same were not voluntarily given by the accused, such statements are admissible against the accused on the doctrine of interlocking confessions. de Leon: The value of the doctrine of interlocking confessions is when a confession is inadmissible against one accused (e.g. obtained without counsel), but it is nevertheless admissible against the other co-accused. The confession of one may be used against another to produce evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. People v. Compil, 244 SCRA 135 (1995) People v. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182 (1996) People v. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109 (1979) People v. Yip Wai Ming, 264 SCRA 224 (1996) People v. Maqueda, 242 SCRA 565 (1995) Bruton v. US, Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62 (1979) People v. Encipido, G.R. No. 7009l, Dec. 29, 1986

N.Previous Conduct as Evidence 1. Rule 130, §34-35
Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence. – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (48 a) GR: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time Exceptions: It may be received to prove a specific .1 intent .2 knowledge .3 identity .4 plan .5 system .6 scheme .7 habit .8 custom or
163

164

.9 usage, and .10 the like. Sec. 35. Unaccepted offer. – An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money instrument, or property. (49 a)

2. Cases
US v. Evangelista, 24 Phil 453 (1913) In a trial for arson, the prosecution may prove that the accused had attempted to set fire to the house on the day previous to the burning alleged in the information, for the purpose of showing the intent of the accused in subsequently setting fire to the house. Where a person is charged wit the commission of a specific crime, testimony may be received of the other similar acts committed about the same time, only for the purpose of establishing the criminal intent of the accused. US v. Pineda, 37 Phil 457 (1918) Facts: A druggist filled a prescription for protassium chlorate with barium chlorate, a poison, causing the death of two horses. After analyzing the packages, two chemists went to the drug store of the defendant and bought potassium chlorate, which when analyzed was found to be barium chlorate. Held: The testimony of the chemist was admissible in order to demonstrate defendant's motive and negligence. It is permissible to ascertain defendant's knowledge and intent and to fix his negligence. If the defendant has on more than one occasion performed similar acts, accident in good faith is possibly excluded, negligence is intensified, and fraudulent intent may even be established. There is no better evidence of negligence than the frequency of accidents. Evidence is admissible in a criminal action which tends to show motive, although it tends to prove the commission of another offense by the defendant. People v. Irang, 64 Phil 285 (1937) Facts: After barging into her home, a man ordered Maximiniana Vicente to bring out her money and jewelry. As she turned over the items, she looked at the man's face and saw that he had pockmarks and a scar on his left eyelid. Irang was identified by Maximiana from a police line-up and was charged. During the trial, Maximiana’s neighbor, Juana de la Cruz, testified that on the night in question, her house was assaulted by malefactors. de la Cruz noticed that one of them had pockmarks and a scar on the left eyelid. She identified that man to be Irang. Held: The testimony of Juana de la Cruz indirectly corroborates Maximiniana’s testimony that the man of the same description was the one who went to her house and demanded delivery of her money and jewelry. While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the

164

165

scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime. People v. Soliman, 53 O.G. 8083 (1957) People v. Babiera, 52 Phil. 97 (1928) US v. Mercado, 26 Phil. 127 (1913)

O.Hearsay Rule 1. Testimonial Knowledge a. Rule 130, §36
Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. – A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules. (30 a)

b. Cases
People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547 (1992) Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value. People v. Brioso, 37 SCRA 336 (1971) People v. Cusi, 14 SCRA 944 (1965) People v. Gaddi, 170 SCRA 649 (1989) Leake v. Hagert, 175 N.W.2d 675 (1970) U.S. v. Zenni, 492 F. Supp. 464 (1980)

2. Exceptions
Exceptions to the hearsay rule .1 waiver .2 independently relevant evidence .3 dying declaration .4 Declaration against interest .5 Act or declaration about pedigree .6 Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree .7 Common reputation .8 Part of the res gestae .9 Verbal acts .10 Entries in the course of business

165

may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry.3 his death is the subject of inquiry . Dying Declaration 1) Rule 130. The barrio captain found him lying on the sand at the bank of a river. and that Pablo was not sure if he would survive the gunshot wounds he suffered. Its admissibility is not affected by death occurring hours or days afterwards. – The declaration of a dying person.” It is enough if. §37 Sec. The barrio captain took Pablo’s ante-mortem statement and learned that he was Pablo Remonde. as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. from the circumstances. as the victim was about to be taken to the hospital. The victim was unable to sign the statement and he died the next day. (31 a) Requisites for admissibility of a dying declaration .166 . as it is a statement coming from a seriously wounded person even if death occurs hours or days after it was inflicted if there be showing that it was due to the wound whose gravity did not diminish from the time he made his declaration until the end came. It is sufficient that the circumstances are such as to lead inevitably to the conclusion that the time [of such statement] the declarant did not expect to survive the injury from which he actually died. it can be inferred with certainty that such must have been his state of mind. However. People v. he was shot by Gregorio Laquinon. 37. Laquinon. a patrolman was able to get his statement as to the identity of the perpetrators.11 . 37 SCRA 697 (1971) Facts: The next morning after being stabbed or 11 hours later. Pablo died in the 166 .1 declaration of a dying person .4 as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death 2) Cases People v. Pablo’s hands were tied on his back and he was lying face down.13 . 135 SCRA 91 (1985) Facts: Pablo Remonde was shot.14 Entries in official records Commercial lists and the like Learned treatises Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding a. There is no need for proof that the declarant state "that he has given up the hope of life.2 made under the consciousness of an impending death . made under the consciousness of an impending death. Devaras. Dying declaration. Held: The statement was not part of the res gestae because of the lapse of considerable time between the commission of the offense and the taking of the statement. the statement amounts to a dying declaration.12 .

strengthen the conclusion that the victim must have known that his end was inevitable. Laquinon argues that the statement is not a dying declaration because it was not made under the consciousness of an impending death. don’t ask if the declarant thinks he will die. The consummation of the robbery cannot he inferred nor presumed from the circumstance that the accused was seen running "with his hands inside his shirt". Sabio was charged and convicted of robbery with homicide. however.  People v.167 hospital 3 days later. Espina asked for the police. The moral of the story is. de Leon: In Devaras. that renders the dying declaration admissible. However. was seen on the floor. the victim's inability to speak unless his head was raised. His declaration was taken down and thumbmarked by him. That death did not ensue till 3 days after the declaration was made will not alter its probative force since it is not indispensable that a declarant expires immediately thereafter. The evidence supportive of the charge of robbery is at best circumstantial and does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had carried away personality belonging to the offended party. Sabio questions the admissibility of the declaration on the ground that it was not made under the consciousness of an impending death because the victim had hopes of recovery for his first word to his grandnephew was for the latter to fetch the police. The seriousness of the injury on the victim's forehead which had affected the brain and was profusely bleeding. consciousness of impending death was inferred from the extent of the injuries. or that the things 167 . nor was any part of the alleged missing objects recovered. in taking a dying declaration. and his subsequent demise from the direct effects of the wound on his forehead. alleged to have contained cash amounting to about P8. or that the "barro". Laquinon was charged and convicted of Murder. Sabio. 102 SCRA 218 (1981) Facts: Catralino Espina was found by his grandnephew in his house lying and wounded. There was no eyewitness to the alleged robbery. Held: The statement of the deceased Pablo Remonde is not admissible as a dying declaration since the deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or not. the declarant expressly said that he was not sure that we was going to die. they asked Espina “who slashed and robbed” him. It may be admitted. The declaration fails to show that the deceased believed himself in extremis. Espina answered that it was Sabio. In Laquinon. does not negative the victim's feeling of hopelessness of recovery but rather emphasizes the realization that he had so little time to disclose his assailant to the authorities. as part of the res gestae since the statement was made immediately after the incident and the deceased Pablo Remonde had no sufficient time to concoct a charge against the accused. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death. The fact that the victim told his grandnephew to fetch the police. Held: Statement is admissible. open and empty. which is the sole basis for admitting this kind of declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule. the spontaneous answer of the victim that "only Papu Sabio is responsible for my death". When police officers arrived. at the point of death when every hope of recovery is extinct. only homicide was proved.

But Eulalia herself did not say so and we cannot speculate what the rest of her communication might have been had death not interrupted her. Thus. Apo. The phrase "Si Paqui" must. and the whole might be of a very different effect from that of the fragment. what else could have “Si Paqui” meant other than that he was responsible for the crime? 168 . Nor can the dying declaration of the victim be admitted to establish the fact of robbery. To be complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae of the subject of his statement. de Joya. The trial court simply assumed that by uttering the words "Si Paqui". the fragmentary statement is not receivable. The admission of dying declarations has always been strictly limited to criminal prosecutions for homicide or murder as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of death. Since the declarant was prevented from saying all that he wished to say. she expired. After uttering those two words. the deceased had intended to name her killer. it is no objection that he has told only a portion of what he might have been able to tell. moreover. what happened?" Alvin's question was not: "Apo. It is not disputed that "Paqui" is the nickname of Pioquinto de Joya. yet if the dying person finishes the statement he wishes to make. We are unable to regard the dying statement as a dying declaration naming the appellant as the doer of the bloody deed. came home and found her wounded. He asked his grandmother "Apo. In this case. Alvin Valencia. provided the statement includes all that the declarant wished or intended to include in it. It is immaterial how much of the whole affair of the death is related. Apo. Apo. be related to the question asked by Alvin: "Apo. who did this to you?" The deceased was cut off by death before she could convey a complete or sensible communication to Alvin. The words "Si Paqui" do not constitute by themselves a sensible sentence. de Leon: Could not have the statement been admissible as proof of Sabio’s guilt of robbery as a part of the res gestae? People v. That incomplete declaration is not therefore entitled to the presumption of truthfulness which constitutes the basis upon which dying declarations are received.168 and merchandise inside the house were in disarray. what happened?" The deceased victim said: "Si Paqui". but that his statement of any given fact should be a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact. Held: A dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. Under the context. it must be complete as far it goes. De Joya was charged and convicted of robbery with homicide. Her grandson. the dying declaration of the deceased victim here was incomplete. because the intended whole is not there. 203 SCRA 343 (1991) Facts: Eulalia Deamse was fatally wounded. what he did say might have been qualified by the statements which he was prevented from making. if an interruption cuts short a statement which thus remains clearly less than that which the dying person wished to make. The statement as offered must not be merely a part of the whole as it was expressed by the declarant. Escolin: Justices Relova and Francisco and I disagree with this decision.

169 . Declaration against interest. 31. – Where one derives title to property from another.3 the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest. L-115690. declaration. or 3rd persons Admitter need not be dead or unable Declarant is dead or unable to to testify testify Relates to title to property Relates to any interest Admission need not be against the Declaration must be against the admitter’s interest interest of the declarant 2) Cases Viacrusis v. is evidence against the former.4 as evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons cf Rule 130 Sec. the act. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true . or unable to testify. 20. against the interest of the declarant.169 People v. Admission by privies. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. – The declaration made by a person deceased. while holding the title. if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest. 31 Sec. 44 SCRA 176 (1972) Previous recognition of ownership in another by a party in possession of property in dispute is admission against interest which may be received even against 3rd persons.1 declaration made by a person deceased. Salison. §38 Sec. 38. G. Feb. or omission of the latter. (32 a) Requirements for hearsay testimony on declaration against interest . his successor in interest. may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. or unable to testify . Declaration Against Interest 1) Rule 130. No. (211) Admission by privies Declaration against interest One of 3 exceptions to res inter alios Exception to hearsay acta Evidence against the successor in Evidence against even the interest of the admitter declarant.2 against the interest of the declarant .R. CA. 1996 b. in relation to the property.

Toledo. 253 SCRA 430 (1996) c. (33 a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to pedigree . marriage. – The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy. and the names of the relatives.3 related to him by birth or marriage . family genealogy. 276 SCRA 582 (1997) d. §39 Sec. engravings on rings.170 People v. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. death. family genealogy. 51 Phil. Pedigree 1) Rule 130. may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. marriage. CA. covers not only pecuniary interest.5 the relationship between the 2 persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. – The act or declaration of a person deceased. 2) Cases Gravador v. (34 a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree 170 . in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage. as an exception to the hearsay rule. the dates when and the places where these facts occurred. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. either by consanguinity or affinity. or unable to testify . Family Tradition 1) Rule 130. and facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. Act or declaration about pedigree. People v. 40. but also penal interest.4 where it occurred before the controversy . the dates when and the places where these facts occurred. may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy. CA. 96 SCRA 472 (1980) Fuentes v. 825 (1928) Declaration against interest. and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members. Mamigo. the names of the relatives. birth. 39. death. "Pedigree" – includes relationship. or unable to testify.2 in respect to the pedigree of another person . §40 Sec. 20 SCRA 742 (1967) Tison v. The word "pedigree" includes relationship. Majuri. family portraits and the like.1 act or declaration of a person deceased. may be received as evidence of pedigree. birth.

Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation.4 the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. Res Gestae 171 . engravings on rings.a facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old. e. de Inchausti.3 in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members . 41. Common reputation. just a witness who was aware of an exiting family reputation or tradition. In family reputation or tradition.b marriage or . respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old. there is not even a declarant to speak of. family portraits and the like.1 reputation or tradition existing in a family . Del Rosario. or . or respecting marriage or moral character. 38 Phil 905 (1918) Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. de Leon: note that in family tradition. engravings on rings.1 Common reputation . either by consanguinity or affinity Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. (35) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to Common reputation . §41 Sec.2 existing previous to the controversy . 5 Phil 227 (1905) f.c moral character Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. to be admissible as an evidence of pedigree. may be given in evidence. Alegado.2 previous to the controversy .3 respecting either . 2) Cases City of Manila v. Common Reputation 1) Rule 130. family portraits and the like. – Common reputation existing previous to the controversy. Ferrer v. the declarant must be dead or unable to testify. 2) Case People v. 201 SCRA 37 (1991) Testimony of a witness and the witness’ grandfather as to the date of birth and age of the witness is evidence on family tradition which is admissible as an exception to hearsay. need NOT be proven to have been made at the same time as the occurrence of the events documented. may be received as evidence of pedigree.171 .

They had a daughter Siony. At the preliminary investigation. After the defense rested. may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.1 Statements made by a person either . A statement was given sometime after the stabbing while the declarant was undergoing treatment at a medical clinic. who eventually arrested the Domiciano. xxx Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to res gestae . At the trial Atanacia testified as to Siony’s declaration. Domiciano was not there.b immediately prior or . Siony came to Atanacia at her house frantically told her that Domiciano was strangling Rosita. victims or spectators to a crime immediately before. They immediately reported the matter to the police. Part of the res gestae. However. pointing out or naming his assailant." It refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants. Siony testified for her father and said that though she saw someone strangling her mother. 42. she did not see who it was. TC convicts. during or immediately after the commission of the crime. Putian. Domiciano was charged with Parricide. Her 172 . They went to the Peralta home and found Rosita dead. Peralta.172 1) Rule 130.2 with respect to the circumstances thereof 2) Cases People v. §42 Sec. may be considered as part of the res gestae and is admissible in evidence. the prosecution presented the investigating judge who testified as to the regularity of the conduct of the preliminary investigation. Siony executed a sworn statement implicating her father. On morning. Siony rushed to Atanacia immediately upon seeing her father strangling her mother to death.c immediately subsequent thereto . – Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof.a while a startling occurrence is taking place or . Rosita married Domiciano Peralta. Held: The statement Siony made to her grandmother when she rushed to inform her of her father's attack on her mother was part of the res gestae. where he had no time to concoct a falsehood or to fabricate a malicious charge against the accused and no motive has been shown as to why he would frame-up the accused would render the statement admissible as a part of the res gestae. 74 SCRA 133 (1976) A declaration made by a person immediately after being wounded. when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. 237 SCRA 218 (1994) Facts: Atanacia Ramos had a daughter Rosita. Res gestae means the "thing done. People v.

her father had been under detention and she must have believed that this was punishment enough for him. the utterance may be taken as expressing Siony's real belief as to the facts just observed by her. the accused was her father after all. living with her father's sister. claiming to be his widow. at the time she testified in court.2 material to the issue . where a witness executes a statement for the prosecution and retracts his testimony and subsequently testified for the defense. Lastly. and giving it a legal significance. she was. her testimony was given 7 years after the incident and therefore could not be expected to be as accurate as the statement she made in the preliminary investigation only hours after the killing. may be received as part of the res gestae (36 a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to verbal acts . there are certain circumstances that may have persuaded the daughter to change her former declaration and testify in favor of her father.3 giving it a legal significance 2) Case Dusepec v. 42. Second. 39 Phil 760 (1919) Facts: Tan Po Pik died in the Philippines intestate. Her subsequent retraction was an afterthought and has no probative value at all. also. First. – xxx So.1 statements accompanying an equivocal act . statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue. Furthermore. Marta Torres. Torres. who may have greatly influenced her testimony and caused her to recant her earlier statement. The SC found numerous inconsistencies as to the testimonial and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs as to lead to the conclusion that the 173 . After he died. Verbal acts 1) Rule 130. Siony testified during the preliminary examination conducted by Judge Paano that the appellant choked her mother to death. Part of the res gestae. took possession of his estate and partitioned it between herself and her children by the deceased. Retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. Third. g. and during the brief period when consideration of selfinterest could not have been fully brought to bear. Since the utterance was made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses rather than reason and reflection. during all this time. They now sue to recover their supposed share of the estate.173 spontaneous declaration to Atanacia was part of the res gestae and is assumed to preclude the probability of premeditation of fabrication. and she probably felt that she should not be responsible for his incarceration for the rest of his life. §42 Sec. Besides. Plaintiffs claim to be the legal wife and children of the deceased from China. the test to decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence.

If these plaintiffs were really children of Tan Po Pik. 43. In this case. Plaintiffs object to the admissibility of such letters. and events occurring before the said entrance into the country. expression. and such a declaration is entirely false. letters between Tan Po Pik and his brother in China contained an agreement that for plaintiffs to enter the Philippines. The letters even refer to one of the plaintiffs as the deceased’s nephew. People v. the other acts. Entries in the course of business. and in many cases it signifies the opposite of the true sense of the said word. an expression. All these letters formed an essential part of the fact of the coming of these plaintiffs to Manila. there would have been no necessity for the above letters. the plaintiff offered in evidence a sworn declaration of the deceased that the plaintiffs were his children. Tan Po Pik’s declaration before the customs authorities is for the sole purpose of allowing the children to enter the Philippines. Therefore. considered apart from the circumstances surrounding them. Tolentino. Thus. which may have an essential bearing or which have led to the realization of their entrance into the country are admissible in evidence in this case on the ground that they constitute parts of the same transaction. by a person deceased.174 plaintiffs are not who they claim to be. or an act of a person. However. does not signify anything. except that they now bear the surname Tan. A word. Tan Po Pik was to declare before the customs authorities that plaintiffs were his children. Entries in the Course of Business 1) Rule 130. §43 Sec. 162 SCRA 100 (1988) People v. or unable to testify. Held: The declaration was made in proceedings before customs authorities upon arrival of the plaintiffs from China. because if these letters had not been transmitted and received the plaintiffs could not have succeeded in entering the Philippines. – Entries made at. The arrival and admission of these plaintiffs and the declaration of Tan Po Pik are isolated parts of an event which is the voyage from China to the Philippines of these supposed children of the deceased. The names of the children whom Tan were supposed to declare as his children were the same as the names of the plaintiffs. declarations. who was in a position to know the facts therein 174 . all the statements and declarations-of Tan Po Ho in these documents relative to the prosecution of the object of the conspiracy are admissible in evidence. or near the time of the transactions to which they refer. 218 SCRA 337 (1993) h. or act. Defendants offered letters between the deceased and his brother showing that deceased’s sworn declaration was to deceive the customs authorities to allow plaintiffs to enter the country. We must therefore inquire into circumstances which surrounded the entrance of the plaintiffs and the declaration made by Tan Po Pik on that occasion. Their preparations for the voyage and the plans conceived by them to obtain their sure entrance into this country are also part of the voyage. Lungayan. It is imprudent and illegal to consider the declaration made by Tan Po Pik before the customs authorities separately from the circumstances which prompted him to make such a declaration. or of the res gestae. In order to consider the declaration made by Tan Po Pik before the customs authorities.

Official Records 1) Rule 130. the person making the entry must be deceased or unable to testify. (38) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to Entries in official records . use the record to refresh his memory.3 who was in a position to know the facts therein stated . or near the time of the transactions to which they refer . In official records. Hoffman. Both official and business records are only prima facie evidence.S. 44). may be received as prima facie evidence. the person making the entry must be deceased or unable to testify. If the person making the entry is still alive. are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. 44. Capital Assurance Corp.1 made in the performance of his duty .b by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law Note that in official records. but he must be a public officer or a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. (37 a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to Entries in the course of business . if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. 2) Cases Fortus v. 23 SCRA 1330 (1968) 175 . or . §44 Sec. the person making the entry need not be deceased or unable to testify (Rule 130. Entries in official records. the person making the entry need not be deceased or unable to testify. (CA) 72 O. 16) 2) Cases Palmer v. Sec. 109 (1943) Philamlife v. 3941 i. or unable to testify .1 Entries made at. In business records.a a public officer of the Philippines. Novero.4 if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.2 by either . 318 U.. or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. Sec.175 stated. – Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines. (Rule 132. Both official and business records are only prima facie evidence.2 by a person deceased.G. Note that in business records.

They claim to be the legitimate children of Fermin Fortus with Jacoba Aguil. the baptismal certificates were only a prima facie proof which oppositor Julia Fortus had overcome by satisfactory evidence to the effect that Fermin Fortus and Jacoba Aguil were never married and hence all of their children are not legitimate brothers or half brothers and therefore have no right to inherit from Victorino Fortus. and this certification is further strengthened by the affirmation of Clemente Barbosa. because the parochial records of baptisms are not public or official records. In this case. that there was no record of such marriage supposedly contracted between the spouses Fermin Fortus and Jacoba Aguil from 1902 and 1922 of the Municipality of Rosario. The SC found the testimonial evidence the Fortuses presented to lay the basis for introduction of secondary evidence were inconsistent. a clerk in the office of the municipal treasurer of Rosario. They had an only son. She had only one child. the Victorino Fortus. is only applicable where there is no clear and concrete evidence showing otherwise. initiated proceedings for summary settlement of Ciriaca’s estate. Crisanta Ilagan. along with the Fortuses. but sought to present secondary evidence. Julia executed an affidavit of extra-judicial summary settlement of Ciriaca’s estate and had it registered. Victorino Fortus and Julia Fortus were husband and wife but were childless. Held: The record of baptism attests to the fact of the administration of the sacrament on the date stated therein. Batangas had been received by said office for file'. Victorino never caused the OCT to be cancelled and to have another issued in his name. Upon Victorino's death. However. Ciriaca’s estate was therefore not yet closed. Neither are the baptismal certificates public documents or public writings. This presumption. Crisanta was married to Fermin Fortus. However. Crisanta predeceased her mother. Julia opposed. though the Fortuses invoke that since for the past 30 years their parents had deported themselves in public as husband and wife and had been living under the same roof. there is a certificate from the Division of Archives to the effect that 'no copy of the marriage record of spouses Fermin Fortus and Jacoba Aguil supposed to have been solemnized in the year 1902 and 1905 in the Municipality of Rosario. who claim to be Victorino’s half-brother and sisters.176 Facts: Ciriaca Angelo was the owner of the parcel of land. the legal presumption is that they had entered into a lawful marriage. The property therefore passed on to Victorino Fortus. Furthermore. however. claiming to be an illegitimate child of Victorino with Patricia Novero. Note that they must prove marriage because otherwise. 176 . the Fortuses presented baptismal certificates of some of them to prove the marriage of their parents. Batangas. The Fortuses did not present the marriage contract or certificate of their alleged parents. At most. but not the truth of the statements therein made as to the parentage of the child baptized. and are not proof of relationship or filiation of the child baptized. Ciriaca died intestate. as they are not kept by public officers. Batangas. however. Rosario Novero. they would be illegitimate relatives of Victorino which would disqualify them from inheriting from him. incredible and insufficient to establish than an original marriage contract was indeed executed.

46. Co.] 49 O. 217 SCRA 675 (1993) People v.R. e. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history. Commercial lists and the like.3 contained in a list. After Act 3753. §46 Sec.2d 843 (1979) Estrada vs. §45 Sec. periodical. L-107735. to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list. 1. 139 k. 45.b generally used and relied upon by them therein. law. 117 SCRA 382 (1982) Manalo v. – Evidence of statements of matters of interest. Robles Trans.A.g. G. Feb.G. – A published treatise. or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. register. Gabriel. () Africa v. 16 SCRA 448 (1966) People v. or other published compilation . part of the newspaper which reports the prices of shares 2) Cases State v. or a witness expert in the subject testifies that the writer 177 ..177 Escolin: Before. baptismal certificates were no longer competent.5 the compilation is . Johnson v.. baptismal certificates were competent evidence to establish the parentage of the child.2 to persons engaged in an occupation . Inc. 729 (1956) People v.1 statements of matters of interest .4 as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated . Caltex.a published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and . 1996 j. (39) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to Commercial lists . Commercial Lists 1) Rule 130. No. Lutz. Cabuang. periodical. Noble. science or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice. Learned Treatises 1) Rule 130. NEDA reports. 99 Phil. Leones. [C. 400 A. Lungsford. Learned treatises. register.

may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. Public documents are: (a) The written official acts. or . documents are either public or private. (25 a) Ways to prove written foreign official acts . SanchezRoman. Proof of official record.g. Sy-Gonzales. Classes of documents.3 Either . law. of writers of treatises acknowledged as experts: Corpus juris. whether of the Philippines. vice consul. LRA If it is a written law that is sought to be proven. cf Rule 132. or . when admissible for any purpose. cf Rule 132. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. However. 19. Corpus juris secundum. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. official bodies and tribunals. – The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19. or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority.178 of the statement in the treatise.g. 24. E. Our courts take judicial notice of local laws. Sec. 167 SCRA 736 (1988) Philippine courts can not take judicial notice of foreign law.1 official publication. and accompanied. learned treatises on unwritten law which the court has taken judicial notice: Manresa. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation. 24. or of a foreign country. there are certain instances when an official copy of the written official act is required to be presented. periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject 2) Cases Yao Kee v.4 that the writer of the statement in the treatise. xxx E. periodical or pamphlet . Sec. Escolin: This provision is useful to prove an unwritten law. raises the presumption that the law is the same as ours. consul general. and public officers. consul. executive orders. of written official acts: Judicial decisions. Sec. – For the purpose of their presentation in evidence. E. science or art . periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject.1 published treatise. Sec. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country.b a witness expert in the subject testifies . or by his deputy.2 on a subject of history. (40 a) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to Learned treatises (used to prove unwritten foreign law) . 46 or written under Rule 132.2 copy 178 .g. 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.a the court takes judicial notice. Failure to prove foreign law whether unwritten under Rule 130. 19 Sec. and authenticated by the seal of his office. 24 Sec.

6 adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine him 2) Cases Tan v. – The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify.5 as evidence against the adverse party . or consular agent or by any Philippine officer in the foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and.1 testimony or deposition . and punished for contempt in case of refusal to obey the summons. CA.b if the record is not kept in the Philippines )1 by )a )b )c )2 a secretary of the embassy or legation consul general. The trial court granted the motion subject to the condition that the witnesses be further cross-examined by counsel for the 179 . accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the custody made l. or unable to testify. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. RoC) Requisites for admissibility of hearsay evidence as to prior testimony . involving the same parties and subject matter. their prior testimony is inadmissible. Liwanag. may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. judicial or administrative.a attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. vice consul. arrested. authenticated by the seal of his office. (41 a) cf with the rules on admissions (Rule 130 Secs. 20 SCRA 54 (1967) Absent a showing that the witness is dead. given in a former case or proceeding. Mere refusal to testify is does not amount to inability to testify. 26-33.179 . and . 73 SCRA 473 (1976) Facts: The prosecution moved that the testimony of the witnesses presented during the preliminary investigation of this case be adopted as part of the evidence in chief of the prosecution. Prior Testimony 1) Rule 130. §47 Sec. or by his deputy. outside the Philippines.2 of a witness deceased or unable to testify . consul. RoC) and interrogatories (Rule 24. The party could have urged to court to have these witnesses summoned.4 involving the same parties and subject matter .3 given in a former case or proceeding . People v. 47.

and (c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. the witnesses were recalled to the stand during the trial and again examined in the presence of the appellant. 448 U. skill. experience or training which he is shown to possess. (43 a) Sec. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion. 49. Upon the facts. .2 the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. General rule. The inclusion of said testimony was made subject to the right of the defendant to further cross-examine the witnesses whose testimony are sought to be reproduced and. but testimony of witnesses taken down by question and answer during the preliminary investigation in the presence of the accused and his counsel who subjected the said witnesses to a rigid and close cross-examination. Held: The testimony sought to be made part of the evidence in chief are not exparte affidavits.5 his impressions of the .a emotion . behavior. (44 a) GR: The opinion of a witness is not admissible. (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity. Opinion of ordinary witnesses.S. may be received in evidence. skill. except as indicated in the following sections. there was no curtailment of the constitutional right of the accused to meet the witnesses face to face.180 accused. experience or training which he is shown to possess.1 a matter requiring special knowledge. Opinion Rule 1. §48-50 Sec. – The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given. may be received in evidence regarding (a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. condition or appearance of a person. – The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge. may be received in evidence.3 a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity . . .b behavior 180 . – The opinion of a witness is not admissible. (42) Sec. 50. 56 (1980) P. 48.4 the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. At the trial. Rule 130. Exceptions: Admissible opinion evidence . Roberts. Ohio v. pursuant to said order. Opinion of expert witness. the witnesses for the prosecution who testified at the preliminary investigation were recalled and were again cross-examined by counsel for the appellant.

– (a) In Criminal Cases: (1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. it can not present evidence on the bad moral character of the accused on its evidence in chief. exceptions. Merced. Ct. 3 Phil. 5536 (1949) U. Sec. 51. the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent it to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. 1970) Daubert v. (17) GR: Character evidence not generally admissible 181 .2d 771 (1950) U. Hence.c condition or . Cases Dilag & Co. Trono. 225 P. 213 (1904) State v. 2786 (1993) United States v.Rule 130. (46 a.S.d appearance of a person 2. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. This covers either party to the case.3d 540 (1993) Q. (2) Unless in rebuttal. 45 O. (3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. (c) In the case provided for in Rule 132.181 . (b) In Civil Cases: Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. the prosecution goes first. Note that in criminal cases. 14. – Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. Evidence of good character of witness. v. Character evidence not generally admissible. Bonds. 433 F.S. 113 S.G. 14 Sec. Stifel. Garver. Section 14.2d 431 (6th Cir. 12 F. §51: Character Evidence Sec. v. 47 a) cf Rule 132. v.

the accused must show clear and convincing evidence. the evidence presented must be clear and convincing. (1 a.c moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. – 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. unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Sec. 31 January 1986 IFC v.1 In Criminal Cases: . §1: Burden of Proof Sec. Criminal Cases a. Burden of proof. 2 Rule 133. Sec. Rule 133.182 Exceptions . 1. the accused is entitled to an acquittal.a accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. For self-defense. Sec. – In a criminal case. Tobias. b. 182 . . . 2. 78 SCRA 28 (1977) 2.b In rebuttal. . LTA.2 In Civil Cases – only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. Rule 133. In determining whether a contract is a sale or equitable mortgage. Rule 131. not merely a preponderance of evidence. 2 a) Burden of proof – the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law 1. Preponderance of evidence. L-14040. Cases Pornellosa v. the prosecution may prove the bad moral character of the accused which is pertinent it to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. . how determined. Civil Cases a.3 good character of an impeached witness R. – In civil cases. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. Sec. 1 Rule 133. 1.

Rule 131. act. 432 U. Pajenado. (n) substantial evidence – that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Verzola. (3 a) Instances of conclusive presumptions . Presumptions 1. or omission. People v. 5 Rule 133. in any litigation arising out of such declaration.2d 250 (1st Cir. a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence. he cannot. Conclusive presumptions a. Conclusive presumptions. 80 SCRA 600 (1977) The elements of self-defense must be proven by clear. or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. – In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true. and to act upon such belief. §2 Sec. New York. intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true.S. Cases People v. by his own declaration. Dube. v. by his own declaration. 5. satisfactory and convincing evidence. or omission. Sec.S. 520 F. Administrative Cases a. 31 SCRA 812 (1970) The prosecution has the burden of proving even the negative elements of a crime (e. 19 (1977) 3. Rule 133.183 b. act or omission.1 a party has. U. that the accused was not issued a license. act. and to act upon such 183 .g. be permitted to falsify it: (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. 1975) Patterson v. Sec. 2. Escolin: The remedy is to present the certification of the officer. Cases S. – The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: (a) Whenever a party has. lack of license to possess a firearm). b. who is in charge of issuing the licenses.

and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it.2 The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their successors in interest. and (4) The party defrauded must have acted in accordance with the misrepresentation. the Rules of Court and special laws. Arts. 1438. A lessee or a bailee is estopped from asserting title to the thing leased or received. Art. 1439. cannot. and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. Art. 1435. Art. Art. made by the other to a pledgee who received the same in good faith and for value. 1433. set up his own title to defeat the pledge of the property. he cannot. act or omission. Art. provided all these requisites are present: (1) There must be fraudulent representation or wrongful concealment of facts known to the party estopped. When in a contract between third persons concerning immovable property. the Code of Commerce. such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee. be permitted to falsify it: . b. Statutory instances of estoppel 184 . one of them is misled by a person with respect to the ownership or real right over the real estate. if he received the sum for which a pledge has been constituted. the latter is precluded from asserting his legal title or interest therein. (2) The party precluded must intend that the other should act upon the facts as misrepresented. Estoppel may in pais or by deed. 1434. 1431-1439 NCC: Estoppel Art. 1436. When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it. Art. 1432. One who has allowed another to assume apparent ownership of personal property for the purpose of making any transfer of it. If a person in representation of another sells or alienates a thing. in any litigation arising out of such declaration. Art. the former cannot subsequently set up his own title as against the buyer or grantee. 1437. Art. The principles of estoppel are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with the provisions of this Code.184 belief. 1431. (3) The party misled must have been unaware of the true facts. as against the lessor or bailor.

3 a lessee or a bailee is estopped from asserting title to the thing leased or received. However. set up his own title to defeat the pledge of the property.c party misled must have been unaware of the true facts. Cases Molina v. 1435 NCC) .2 agent who alienates can not claim title against the transferee (Art. 1434 NCC) . 1438 NCC) c. Manjon sues Molina for recovery of possession of land.a fraudulent representation or wrongful concealment of facts known to the party estopped. cannot.185 .b party precluded must intend that the other should act upon the facts as misrepresented. Manjon accepted the suggestion and asked Molina to have the corresponding deed of sale prepared which Manjon signed. . (Art. 1437 NCC) . He suggested that she execute a fictitious deed of sale in his favor for the portion in question which was the one claimed by Conchita Cuba. 109 Phil 769 (1960) Facts: Felix Molina then overseer of Basilisa Manjon. TC ruled for the Manjon on the ground that she could not have disposed the land because it was part of the public domain. . which he expressly admitted that the transaction was only a simulated sale. CA. 1436 NCC) .1 non-owner transferor who later acquires title passes ownership to the transferee by operation of law (Art. as against the lessor or bailor. if he received the sum for which a pledge has been constituted.5 One who has allowed another to assume apparent ownership of personal property for the purpose of making any transfer of it. made by the other to a pledgee who received the same in good faith and for value. provided all these requisites are present: . informed her that some guerilla soldiers would arrest her for investigation. one of them is misled by a person with respect to the ownership or real right over the real estate. Afraid to be taken to the guerilla camp Manjon asked the Molina what was best for her to do.d party defrauded must have acted in accordance with the misrepresentation. (Art. sales patent having been issued to plaintiff by the government only on 1948. because one Conchita Cuba complained to them against her for having illegally encroached on her property. (Art. the latter is precluded from asserting his legal title or interest therein. and . in order that he could defend her rights in his name against the claim of Conchita Cuba. Manjon made the Molina sign a statement in. CA affirms.4 in a contract between 3rd persons concerning immovable property. The Molina denied the whole story and asserted that the statement was a forgery. 185 .

186 . whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong. (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. (g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter. (n) That a court. (f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter. 2. §4 Sec. CA. (m) That official duty has been regularly performed. 233 SCRA 586 (1994) The juridical relation between petitioners and private respondents is that of lessee and lessor. (h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid. or exercises acts of ownership over. are owned by him. (k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money. 3. Nor can a tenant set up any inconsistent right to change the relation existing between himself and his landlord. (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent. such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee. Fige v. has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly. without first delivering up to the landlord the premises acquired by virtue of the agreement between themselves. Disputable presumptions a. Considering this jural relationship. when a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto. Disputable presumptions. controvert the title of his landlord. (j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. – The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted. (1) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it.186 Held: Under the doctrine of estoppel by deed. Case remanded to determine whether the sale was indeed fictitious. (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later ones is produced. was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction. A tenant cannot. or the delivery of anything. in an action involving the possession of the leased premises. petitioners cannot claim that they purchased the questioned lot from somebody else. or judge acting as such. Rule 131. otherwise. (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. that things which a person possesses.

except for those of succession. (2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities. (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. (s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration. the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for a declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. (q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed. in any case. it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives. (r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract. (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years. and has been missing for four years. before marrying again.187 (o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it. who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft. (t) That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated. he is considered dead for all purposes. However. 187 . If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years. The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. In case of disappearance. The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs: (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. (4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years. (w) That after an absence of seven years. the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. where there is danger of death under the circumstances hereinabove provided. (p) That private transactions have been fair and regular. or an aircraft which is missing. 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. (u) That a writing is truly dated. an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.

188 . work or industry. (ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest.188 (x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact. (2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. contains correct reports of such cases. was so printed or published. (gg) That a printed or published book. (cc) That 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. (aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. (dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage. provided it be born within three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. these rides shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: (1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former marriage. (ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature. (bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. (hh) That a printed or published book. purporting to be printed or published by public authority. even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal. (ff) That the law has been obeyed. purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published. property or industry. (z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartnership. (y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life. has been obtained by their joint efforts.

442 U. 5. 510 (1979) 189 . If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty. (5 a) b. and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred. Mere failure to present the poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation is not suppression of evidence. Cases People v. shall prove the same. 140 Sandstrom v. according to the following rules: 1. the male is deemed to have survived. when two persons perish in the same calamity. the latter is deemed to have survived. the older. the younger is deemed to have survived. if the sex be the same. 268 U. 442 U. does not give rise to the presumption that it "contained declarations disastrous to the prosecution case". and it is not shown who died first. If one be under fifteen or over sixty. as to which of them died first. the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes. or conflagration. 194 (1909) Yee Hem v. 3. whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other. is available to the accused because then. 604 (1905) Ormachea v. Angeles. Trillana. the evidence would have the same weight against one party as against the other. and the sex be different. The presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavorable does not apply where the evidence was at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution through use of compulsory processes. 4 Phil. 2. in the absence of proof. Allen. People v. and the other between those ages. If both be over fifteen and under sixty.S. If both were under the age of fifteen years. 69 SCRA 484 (1976) Mere non-presentation of a written statement of a witness to the police which she allegedly did not sign. they shall be considered to have died at the same time. Montana.189 (jj) That except for purposes of succession. 178 (1925) County Court of Ulster City v. battle. subpoena duces tecum. Neither does it apply in cases where the witness. If both were above the age of sixty.S. United States. as in this case.g. 4. e. Pablo. such as wreck. (kk) That if there is a doubt. Padiernos. the older is deemed to have survived. 13 Phil. 213 SCRA 1 (1992) The presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced does not apply when the testimony of the witness is merely corroborative. the former is deemed to have survived.S. as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other. Pascual v.

Rule 131.190 3. or the question calls for a different mode of answer. 3. it is the right of a witness: 190 . the statements made by the judge or any of the parties. the answers of the witness shall be given orally. Examination to be done in open court. – The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing.3 answers of the witness shall be given orally. (2 a) The rules now require even the statements of the judge be recorded. Proceedings to be recorded. Rule 132 §1-18 Sec. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings.2 certified as correct by him Sec. (1 a) Examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing . stenotypist or recorder and . – There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. including the questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto. 1. (6) T. or witnesses with reference to the case. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak.2 under oath or affirmation . A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer. – A witness must answer questions.b the question calls for a different mode of answer Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. – The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation. or . unless .1 done in open court . 2. shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court. Rights and obligations of a witness. counsel. Requisites for transcript to be deemed prima facie a correct statement of the proceedings . and under oath or affirmation. §4: Legitimacy or Illegitimacy Sec. Examination of Witnesses 1. However.1 made by the official stenographer.a the witness is incapacitated to speak.

improper. or . (4) Sec.c of his previous final conviction for an offense. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. 4. (3 a) Direct examination – the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. (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. – Direct examination is the examination-inchief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him Rights of a witness . But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. Sec. – The order in which an individual witness may be examined is as follows: (a) Direct examination by the proponent.2 Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require. l9 a) Obligation of a witness – answer questions. . Order in the examination of an individual witness. unless otherwise provided by law. improper. or (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. (d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law.a at issue or . or insulting questions.5 Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation.1 To be protected from irrelevant. (b) Cross-examination by the opponent. (c) Re-direct examination by the proponent. (3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. (3 a. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. Direct examination. unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed.4 Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense. unless it be to the fact . 5. or insulting questions.191 (1) To be protected from irrelevant. . 191 . .b from which the fact in issue would be presumed .

other matters Sec. the witness may be crossexamined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct examination. Re-direct examination. 9. as the interests of justice may require.1 as to any matters stated in the direct examination. Recalling witness. – Upon the termination of the direct examination. (14) A witness can be recalled only with leave of the court. (13) Re-cross-examination . – After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded. the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. – Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination. (12) Re-direct examination .2 with leave of court. with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias. or connected therewith. 192 . Cross-examination. or the reverse. the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination. or connected therewith . The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion.a to test his )1 )2 )3 accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias. its purpose and extent. questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination.2 with sufficient fullness and freedom . its purpose and extent.1 on matters stated in his re-direct examination. and .b to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue Sec. and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. he may be reexamined by the party calling him. On re-direct examination. 7. may be allowed by the court in its discretion. – After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded. 8. to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. Re-cross-examination. or the reverse . on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination Sec.1 to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination . (8a) Witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party . and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion.192 Sec. 6.2 with leave of court.

or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. and 8 a) Leading questions – a question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires GR: Leading questions not allowed. – A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called. 11. unjustified reluctance to testify. or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. 12. . Impeachment of adverse party's witness.5 witness is an adverse party or an officer. or . A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness. director. Exceptions . or . . (c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant. or . except: (a) On cross examination. (b) On Preliminary matters.a ignorant. Misleading question – one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness. It is not allowed. 10.c feeble mind. Misleading questions are never allowed.1 cross examination.4 unwilling or hostile witness (cf Rule 132. or a child of tender years. (d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness. (5 a. No exceptions. Sec.b a child of tender years. or is of feeble mind. It is not allowed. or (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer.193 Sec.3 difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is . . Sec. or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.d a deaf-mute. by contradictory 193 . Party may not impeach his own witness. – A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. Leading and misleading questions. . 6 a. or contrary to that which he has previously stated.2 Preliminary matters. or Sec. director. or contrary to that which he has previously stated. 12). or a deaf-mute. – xxx A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest.

4 evidence of conviction of an offense Sec.194 evidence. except by evidence of bad character . the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility. that he has been convicted of an offense. 7 a) GR: The party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.1 may be impeached by the proponent. by evidence that his general reputation for truth. or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. Consequences of being an unwilling.2 may also be impeached by the opponent 194 . The unwilling or hostile witness so declared. but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts. except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness. or adverse witness .2 a witness who is an adverse party or an officer. or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.2 evidence that his general reputation for truth. 12. or integrity is bad. unjustified reluctance to testify. or integrity is bad . honesty. (15) Impeachment of adverse party's witness .2 unjustified reluctance to testify. but such cross examination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief.1 contradictory evidence . except by evidence of his bad character.3 evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony .1 an unwilling or hostile witness. A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest. or . hostile.3 misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. – Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10. Party may not impeach his own witness. He may also be impeached and crossexamined by the adverse party. (6 a. or . director. Exceptions: When party may impeach his own witness (except evidence of bad character) . may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party. honesty. or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. or the record of the judgment. Grounds for declaring a witness unwilling or hostile .1 adverse interest . or the witness who is an adverse party.

the statements must be related to him. Sec. with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present. – Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. and he must be asked whether he made such statements. (18) Sec. Evidence of good character of witness.1 If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. – Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. 47 a) Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. – A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact. the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination. 51 Sec. 14. the statement is prima facie evidence of the fact stated therein).4 proponent may ask leading questions Sec.3 may be cross-examined by the opponent. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. 51.3 he must be asked whether he made such statements . 13. 15. – xxx (c) In the case provided for in Rule 132. and if so. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements.b with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present .2 the statements must be . Sec. – On any trial or hearing. only on the subject matter of his direct examination . The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact 195 . . present someone who can testify that the recording of the prior statement was accurate (e. so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. 16.a related to him . exceptions. stenographer. allowed to explain them.4 if so. When witness may refer to memorandum.g. Character evidence not generally admissible. (17) cf Rule 130. allowed to explain them Escolin: if the witness refuses to acknowledge the prior inconsistent statement. Sec. Sec(ion 14.195 . (16) Requisites for impeaching a witness by prior inconsistent statements . in which case. (46 a.

also. and when a detached act. conversation. but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. conversation.4 the memorandum must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. writing or record is given in evidence by one party. the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other. writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. . if he chooses. – When part of an act. the remainder admissible. writing or record is given in evidence by one party. cross-examine the witness upon it. cf Dusepec v.2 either . 42 Sec. (10 a) Requisites for a witness to refer to a memorandum . and may read it in evidence. it may be inspected by the adverse party. the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other. So. writing or record given in evidence. who may. declaration. conversation.1 the memorandum must have been written or recorded by himself or under his direction . Cases a. and may read it in evidence. When part of transaction.a at the time when the fact occurred. cross-examine the witness upon it. Torres.3 he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded . or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded. writing or record is given in evidence. 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness. When a detached act. 17. conversation.196 occurred. declaration. or immediately thereafter.5 if the witness retains no recollection of the particular facts. – Whenever a writing is shown to a witness. declaration. or . or . (9 a) 2. who may. any other act. (11 a) When part of an act. any other act.c at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory . declaration. if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made. conversation. but such evidence must be received with caution. declaration. if he chooses. declaration. a witness may testify from such a writing or record. Examination in Open Court 196 . writing or record is given in evidence. conversation. he must swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made Sec. 39 Phil 760 (1919) under Rule 130 Sec. though he retain no recollection of the particular facts.b immediately thereafter.

4672 (1956) U. There should have been a showing of the indispensability of his further examination. Furthermore. Failure of the adverse party to move to schedule the hearing for the cross-examination of a witness before he died or migrated abroad (the imminence of which the adverse party was aware) is a waiver of such right. he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. There must be a satisfactory showing on the movant's part. The burden is on the party wishing to exercise the right to cross-examination. is a fundamental right which is part of due process. v. not necessarily the plaintiff. Marshall." or "in order to afford a party full opportunity to present his case.G. substantial ground for the recall. "there seems to be many points and questions that should have been asked" in the earlier interrogation.2d 419 (5th Cir. as long as the party was given the opportunity to confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it reasons attributable to himself alone.S. Fulgado v. Estenzo. Recalling Witnesses People v. or administrative. but a mere opportunity to cross-examine." or that. 52 O. be it criminal. failure of the recalled witness to be appear is not ground to strike out his testimony. Cross-Examination de la Paz.197 People v. Mercado.S. IAC. there would be no foundation for a trial court to authorize the recall of any witness. The right is not to an actual. and/or unjustified motions for postponement of the hearing in which the witness is scheduled to be cross-examined until the witness passed away is a waiver of the right to cross-examine. Rivera. civil. 762 F. 200 S 786 (1991) The discretion to recall a witness is not properly invoked or exercisable by an applicant's mere general statement that there is a need to recall a witness "in the interest of justice. 154 S 65 (1987)Where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it. or that particularly described vital documents were not presented to the witness whose recall is prayed for. Implied waiver of the right of cross-examine may take various forms. that particularly identified material points were not covered in the cross-examination. v. To regard expressed generalities such as these as sufficient ground for recall of witnesses would make the recall of witness no longer discretionary but ministerial. to schedule the hearing. what it was that would have been elicited. 1985) c. for instance. 72 SCRA 428 (1976) b. 26 Phil. 127 (1913) U. or that the cross-examination was conducted in so inept a manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof. There must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete. Negros Occidental. 182 S 81 (1990) The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation. and that such 197 . Something more than the bare assertion of the need to propound additional questions is essential before the Court's discretion may rightfully be exercised to grant or deny recall. CA. as here. Repeated absences. v. Absent such particulars. Capital Subdivision v. Jr.

248 (1929) U. 1984) h. without said declaration having been read to the witness while he testified. 45 (1984) U. Harsh. v. Mercado. 469 U. State v. plain. he must be given ample opportunity to explain the discrepancies by a reading to him of such prior statement. Abel. IAC. 547 F. 420 SW2d 679 (1967) Coles v. striking out of testimony must be upon motion. v.S. Eisenstodt. Resabal.S. Mere presentation of the statement. 144 S 443 (1986) A party may impeach a witness by introducing into evidence their previous testimony in his disbarment proceedings which are inconsistent with their current testimony.S.S. 25 SCRA 716 (1968) Victorias Milling Co. coherent and credible. 127 (1913) Mosley v. Jr.2d 706 (1960) f. the quality of his perceptions and the manner he can make them known to the court. the trial court noted that although Sylvia's speech was slurred and it was necessary at times to ask her leading questions.. 20 Phil. 149 P2d 152 (1944) e. Ong Su. Lastly. is no ground for impeaching his testimony. Inc. v. Scott. 50 Phil 780 (1927) To impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statements. Leading Questions People v.198 additional testimony would cause the evidence to become inadmissible.S. 229 SCRA 403 (1994) A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. Salomon. U. 79 SCRA 207 (1977) d." Her mental condition did not vitiate her credibility. acceptance of his testimony depends on its nature and credibility or. Commonwealth.1976) g. 276 P. As in the case of other witnesses. People v. It can not be ordered motu propio. 1978) 198 . 583 F. otherwise put.2d 1191 (7th Cir. Impeachment By Bias U. Impeachment By Prior Inconsistent Statement Villalon. Medical Therapy Services. Del Castillo. Harvey. "her testimony was positive. clear. Impeachment By Other Means U. People v.S. An attorney may waive the confidential nature of his own disbarment proceedings. In the case before us. v. 158 A.2d 720 (2d Cir. Webster. Escolin: Note that the accused now does not have the right to cross-examine the witness during the preliminary investigation. v. He can only give questions to the investigating officer to be propounded to the witness. Impeaching One's Own Witness Becker v. 734 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. v. v.

State. official bodies and tribunals. 2d 177 (1984) U. documents are either public or private. kept in the Philippines. Classes of documents. Exclusion of Witnesses People v. 1924) State v. All other writings are private. Peoples.2 notarized documents. and (c) Public records. or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority. .3 public records. of private documents required by law to be entered therein. donation of real property) 199 . Oswalt. or of a foreign country. official bodies and tribunals. 2d 617 (1963) i. except last wills and testaments. of private documents required by law to be entered therein. or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority. or of a foreign country. 492 P2d 509 (1972) j. Sandal. (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments. and . Public documents Genuineness presumed and Private documents genuineness and due authenticity Must prove execution Binding against the parties and 3rd Binds only parties to the document persons Certain transactions are required to be in a public document (e. Refreshing Recollection State v. Public documents are: (a) The written official acts. 127 A.199 Newton v. Bishop. 123 (Md. 381 P. whether of the Philippines.E.1 written official acts. 883 (1930) State v. Rule 132 §19-33 Sec.Authentication and Proof of Documents 1. 54 Phil. kept in the Philippines. and public officers. – For the purpose of their presentation in evidence. whether of the Philippines. 319 S. and public officers. (20a) Public documents . 19.g.

– Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison. is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. )a any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because . Proof of private document.b Unless it is an ancient document. requisites 200 . no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person a comparison. 22. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. 22) Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.ii )i )ii )b .1 offered as authentic – due execution and authenticity must be proved .ii he has seen the person write.i . (23 a) Sec.200 Sec. or evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. (cf with Rule 132. 20. made by the witness or the court. 21. or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written. (22 a) Requisites for admissibility of private document . or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge . or (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. Sec.a either by )1 )2 anyone who saw the document executed or written. made by the witness or the court.i . or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. – Where a private document is more than thirty years old. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. – The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write. How genuineness of handwriting proved. (21 a) Sec.

and authenticated by the seal of his office. Public documents as evidence. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation. All other public documents are evidence. Sec.1 entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer – prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country. and unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion . (24 a) Documents consisting of . consul general. or by his deputy. (25 a) The record of public documents of official acts may be evidenced by . when admissible for any purpose. 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. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. . and accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody made . of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. even against a third person.a attested by )1 )2 )1 by )a )b )c )d secretary of the embassy or legation consul general consul vice consul. may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. consul. Proof of official record. of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.2 not offered as authentic – identified as that which it is claimed to be Sec. or 201 the officer having the legal custody of the record. and accompanied. 24. 23.201 )1 )2 )3 more than 30 years old produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. or his deputy. – The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19 (official acts). vice consul. even against a 3rd person.2 a copy .1 an official publication thereof or .2 all other public documents – evidence. – Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.b if the record is not kept in the Philippines .

an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. or a specific part thereof. attested by the legal custodian of the record.1 get a copy from the legal custodian . as the case may be . except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case.3 have the Philippine consul certify that the person in #2 is the legal custodian of a copy of official act Sec. 26.2 a copy thereof . as the case may be. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. – Any public record. must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. must not be removed from the office in which it is kept Exception: upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case Sec.1 the original record. Irremovability of public record. Procedure in obtaining copy of foreign official acts . under the seal of such court Sec. 27.202 )e )f )2 consular agent or any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept authenticated by the seal of his office. (27 a) GR: Any public record. or by a copy thereof. (26 a) Attestation of copy must .1 state the copy is a correct copy of the original. an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. – Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence. the attestation must state.2 be under the official seal of the attesting officer. What attestation of copy must state. if there be any.b with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody 202 . The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.2 have the legal custodian attest that the copy is correct . that the copy is a correct copy of the original. if there be any. (28a) Public record of a private document may be proved by . or a specific part thereof. under the seal of such court. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. 25.a attested by the legal custodian of the record . Public record of a private document. – An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record. in substance. or .

1 notary public . (b) collusion between the parties.b that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office. must account for the alteration.1 A written statement .2 the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved Sec. or (c) fraud in the party offering the record.2 accompanied by a certificate that such officer is supposed to have custody If a notarized document is lost. – Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law. or that the alteration did not change the meaning or 203 . (29) Proof of lack of record . in a part material to the question in dispute. in respect to the proceedings.203 Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached.2 collusion between the parties. is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. how to explain. accompanied by a certificate as above provided. 30. Alterations in document. Proof of notarial documents. in respect to the proceedings Sec. may be presented in evidence without further proof. or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it. – A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office. or was otherwise properly or innocently made. . He may show that the alteration was made by another. – The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution. without his concurrence. (30 a) Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of .1 want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer . (31 a) Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law . get certifications of loss from . – Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer. Proof of lack of record.2 bureau of archives . 28.3 fraud in the party offering the record. 31.1 may be presented in evidence without further proof .a signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy . or .3 clerk of court who commissioned the notary public Sec.

or . The circumstances of the presence of the witness during the execution must be related. or . considering he was illiterate (implied from the thumbmarking). Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. or . To avoid interruption of proceedings. (32 a) The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution.1 shall not be admitted as evidence.a made by another. in a part material to the question in dispute . either as . the document can not qualify as an ancient document because it is blemished by alteration or circmstance of suspicion. IAC. 2. Proof of the document’s authenticity and due execution is therefore necessary. (33 a) Sec.1 must account for the alteration. There must be proof that the party understood it. explained and translated to the illiterate party. Ancient documents Bartolome v. If he fails to do that the document shall not be admissible in evidence. without his concurrence. 32. – There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. 183 SCRA 102 (1990) Where the offeror’s witness testified that the document had a missing 4th page. Proof of private documents Buñag v. 204 . (34 a) Documents written in an unofficial language . An incomplete document is akin to an altered document. more so if the missing page contains the signature of the parties to the document. There must be showing that the document was duly read. CA.b made with the consent of the parties affected by it. unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino .c otherwise properly or innocently made. Seal. b. parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. Cases a.d the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument . unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. – Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence.2 If he fails to do that the document shall not be admissible in evidence Sec.2 parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial.204 language of the instrument. 158 SCRA 299 (1988) The authenticity and due execution of a private document is not proven by testimony that the party thumbmarked it. 33.

The certificate may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation. People v. consul. CA. Documents in unofficial language Pacific Asia Overseas v. or as a competent translator of both languages. vice-consul. Therefore. which attestation must be authenticated by a Philippine Consular officer having jurisdiction in that country. the foreign judgment must be proven as a public document of a written official act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country. NLRC. Mere testimony of a witness is not sufficient to prove foreign law.205 Heirs of Lacsa v. Had there been no matching copy in the Registry of Deeds. de Leon: Note that the document was actually a public record because it had been registered with the Registry of Deeds. The offeror must submit an attestation issued by the proper foreign official having legal custody of the original judgment that the copy is a faithful reproduction of the original. d. they must be alleged and proved. Zalamea v. 161 SCRA 122 (1988) A document written in an unofficial language should be translated into either English or Filipino. NLRC. The translation should be either sworn to as an accurate translation of the original. 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. 197 SCRA 234 (1991) Lack of signatures on the first pages of a document alone is not a blemish that would disqualify a document from being an ancient document. 205 . or agreed upon by the parties. Like any other fact. c. CA. Keep in mind that crucial to the ruling in Lacsa was the fact that the document presented matches the one on file in the Registry of Deeds. Monleon. or by his deputy. and authenticated by the seal of his office. Allegations that the pages had been substituted should be proven in order to disqualify the document from being an ancient document. I submit that the document can not qualify as an ancient document. Proof of foreign judgments Pacific Asia Overseas v. Proof of their due execution and authenticity is no longer required. 228 SCRA 23 (1993) Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can the courts take judicial notice of them. 74 SCRA 263 (1976) Affidavits written in an unofficial language and not accompanied with a translation are inadmissible in evidence. the court did not have to determine whether the document was in fact an ancient document because it was in the first place a public document whose authenticity and due execution need not be proven. consul general. and accompanied with a certificate that such officer has custody. Written law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. 161 SCRA 122 (1988) To be enforceable. The translator should be identified either as an official interpreter of the court. more so if the documents were shown to be exact copies of the original on file with the Register of Deeds. The problem with this case is it is now authority to say that private documents whose first pages are not signed by the parties can qualify as ancient documents.

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. 117221.1 orally – immediately after the offer is made. In any case. – The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. the grounds for the objections must be specified. NLRC.2 in writing – within 3 days after notice of the offer. 1999 V. April 13. – Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. Objection.. No.2 documentary and object – after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence Offer of evidence shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.R.(36 a) When objection to evidence offered must be made . . Offer and Objection 1. (35) The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. v. 36.(n) When to make offer . When to make offer. Sec.206 Escolin: The NIRC provides that all notarial documents which don’t have the required documentary stamp tax will not be admitted in evidence. unless a different period is allowed by the court. the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. 34. Sec. Inc. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. G. 206 . 253 SCRA 758 (1996) IBM Phils. – As regards the testimony of a witness. Offer of evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. People. 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.1 testimony – the time the witness is called to testify . Rule 132 §34-40 Sec. 35. Salison v.

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. a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. 37. it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions. However.4 misleading .207 . whether such objection was sustained or overruled. The grounds for the objections should always be specified.8 parole evidence rule .7 best evidence rule . – The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made.10 Sec. Ruling.1 in the course of the examination of a witness .3 leading .3 reasonably apparent that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made .5 incompetent .6 irrelevant . (37 a) Requisites for a proper continuing objection .1 Hearsay . 38.2 argumentative . The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.9 question has no basis .4 adverse party records his continuing objection to such class of questions Sec.2 objection has been made . unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented.3 a question propounded in the course of the oral examination – as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. if the objection is based on two or more grounds. – When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made. Grounds for objection . (38 a) 207 . it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection. When repetition of objection unnecessary.

If the evidence excluded is oral. the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record.1 must be given immediately after the objection is made . even if the rules does not require the judge to so state. and such objection is found to be meritorious. but the ruling shall always be made . the offeror may state for the record . the offeror may . a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. Exception: If the objection is based on two or more grounds. Sec.b at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. Sec. (n) If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court.a during the trial and . – Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same. On proper motion. the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent.2 unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. irrelevant. On proper motion. or otherwise improper. if the evidence is object or documentary .2 If the evidence excluded is oral. 39. or otherwise improper.a the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and 208 . Escolin: The parties may ask for the ground for the ruling. the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record.2 objection is found to be meritorious . – If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court. 40.3 court order that the answer given to be stricken off the record. GR: The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.208 The ruling of the court on an objection .1 witness answers the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection .1 have the same attached to or made part of the record. Striking out answer. Tender of excluded evidence. (n) Requisites for Striking out an answer . irrelevant. the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent.

Java. identification of the evidence) is premature. 195 SCRA 567 (1991) Where the genuineness and due execution of documents of an instrument attached to a complaint are deemed admitted by failure to specifically deny it under oath. recital of the contents of the exhibit). and sets forth what he claims to be the facts. CA. 236 SCRA 398 (1994) Failure to object upon the time a witness is called to testify on the ground that there was no formal offer of the testimony is a waiver of the objection. Objection on such ground after the witness has testified is too late. Mere fact that evidence has been identified and marked in the course of the examination of a witness. 269 SCRA 211 (1997) The court shall consider no evidence. b.b the substance of the proposed testimony. Aviles. 196 SCRA 650 (1991) Mere fact that a document is marked as an exhibit does not mean it has been offered as evidence. v. Mere identification and marking is not equivalent to a formal offer of the evidence.g. when the party rests its case) as an exhibit and not before. such instruments are considered as evidence although they were not formally offered. Catuira v. A party may decide to not offer evidence already identified and marked. Identification of documentary evidence is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit. but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. CA. CA.e. Escolin: cf Rule 8. 209 . under oath. which has not been formally offered. Inc. Marking at the pre-trial was only for the purpose of identifying them at that time. 2. while the formal offer of documentary evidence is done only when the party rests its case. 8. copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section. 227 SCRA 668 (1993) Objection to testimony on the ground of lack of a formal offer of the testimony should be done when the witness was called to testify. Franco. 8 Sec. — When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument. When objection make People v.209 .e. Philippine Bank of Commerce v. if an exhibit has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and has itself been incorporated into the records (i. Objection prior to that time (e. (8a) Tabuena v. Interpacific Transit. specifically denies them. However. does not mean that it has been formally offered as evidence. even an extra-judicial confession. without the contents being recited in his testimony. Sec. How to contest such documents. 186 SCRA 385 (1990) Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered (i. Cases a. the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party. When evidence considered offered People v.

In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies..) 64 O. and its contents recited. (1 a) MEMORIZE! In civil cases. how determined. the probability or improbability of their testimony. the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Is the court authorized to consider such exhibit on the strength of the ruling in Tabuena? I would say “yes” because the recital of the contents of the exhibit is now part of the testimony of the witness which has been formally offered. de Leon: Does this mean that party may remain silent when inadmissible evidence is being identified and marked. 9116 Vda. Preponderance of evidence. Court of Appeals. though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. 1. Quijano.210 de Leon: Note that the court also said that there was no continuing objection because continuing objections are applicable when there is a single objection to a class of evidence. 97 Phil. Inc. the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. the court may consider . In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies.G. their intelligence. Sweet Lines. Yatco. (C. Weight & Sufficiency of Evidence 1. their interest or want of interest. This ruling is no longer applicable because the new rules on evidence is now clear that continuing objections are applicable only to testimonial evidence. the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. 176 SCRA 394 (1989) People v.1 all the facts and circumstances of the case 210 . 212 SCRA 194 (1992) Sheraton Palace v. the witnesses' manner of testifying. the offeror decides not to formally offer it into evidence.” de Leon: What if after an exhibit has been identified. and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. de Oñate v. IAC. People v. Rule 133 Sec. the nature of the facts to which they testify. 250 SCRA 283 (1995) W. their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying.A. marked. The court may also consider the number of witnesses. 165 SCRA 664 (1988) De los Reyes v. and then object when it is formally offered? Interpacific Transit was explicit when it said “What really matters is the objection to the document at the time it is formally offered as an exhibit. 940 (1955) PHILAMGEN v. – In civil cases. Cariño.

the accused is entitled to an acquittal.8 their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. – An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. 4. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. . shall not be sufficient ground for conviction.3 their intelligence . produces absolute certainty.4 their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying . Sec.1 does not mean such a degree of proof as. (a) There is more than one circumstance. produces absolute certainty. (5) 211 . . – Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if. when sufficient. An cause of action on the ground of reformation of instrument must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.2 Moral certainty only is required. excluding possibility of error. 3. the accused is entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as. shall not be sufficient ground for conviction.7 their interest or want of interest .2 the witnesses' manner of testifying . 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.5 the nature of the facts to which they testify . unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.6 the probability or improbability of their testimony . Circumstantial evidence. Extrajudicial confession.211 . (2 a) MEMORIZE! In a criminal case. though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. Sec. not sufficient ground for conviction. Sec. – In a criminal case. A defense of self-defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.9 number of witnesses. Proof beyond reasonable doubt . (3) An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. Moral certainty only is required. and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. excluding possibility of error.

3 The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. that he moved out hurriedly and running away from the burning premises. that he had previously manifested resentment against the owner of the premises and even hinted that he would burn the owner’s house. there was evidence as to the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime before and at the time the fire started. that he concealed his identity by disguising himself with long hair. However.212 Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if . a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence Substantial evidence – that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion Sec. there were no eyewitnesses. but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.1 the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties . (7) When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record . 134 SCRA 512 (1985) Facts: In a prosecution for arson committed in Davao City. Evidence on motion. But this power should be exercised with caution. Sec. 2. – In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. that he exhibited indifference and unperturbed attitude towards the fate suffered by the victims. 5. 6. – The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. Cruz. long moustache. Cases People v. left Davao City without leaving a word to anyone. (6) Sec. Power of the court to stop further evidence. (n) MEMORIZE! In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.2 The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. Substantial evidence. – When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties. and .1 There is more than one circumstance . that he did not even condole with the 212 . and went into hiding in Manila.2 but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. 7. a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. that he abandoned his job. and colored eyeglasses.

and that he had a serious misunderstanding and strained relationship with the owner of the burned premises.213 bereaved family and relatives or pay them a visit. Solayao. 18 Phil. v. Held: There are enough circumstantial evidence to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Abendan. U. 240 SCRA 624 (1995) 213 . that he did not attend the wake or the funeral.S. 711 (1948) People v. v. Lorenzo. 262 SCRA 255 (1996) People v. 90 (1910) People. 82 Phil. Lasada.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful