3G Evidence Reviewer PDF

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW 1
Mendiola, Manila
REVIEWER ON
EVIDENCE AND
TRIAL TECHNIQUE
Submitted by:
Block 3G
A.Y. 2019-2020
Submitted to:
Atty. Rowell Ilagan
Professor in Evidence
3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

2
Block 3g
A.Y. 2019- 2020
Aseniero, Daphne Elizabeth

Bacolod, Jamielou
Bajesta, Zermae Gem
Bilbao, Arwin
Bonsato, Dennisse Ian
Cacho, Camille
Castillo, Mary Camille
Castillo, Nikka
Daytia, Jewel Joice
Dela Cruz, Anna Carmela
Fernandez, Joseph Ivanmel
Fojas, Angelica
Gempis, Giancarlo Lorenzo
Geronimo, Aira Marielle
Hamor, Judee Mae
Jorgio, Johanna Kira
Macatangay, Jose Angelo
Manuel, Justine Lei
Marquez, Jones Harvey
Medina, Kimmy
Napo, Joshua Gerard
Ortigoza, Beatriz Anne
Ouano, Natalia Valerie
Planillo, Mindy Roiza
Salmani, Katrina Jayashree
Sy, Isobel Laurelle
Velasco, Erika Grace
Wilson, Angeline
Zipagan, Ronald Joseph II
3
Table of Contents
Rule 128 4
General provisions
Rule 129 9
What Need Not Be Proven
Rule 130 14
Rules of Admissibility
Rule 131 77
Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence and
Presumptions
Rule 132 88
Presentation of Evidence
Rule 133 113
Sufficiency and Weight of Evidence
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE 120
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC
August 1, 2001
RULES ON DNA EVIDENCE 127
A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC
OCTOBER 2, 2007
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS 131
A.M. No. 004-07-SC
DECEMBER 15, 2000
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE 138
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC
September 04, 2012
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6981 144
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A WITNESS
PROTECTION, SECURITY AND BENEFIT
PROGRAM AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

4
Classes of Evidence
A. As to the requirements for admissibility
1. Relevant
RULE 128 - GENERAL PROVISIONS An evidence is relevant when it has a tendency in reason to
establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue,
i.e., evidence “that reasonable mind might accept as
Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, adequate to support a conclusion” (Marcelo v. Bungubung,
sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial G.R. No. 175201, April 23, 2008).
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Test of relevancy
Elements of Evidence Relevancy is determinable by rules of logic and human
- Means experience (People v. Galleno, G.R. No. 123546, July 2, 1998)
- Sanctioned by these rules
- To ascertain the truth 2. Competent
- Respecting a matter of fact Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by law in a
- In a judicial proceeding. particular case.
Proof v. Evidence B. As to Nature

Proof Evidence 1. Testimonial
Testimony of a witness, usually on oath or affirmation,
Proof is the result of Evidence is the means by given by his word of mouth in the witness stand.
evidence; which the proof is
established; 2. Documentary
Evidence consists of writings, recordings, or any material
Proof is the end result; Evidence is the means to the containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or
end. other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their
contents (Sec. 2, Rule 130).
The rules on Evidence determine the following: 3. Object

1) Relevancy of facts, the sort of facts may prove in order Evidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of
to establish the existence of the right, duty, or liability any inference or presumption. It is that which is addressed
defined by substantive law; to the senses of the court (Sec. 1, Rule 130).
2) Proof of facts, what sort of proof is to be given of those
facts; C. As to its ability to establish the fact in dispute
3) Production of proof of relevant facts, that is, who is 1. Direct
to give it and how it is to be given, and the effect of Evidence which proves the fact in dispute without aid of any
improper admission or rejection or evidence. inference or presumption (People v. Fronda, G.R. No. 130602,
(Francisco, Basic Evidence (2019), p. 2) March 15, 2000).
Factum probandum v. Factum probans
2. Circumstantial
Factum Probandum Factum Probans Proof of facts from which, taken collectively, the existence
of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a
Proposition to be Material evidencing the necessary or probable consequence.
established; proposition;
Example: Testimony of X that he saw A running away from
Hypothetical; one which Existent; offered as reality the place where B is found dead;
the party affirms and the for the purpose of
other denies convincing that the clothing of A stained with blood, bolo of A stained with
proposition is also a reality blood
(Francisco, supra, p. 3)

5
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the Example: On the issue of capacity of a boy to write a certain
following requisites concur: paper, the evidence of his classmates and that of his
a) there is more than one circumstance; teachers upon the same question.
b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
established; G. As to degree of its value in establishing a disputed
c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant fact
a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt (People v. 1. Prima facie
Pascual, G.R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009). That which suffices for the proof of a particular fact, until
contradicted and overcome by other evidence.
D. As to weight
1. Primary 2. Conclusive
Evidence which affords greatest certainty of the fact in Incontrovertible, or which the law does not allow to be
question contradicted.
Example: The original copy of the contract as evidence of its Section 2. Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be the same
contents in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise
provided by law or these rules.
2. Secondary
Evidence which is inferior to primary evidence and shows However, there are material differences between rules on
on its face that better evidence exist civil in criminal procedures. To wit:
Example: Copy of contract or testimony of witness as to the Civil Criminal

contents
Party attends by accord; Accused attends by
E. As to the tenor of proof offere compulsion;
1. Positive
Witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur No presumption as to Presumption of innocence
either party; attends to the accused
Example: Testimony of a witness X that he saw A set fire the throughout the trial until
house of B. overcome by prima facie
evidence of guilt;
2. Negative
Witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence Offer of compromise does It is an implied admission of
of a fact. not amount to admission guilt;
of liability;
Example: Testimony of X that he was on occasion at the
place where the house of B was burned and that he did not Plaintiff must prove claim Government must establish
see A set the fire on said house. by preponderance of guilt of accused beyond
evidence; reasonable doubt.
F. As to nature of additional evidence
1. Corroborative (Francisco, supra, p. 9)
Evidence of the different kind and character, tending to
prove the same point. Sec. 4, Rule 1 provides that the Rules of Court do not apply
to:
Example: Testimony of X that A died because of stab wounds 1) Naturalization proceedings;
inflicted by B, corroborated by death certificate. 2) Insolvency proceedings;
3) Cadastral proceedings;
2. Cumulative 4) Other cases as may be provided by law;
Evidence of the same kind and character as that already 5) Land registration cases; and
given, tending to prove the same proposition. 6) Election cases
Except by analogy or suppletory, whenever practicable and
convenient.

6
It is noteworthy to point out that owing to the initiatory that the documents have been lost or destroyed, then
nature of preliminary investigations, the technical rules of the original must be submitted as evidence, otherwise,
evidence should not be applied in the course of its the copy thereof is inadmissible. A, on the other hand,
proceedings. In the recent case of Estrada v. Ombudsman, argued that at the time of the presentation of evidence,
the Court declared that hearsay evidence is admissible in the Rules of Court was amended in 2019 to the effect
determining probable cause in preliminary investigations that copy of original documents sought to be admitted,
because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does may be received in evidence provided an affidavit
not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties (PDIC attesting to the veracity of its contents be attached
v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 206866, September 2, 2015). thereto, subject to cross-examination, which affidavit
was made by A. Decide.
The NLRC Rules of Procedure state that "[t]he rules of
procedure and evidence prevailing in courts of law and ANS: The evidence must be admitted. Every evidence
equity shall not be controlling and the Commission shall use inadmissible according to laws in force at the time the
every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each action accrued, but admissible according to the laws in force
case speedily and objectively, without regard to at the time of the trial, is receivable.
technicalities of law or procedure x x x" (Buenaflor Car
Services v. David, G.R. No. 222730, November 7, 2016). Here, had the evidence been presented before the
amendment of the Rules of Court in 2019, then the contract
No vested right of property in rules of evidence A sought to be admitted shall not be allowed. However,
The reason is that the rules are merely methods of since the evidence was presented after the amendment and
ascertaining facts. For instance, any evidence inadmissible that the conditions for admissibility was fulfilled, then it
according to the laws in force at the time the action accrued, must be admitted as it complies with the Rules prevailing at
but admissible at the time of the trial, is receivable the time it was presented.
(Francisco, supra, p. 1).
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is
Waiver of rules of evidence admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded
As rules of evidence are established merely for the by the Constitution, the law of these Rules.
protection of the parties, they may waive such rules during
trial. In order that evidence may be admissible, two requisites
must concur, to wit:
However, if the rule of evidence is established on grounds 1) Relevant to the issue;
of public policy, waiver by the parties thereof is void. e.g. 2) Competent, i.e., does not belong to that class of evidence
waiver of privilege against disclosure of state secrets. which is excluded by the Constitution, law or Rules of
Evidence.
Sources
1) The 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Secs. 3, 12, 17, Art. VII, Admissibility of evidence ≠ weight of evidence
Sec. 5); Weight has to do with the effect of evidence admitted; its
2) Revised Rule on Evidence (Rules 128-134); tendency to convince and persuade. It depends upon its
3) Bar Matter No. 411, dated March 14, 1989; effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the
4) Rule 115, Sec. 1; case.
5) Substantive and remedial statues;
6) Judicial decisions; and Admissibility refers to the question
7) Rules on DNA Evidence.
A. Relevancy of Evidence
Q: During the trial between A and B in January 2, 2020, Evidence is relevant when it has such relation to the fact in
A, as evidence of the correct amount of purchased items issue as to induce a belief as to its existence or non-
and consideration, presented a photocopy of the existence (Sec. 4, Rule 130). It depends upon its tendency to
contract of sale between him and B, which is the subject establish a controverted fact.
of the civil case.
Materiality of Evidence
B objected, arguing that at the time of the execution of Evidence is material when it is directed to prove a fact in
the contract in 2016, the Rules of Court only allows the issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and
original of the document sought to be admitted as pleadings. It means its quality of substantial importance to
documentary evidence. Since A could not proffer proof the particular issue, apart from its relevancy (Francisco,

7
supra, p. 16; Cruz-Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa, A.M. No. RTJ- purposes for which it is allowed. An item of evidence may
06-2005, July 14, 2006). be logically relevant in several aspects leading to distinct
inferences or as bearing upon different issues. In this
Some authorities treat the two has having substantially the situation the normal practice is to admit evidence only for
same meaning and effect; it could aptly be said that the allowable purpose. (Francisco, supra, p. 23)
materiality is a degree of relevancy --- that evidence which
has but slight relevancy is immaterial. They are often used e.g., Confession of the accused may not be competent
interchangeably. against his co-accused, being hearsay in nature, but may be
admitted as evidence of his own guilt.
B. Competency of Evidence
Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the 2) Conditional admissibility
Constitution, the law, or rules on evidence in a particular Relevance and materiality not apparent when offered, but
case. Example or rules are: which will readily be seen when connected to other
1) Best Evidence Rule (Sec. 3, Rule 130); evidence.
2) Parole Evidence Rule (Sec. 9, Rule 130);
3) Hearsay evidence Rule (Sec. 27, Rule 130); It is usually permitted upon the assurance, express or
4) Offer of compromise as evidence against offeror implied, that he will “connect up” the tendered evidence by
(Sec. 27, Rule 130); proving, in the later progress of the case, the missing facts.
5) Disqualification of witness by reason of mental
incapacity or immaturity (Sec. 21, Rule 130); 3) Curative admissibility
6) Disqualification by reason of marriage (Sec. 22, Where improper evidence was admitted over the objection
Rule 130); of the opposing party, he should be permitted to contradict
7) Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of it with similar or improper evidence.
adverse party (Sec. 23, Rule 130);
8) Disqualification by reason of privileged This evidence is introduced to cure, contradict, or
communication (Sec. 23, Rule 130); neutralize the improper evidence introduced by the other
9) Exclusionary provisions in the Constitution. party. Note that this protection is not extended on appeal if
he did not object.
Admissibility of void documents
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and Exclusionary Rules in the Constitution
is not excluded by the law of these rules. There is no The exclusion of evidence illegally seized being not
provision in the Rules of Evidence which excludes the admissible is the only practical means of enforcing the
admissibility of a void document. Hence, a void document is constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches
admissible as evidence because the purpose of introducing and seizures.
it as evidence is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of
fact, not to enforce the terms of the document itself (Tan v. Applicable provisions of the 1987 Constitution:
Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016). 1) Sec. 2, Article III
Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
Rules of Exclusion v. Exclusionary Rules papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
Rules of Exclusion Exclusionary Rules
inviolable x x x
Rules of exception to the Commonly used for 2) Sec. 3, Article III

general of admissibility of evidence excluded by the (1) Privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
all that is rational and Constitution inviolable x x x
probative (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding.
Types of Admissibility 3) Sec. 12, Article III
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
1) Multiple admissibility an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or remain silent and to have competent and independent
more purposes, such evidence may be admitted for any or all

8
counsel of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of a counsel, he must be provided with one. x x x On Bank Accounts
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or other Under Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Act of 1955),
meands which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. “all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
x xx institutions in the Philippines x x x are considered as of an
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined,
or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
against him. bureau or office, except x x x in cases where the money
deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.”
4) Sec. 17, Article III The inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No.
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against 1405 must be premised on the fact that the money
himself. deposited in the account is itself the subject of the action
(BSB Group v. Go
Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree G.R. No. 168644, February 16, 2010).
The libertarian exclusionary rule known as the “fruits of the
poisonous tree” provides that once the primary source ( the Nothing in RA 1405 provides that unlawful examination of
"tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any bank accounts will make the evidence inadmissible, but will
secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from only subject the offender imprisonment of not more than 5
it is also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized years or fine upon conviction (Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan,
evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, G.R. Nos. 157294-5, November 30, 2006).
whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect
result of the same illegal act. The "fruit of the poisonous On Birth Records
tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on provides that "evidence is admissible when it is relevant to
the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules." Rule
should not be used to gain other evidence because the 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides
originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence for sanctions against persons violating the rule on
subsequently obtained (People v. Samontanez, G.R. No. confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state
134530, December 4, 2000). that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule
would render said records inadmissible in evidence
The test is also known as the “but for” test, i.e., test whether (Tolentino v. Mendoza, A.C. No. 5151, October 19, 2004).
or not the evidence could not have been obtained but for the
illegal action of the police. That said, it does not apply if the Q: A, during trial for the crime of robbery against him,
it is inevitably discovered by law enforcement authorities confessed to the crime of robbery against D. Together
by sources independent of the illegal search or seizure. with his confession is the fact that he implicated B and
C as his co-accused, and that they conspired to commit
On Search incidental to lawful arrest robbery against D. Will the confession admissible:
To protect the people from unreasonable searches and a) Against B and C?
seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution b) As lone proof of conspiracy between A, B, and
provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable C?
searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for c) Against A?
any purpose in any proceeding. One of the recognized ANS:
exceptions to the need of a warrant before a search may be The confession of A during trial has three purposes, to wit:
effected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this 1) That A committed the crime; 2) that A committed the
instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest crime with B and C; and 3) that A, B, and C conspired to
before a search can be made – the process cannot be commit the robbery.
reversed (Reyes v. CA, G.R. No. 229380, June 6, 2018). a) No. A confession of the accused may not be
competent as against his co-accused, being hearsay
Admissibility, Electronic Evidence as to the latter. As B and C are not the accused in
1) Complies with the rules on admissibility provided in the the criminal action where A is charged against,
Rules of Court; and there could be no way for B and C to cross-examine
2) Authenticated in the manner prescribed by Rules on this confession, and hence would fall under hearsay
Electronic Evidence (Rules on Electronic Evidence, Rule 3, evidence, which, is inadmissible against B and C.
Sec. 2).

9
b) No. The confession of A in furtherance of collateral matter as it tends, in any reasonable degree, to
conspiracy between him and B and C may not be prove a fact in issue.
received in evidence without the conspiracy being
established by other evidence, as provided in Sec. Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code exempts from criminal
31, Rule 130. liability from theft committed by spouses, ascendants and
c) Yes. While the testimony of A may not be descendants, or relatives by affinity. Here, the Marriage
received in evidence for the purpose of proving the Certificate is proof of the fact that X is married to A, and
conspiracy or as evidence against B and C, it may be hence would exonerate the former from criminal liability.
received as evidence of his guilt. The normal
practice in the situation where an evidence is made
for multiple purposes is to admit the evidence only
for the allowable purpose. RULE 129:
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must
have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in
its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall
in issue. take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of
Collateral matters are defined as those that are outside the the existence and territorial extent of states, their political
controversy, or are not directly connected with the history, forms of government and symbols of nationality,
principal matter or issue in dispute, as indicated in the the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the
pleadings of the parties. (Francisco, supra, p. 19) world and their seals, the political constitution and history
of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive
Logical Connection Test in Collateral Matters and judicial departments of the National Government of the
Whether the evidence is admissible to show a collateral fact, Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the
or where proffered evidence is relevant to a collateral issue geographical divisions. (ROC, RULE 129, Sec. 1)
(Herrera, p. 56-57).
Judicial Notice is the cognizance of certain facts which
Admissible?
judges may properly take and act upon without need of
They are generally not allowed; but however admissible
proof. It is based on considerations of expediency and
when they tend in any reasonable degree to establish the
convenience and displaces the necessity of evidence on a
probability or improbability of the fact in issue (Sec. 3, Rule
settled matter to save time, labor, and expense in
128).
introducing such evidence (Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium, Vol II, 2008 ed., p. 833).
Facts in issue and facts relevant to the issue
Facts in issue – facts which a plaintiff must prove in order to
It displaces evidence, being equivalent to proof. Judicial
establish his claim and those facts which the defendant
notice fulfils the objective which evidence intends to
must prove in order to establish a defense set up by him.
achieve.
Facts relevant to the issue – facts which render probable the
Note: Judicial notice is not equivalent to judicial knowledge.
existence or non-existence of a fact in issue, or some other
A fact may be of judicial notice and not of a judge’s personal
relevant fact (Francisco, supra, p. 22-23).
knowledge and vice versa. Judicial notice fulfils the
objective which the evidence intends to achieve; it is the
Q: In a criminal charge for theft against X, the defense
cognizance of “common knowledge”. Judicial knowledge is
presented as evidence, a Marriage Certificate as proof
that which is based on the personal knowledge of the court.
that X is married to the complainant A, his wife. Counsel
for A objected to the evidence on the ground of
The following need not be proved:
relevance. Should the Marriage Certificate be admitted
1. Immaterial allegations;
to evidence?
2. Facts admitted or not denied provided they have
ANS: Yes. Despite the fact that the presentation of marriage
been sufficiently alleged (ROC, RULE 8, Sec. 1);
certificate is not directly connected with the issue in
3. Agreed and admitted facts (ROC, RULE 129, Sec. 4);
dispute, i.e., whether X committed the crime of theft, the
Marriage Certificate may be admitted as evidence as a

10
4. Facts subject to judicial notice (ROC, RULE 129, Sec. When parties in a case agree on what the foreign law
1-3); and provides, these are admissions of fact which the other
5. Facts conclusively presumed or disputably presumed parties and the court are made to rely and act upon; hence
but uncontradicted (ROC, RULE 131). they are in estoppel to subsequently take a contrary
position (Phil. Commercial & Industrial Bank, vs. Escolin et.
Matters of Mandatory Judicial Notice al., G.R. No. L-27896, March 29, 1974).
1. Existence and territorial extent of states;
2. Their political history, forms of government DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE
and symbols of nationality;
3. Law of nations; Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world may take judicial notice of matters which are of public
and their seals; knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable
5. Political constitution and history of the demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of
Philippines their judicial functions.
6. Official acts of legislative, executive and
judicial departments National Government of A court may take judicial notice of matters which are:
the Philippines (NEW RULE); 1. Of public knowledge; or
7. Laws of nature; 2. Capable of unquestionable demonstration; or
8. Measure of time; and 3. Ought to be known to judges because of their
9. Geographical divisions. (ROC, RULE 129, Sec. judicial functions.
1)
Requisites of judicial notice:
The Law of Nations is the compilation of rules which by 1. The matter must be one of common and general
common consent of mankind have been acquiesced in as knowledge;
law. 2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain; and
Foreign Municipal Laws 3. It must be one which is not subject to a reasonable
General Rule: Foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice dispute in that it is either:
of, and they must be proved as any other fact. They do not a. Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction
prove themselves nor can courts take judicial notice of of the trial court; or
them. They must be alleged and proved. They may be b. Capable of accurate and ready determination by
evidenced in accordance with Sec. 24, Rule 132 as an official resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot
record. reasonably be questionable (Expertravel & Tours,
Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005).
Exceptions:
1. Foreign statute accepted by the government: Note: The principal guide in determining what facts may be
2. Common Law assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety.
Q: Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense
of the defendant but no evidence was presented to prove The test of notoriety is whether the fact involved is so
the existence of said law, what is the presumption to be notoriously known as to make it proper to assume its
taken by the court as to the wordings of said law? existence without proof. There must be unconditional
acceptance by the public, or that segment of the public
A: The doctrine of processual presumption applies. The where the fact is of relevant importance.
presumption is that the wordings of the foreign law are the
same as the local law (Doctrine of processual presumption) The fact that a belief is not universal is not controlling for it
(Northwest Orient Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 83033, June 8, is seldom that any belief is accepted by everyone. It is
1990). (1997 Bar Question) enough that the matters are familiarly known to the
majority of mankind or those persons familiar with the
Doctrine of Processual Presumption particular matter in question. (Republic vs. CA, G.R. No.
Lays down the presumption that the foreign law is the same 54886, September 10, 1981).
as the law of the forum. It arises if the foreign law, though
properly applicable, is either not alleged, or if alleged, is not When is a matter considered “common knowledge”?
duly proved before a competent court. They are those matters coming to the knowledge of men
generally in the course of ordinary experiences of life, or

11
they may be matters which are generally accepted by The appreciation of one judge of the testimony of a certain
mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned witness is not binding on another judge who heard the
demonstration. testimony of the same witness on the same matter. Each
magistrate who hears the testimony of a witness is called
Note: Thus, facts which are universally known, and which upon to make his own appreciation of the evidence. It is,
may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other therefore, illogical to argue that because one judge made a
publications, are judicially noticed, provided, they are of conclusion in a certain way with respect to one or more of
such universal notoriety and so generally understood that the accused; it necessarily dictates that the succeeding
they may be regarded as forming part of the common judge who heard the same case against the other accused
knowledge of every person. A court however cannot take should automatically make the same conclusion (People v.
judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the Langit, G.R. Nos. 134757-58, Aug. 4, 2000).
existence or non-existence of a fact of which the court has
no constructive knowledge (Expert Travel & Tours, Inc. v. Judicial notice of Municipal Ordinances
CA, G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005). Inferior courts should take judicial notice of municipal or
city ordinances in force in their territorial jurisdiction.
Judicial Notice of Records of another Case Previously
Tried A. MTCs are required to take judicial notice of the
ordinances of the municipality or city wherein they
General Rule: Courts are not authorized to take judicial sit.
notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even B. The RTC should take judicial notice of municipal
when such cases have been tried in the same court and ordinances only when:
pending before the same judge (People vs. Hernandez, 1. They are expressly authorized by statute;
G.R.No. 108028, July 30, 1996). 2. On appeals of decisions by the inferior court
when such courts had taken notice of a
Exceptions: municipal ordinance.
1. When, at the initiative of the judge or of the parties,
and without objection of any party, the records of C. Rules before Appellate Courts:
the previous action are read and adopted into the 1. An appellate court is without authority to take
present action, or attached to the records of the into consideration the judicial records of a case
present action by court order; previously decided by the trial court upon
2. When the original record of the other case or any which said court did not have the opportunity
part of it is actually withdrawn from the archives at to pass;
the court’s discretion upon the request, or with the 2. An appellate court cannot consult the records
consent, of the parties, and admitted as part of the in another case to ascertain a fact not shown by
record of the pending case. (Jumamil v. Cafe, G.R. the records of the case before it but could go to
No. 144570, Sept. 21, 2005). its other decisions for the law that is
3. When the present action is closely interrelated to determinative of or applicable to the case
another case pending between the same parties; under review;
4. When the interest of the public in ascertaining the 3. The Supreme Court can also take judicial
truth are of paramount importance; notice of its records in a previous case in
5. In cases seeking to determine what is a reasonable connection with the conduct of litigant or
exercise of discretion or whether or not the witness in a similar matter;
previous ruling is acceptable in a case under 4. Lower courts, from the CA down to the lowest
consideration; level, must take judicial notice of decision of
6. When there is finality of judgement in another case the SC, as they are in fact duty bound to know
that was previously pending determination and the ruling of the high tribunal and to apply
therefore, res judicata.(Herrera, Remedial Law, them in the adjudication of cases, they being
Book VI, 1999, p. 89-90) part of the legal system.
Note: The exceptions are applicable only when the case is Judicial Notice of Other Matters
clearly referred to or the original or part thereof are actually 1. The trial court can take judicial notice of the
withdrawn from the archives and admitted as part of the general increase in rentals or real estate especially
record of the case then pending. of business establishments (Catunggal vs. Hao, G.R.
No. 134972, March 22, 2001).

12
2. A court cannot take judicial notice of an Takes place at court’s own Motu proprio or upon
administrative regulation or a statute that is not yet initiative motion
effective (State Prosecutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA
505). No Hearing Needs hearing
3. In the age of modern technology, the court may
take judicial notice that business transactions may In People v. Tundag (G.R. 135695, October 12, 2000), the
be made by individuals through teleconferencing. court ruled that judicial notice of the age of the victim is
However, there is no judicial notice that one was improper, despite the defense counsel’s admission, thereof,
conducted in a particular case (Expert Travel and acceding to the prosecution’s motion. As required by
Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 459 SCRA 147). Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any other matter such as age, a
4. The Court has likewise taken judicial notice of the hearing is required before courts can take judicial notice of
Filipinas inbred modesty and shyness and her such fact.
antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her
honor and virtue. JUDICIAL ADMISSION
5. It is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons
have killed or committed serious offences for no Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, oral or
reason at all (People v. Zeta G.R. No 178541, March written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings
27, 2008). in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may
be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
JUDICIAL NOTICE WHEN NECESSARY palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in
fact, made.
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. —
During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or Judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written,
upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of made by a party in the course of the proceedings.
taking judicial notice of any matter.
Elements:
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu 1. The same must be made by a party to the case;
proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any 2. The admission must be made in the course of the
matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is proceedings in the same case; and
decisive of a material issue in the case. 3. There is no particular form for an admission- it may
be written or verbal.
When Hearing is necessary (NEW RULE)
1. During pre-trial and trial, the court, motu proprio JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS EXTRAJUDICIAL
or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the ADMISSIONS
propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter. Those made in the Those made out of court or in
2. Before judgement or on appeal, the court, motu course of the proceeding a judicial proceeding other
proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of in the same case than the one under
any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if consideration
such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. Do not require proof and Regarded as evidence and
may be contradicted must be offered as such,
Purpose of Hearing: Not for the presentation of evidence, only by showing that it otherwise the court will not
but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present was made through consider it in deciding the
information relevant to the propriety of taking such judicial palpable mistake or that case.
notice or the tenor of the matter to be noticed no such admission was
made.
Judicial admissions need Requires formal offer for it to
Mandatory Judicial Discretionary Judicial not be offered in be considered
Notice Notice evidence since it is not
Court is compelled to take Court is NOT compelled to evidence. It is superior
judicial notice take judicial notice to evidence and shall be
considered by the court
as established.

13
Conclusive upon the Rebuttable answer is a mere statement of fact which the party
admitter filing it expects to prove, but it is not evidence. (Atillo
Admissible even if self- Not admissible if self-serving III v. CA, GR. No. 119053, January 23, 1997).
serving
Subject to cross- Not subject to cross- Rule on dismissed Pleadings
examination examination Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are
merely extrajudicial admissions (Servicewide Specialist,
Note: Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be Inc. v. CA, 257 CSRA 643).
admitted because jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law and not by stipulation of parties. Note: NOT all allegations or admissions in pleadings in civil
cases may be considered as judicial admission because the
Judicial admissions may be made in: Rules on Civil Procedure allow a litigant to make
1. The pleadings filed by the parties; hypothetical admissions in his pleadings, such as:
2. In the course of the trial either by verbal or written 1. When a defendant sets up affirmative defense(s) in
manifestations or stipulations; his answer; or
3. In other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the 2. When a defendant files a motion to dismiss based
pre-trial of the case; on lack of jurisdiction.
4. Admissions obtained through depositions, written
interrogatories or requests for admissions. Judicial admissions are made in one case are admissible at
 Judicial admission can be made by either a party or the trial of another case provided they are proved and are
counsel. pertinent to the issue involved in the latter, UNLESS:
a. The said admission were made only for the
Note: Two situations in criminal cases: purpose s of the first case, as in the rule of
1. If it is a criminal case undergoing trial, the judicial implied admissions and their and their effects
admission by counsel can be received in evidence under Rule 26:
against the conformity of said defendant or even b. The same were withdrawn with the
without his conformity. permission of the court thereon; or
2. In the course of pre-trial conference, any admission c. The court deems it proper to relieve the party
must be reduced in writing and signed by both the therefrom
defendant and his counsel before the admission can be
received in evidence (Rule 118, Sec. 2) Rules on Pleadings not filed:
1. If signed by the party, the admission contained in
Remedy of a party who gave a judicial admission: the pleading is considered as an extra-judicial
1. In case of a written judicial admission: Motion to admission.
withdraw the pleadings, motion or other written 2. If signed by the attorney. It is not admissible. An
instrument containing such admission attorney has authority to make statements on
2. In case of an oral judicial admission: Counsel in open behalf of his client only in open court or in a
court may move for the exclusion of such admission. pleading actually filed.
Remedies on Amended pleadings Is the self-serving rule applicable to judicial

Admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in admissions?
evidence against the pleader (Sec. 8, Rule 10). Such No. The self-serving rule which prohibits the admission or
admissions are considered as extrajudicial admissions. declaration of a witness in his favor applies only to extra-
The original pleading must be proved by the party who judicial admissions. If the declaration is made in open court,
relies thereon by formally offering it in evidence (Torres such as raw evidence and said and is not self-serving. It is
vs. CA, L-37420-21, July 31, 1984) admissible because the witness may be cross-examined on
that matter. However, whether it will be credible or not, is a
 Judicial admissions are always conclusive upon the matter of appreciation on the part of the court.
admitter and do not require formal offer as evidence,
unlike the case of extra-judicial admissions. Are judicial admissions made by the accused during his
 Facts alleged in a party’s pleadings are deemed arraignment binding upon him?
admissions of that party and are binding upon him, No. A plea of guilty entered by the accused may be later
but this is not an absolute and inflexible rule. An withdrawn at any time before the judgment of conviction
becomes final. Such plea is not admissible in evidence

14
against the accused and is not even considered as an bject Evidence is that which is addressed to the senses of
extrajudicial admission. the court. It is not limited to view of an object. It extends to
visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory.
Are admissions made during a pre-trial in a civil case
considered as judicial admissions? Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of
Yes. Admissions made in the pre-trial are deemed judicial truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy
admissions because they are made in the course of the evidence—where the physical evidence should prevail
proceedings of the case. (Riano, Evidence: A Restatement (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177,
for the Bar, p. 104, 2009 ed.) February 11, 2008).
Admissions in Civil Admissions in Object evidence is also known as:

Cases Criminal Cases 1. Real evidence
Admissions in a pleading Admissions during 2. Demonstrative evidence
which had been arraignment may be 3. Autoptic preference; and
withdrawn or withdrawn at any time 4. Physical evidence.
superseded by an before the judgement
amended pleading are of conviction becomes Real evidence may be:
considered extra-judicial final, but such plea of 1. Direct – can prove directly the fact for which it is
admission. guilty later withdrawn offered
id not admissible in E.g. in a personal injury case, the direct real
evidence against the evidence of disfiguring injury would be an
accused who made the exhibition to the court of the injury itself.
plea. 2. Circumstantial- facts about the object are proved
as the basis for an interference that other facts are
It is not even true.
considered an extra- e.g. in a paternity case, a baby may be shown and
judicial admission. asked to compare its appearance with that of the
alleged father, if they look alike, the court may then
draw an inference that the parental relationship
What are the consequences of judicial admissions? exists.
1. A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge
that fact as judicial admissions constitute waiver of proof; Requisites of Admissibility:
production of evidence is dispensed with; 1. The object must be relevant to the fact in issue;
2. No evidence is needed to prove a judicial admission and 2. The object must be authenticated before it is
it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been admitted;
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission 3. The object must not be hearsay;
was made. 4. The object must not be privileged;
5. It must meet any additional requirement set by
Judicial admissions may be contradicted only when it is law. (e.g. it must not be the result of an illegal
shown that: search and seizure)
1. It was made through palpable mistake
2. The imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (NEW Authentication – to be admissible in evidence, the object
RULE) sought to be offered must be shown to have been the very
same thing in issue and is what it is claimed to be.
Even though the object evidence may contain false

RULE 130: RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY information such as falsified books kept by the defendant, it
is authentic in so far as it is introduced by the prosecution
Section 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as evidence are for the purpose of showing falsity.
those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object
is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, Purpose of authentication:
examined or viewed by the court. 1. To prevent the introduction of an object different
from the one testified about;

15
2. To ensure that there has been no significant condition sine qua non for conviction. In order to establish
changes in the object’s condition. the existence of the drug, its chain of custody must be
sufficiently established. The chain of custody requirement
Object evidence includes: is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of
1. Any article or object which may be known or the evidence are removed through the monitoring and
perceived by the use of the senses; tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the
2. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of any accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to
substance taken therefrom; the court (People vs. Martinez, et al. G. R. No. 191366,
3. Conduct of tests, demonstrations or experiments; December 13, 2010)
and
4. Examination of representative portrayals of the Q: When is there a need to establish a chain of custody?
object in question (e.g. maps, diagrams) A: It is necessary when the object evidence is non-unique as
it is not readily identifiable, was not made identifiable or
Categories of Object Evidence cannot be made identifiable, e.g. drops of blood or oil, drugs
For purposes of authentication of an object, object evidence in powder form, fiber, grains of sand and similar objects.
may be classified into: (Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 149, 2009
1. Unique objects - Objects that have readily ed.)
identifiable marks, e.g. a caliber 38 revolver with a
serial number. Q: What is the purpose of establishing a chain of custody?
2. Objects made unique – are objects that are made A: To guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence and to
readily identifiable, e.g. a typical kitchen knife prevent the introduction of evidence which is not authentic
which the witness can readily identify in court if he but where the exhibit is positively identified the chain of
claims that he made the thing acquire a unique custody of physical evidence is irrelevant. (Ibid.)
characteristic by placing identifying marks
thereon; Photographs
3. Non-unique objects - these are objects with no Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be
identifying marks and cannot be marked, e.g. drops identified by the photographer as to its production and
of blood or drugs in powder form testified as to the circumstances under which they were
produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being
Under the third category, the opponent of the a correct representation or reproduction of the original, and
evidence must establish a claim of custody. The its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying
links to the chain are the people who actually the scene at the time of the crime.
handled or had custody of the object. Each of them
must show how he received the object, how he The photographer, however, is not the only witness who
handled it to prevent substitution and how it was can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of
transferred to another. the photograph as a faithful representation of the object
portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the
Chain of custody in Drug-related Cases testimony of the person who made it or by other competent
witnesses who can testify to its exactness and accuracy,
Chain of Custody- means the duly recorded authorized after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled as to its accuracy. (Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83,
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or Nov. 16, 1995).
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/ confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to Demonstrative Evidence
safekeeping to presentation in court to destruction. Such Real evidence Demonstrative Evidence
record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held Tangible object that Tangible evidence that
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time played some actual role in merely illustrates a matter
when such transfer of safekeeping and used in court as the matter that gave rise to of importance in the
evidence, and final disposition (Section 1, DDB Regulation the litigation litigation
No. 1, Series of 2002).
The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the

crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a

16
Intends to prove that the Intends to show that the Section 1. Object as evidence
object is used in the demonstrative object fairly
underlying event represents or illustrates A. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
what it is alleged to be
illustrated Section 2. Documentary Evidence
Ocular inspection or “View” Documents as evidence consists of writings,

The court can go to the place where the object is located, recordings, photographs or any material
when the object evidence cannot be brought to court containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures,
because it is immovable or inconvenient to remove symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of
(Herrera, Remedial Law. Book VI, 1999 ed., p144-145). written expression offered as proof of their contents.
Photographs include still pictures, drawings,
stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
View is part of Trial – The inspection or view outside the videos.
courtroom is a part of the trial. Inasmuch as evidence is
thereby being received, such inspection should be made in DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE consists of WR-PAO
the presence of the parties or at least with previous notice 1. Writings
to them of the time and place set for the view. 2. Recordings
3. Photographs
Real evidence – Tangible object that played some actual role 4. Any material containing letters, words, sounds etc.
in the matter that gave rise to the litigation. 5. Other modes of written expression
Demonstrative Evidence - Tangible evidence that merely
illustrates a matter of importance in the litigation. Note: Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
audio, photographic and video evidence are under
Limitations against the use of real evidence may be Rule 11, separate from the definition of an
classified into: electronic document, under Rule 3 thereof. With
1. Inherent Limitations the amendment, it is clear that the photographic,
When the object is irrelevant to the fact in issue, it video and audio evidence are not electronic
may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the documents but rather, simply documentary
court. Thus, it excludes the following: evidence.
a. Irrelevant evidence;
b. Illegally obtained evidence. Purpose: To prove the contents of the writing. If offered
for some other purpose, the writings or materials would not
2. Non-Inherent Limitations be deemed documentary evidence but merely object
Relevant evidence may be excluded on the ground evidence.
that although relevant and authentic, its probative
value is exceeded by its prejudicial effect such as Illustration:
the following: A photocopy of the marked bills used in a buy-bust
a. Indecency and impropriety - Its exhibition is operation is considered object evidence if it was
contrary to public morals or decency; presented to prove that money actually exchanged
b. Undue prejudice; hands in the buy-bust operation. However, if the
c. Offensiveness to sensibilities; purpose of such a presentation is to prove writings
d. Inconvenience and unnecessary expenses - To or contents on the bills then it is to be considered
require its being viewed in court or in ocular as documentary evidence, subject to the best
inspection would result in delays, evidence rule.
inconvenience, or unnecessary expenses
which are out of proportion to the evidentiary Procedure on how to present documentary evidence
value of such object; before the court: (AIMO)
1. It should be Authenticated and proved in the
Note: But when the exhibition is necessary to the ends of manner provided in the rules of court;
justice, notions of decency and delicacy of feeling will not be 2. It should be Identified and Marked; and
allowed to prevail (Herrera, Remedial Law. Book VI, 1999 3. It should be formally Offered to the court and
ed., p. 157). shown to the opposing party so that the latter may
have the opportunity to object thereto

17
(Ramcar, Inc. v. Hi-Power Marketing, G.R. No. time and the fact sought to be established
157075, July 17, 2006) from them is only the general result of the
whole;
Requisites for Admissibility: (RAWO)
a. The document must be Relevant d. When the original is a public record in the
b. The evidence must be Authenticated custody of a public officer or is recorded in
c. The document must be authenticated by a a public office; and
Competent witness; and
d. The document must be formally Offered in e. When the original is not closely-related
evidence. to a controlling issue
(RIANO, p. 183)
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE:
Bar 2005 Question: May a private document be offered It states that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence document, writing, recording photograph or other record,
and as object evidence? no evidence (such as a reproduction, photocopy or oral
evidence) is admissible other than the original document
Suggested Answer: A private document may be offered itself. (Revised Rules on Evidence, RULE 130, Sec. 3).
and admitted as documentary evidence and as object
evidence depending on the purpose for which the document “Best Evidence” Rule a Misnomer: The term was changed
was offered. If offered to prove its existence, condition or as it has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value
for any purpose other than the contents of a document, the in relation to other types of evidentiary rules. It is not
same is considered as object evidence. When the private intended to mean the ―most superior evidence. More
document is offered as proof of its contents, the same is accurately, it is the ―original document rule or the
considered as a documentary evidence (Sec. 2, Rule 130, ―primary evidence rule. (RIANO, supra at 133)
Rules of Court). The document may be offered for both
purposes under the principle of multiple admissibility Purpose/s: To prevent and to detect fraud; To exclude
uncertainties in the contents of a document.
1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT (or BEST EVIDENCE) General Rule: The original writing must be produced and
RULE provided (RIGUERA, supra at 354)
Section 3. Original Document must be produced; Exceptions: (LC-N²P)

exceptions 1. When the original is Lost or destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, without bad faith on the part
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a of the offeror;
document, writing, recording, photograph or 2. When the original is in the Custody or under the
other record, no evidence is admissible other than control of the party against whom the evidence is
the original document itself, except in the following offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
cases: reasonable notice, or the original cannot be
obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;
a. When the original is lost or destroyed, or 3. When the original consists of Numerous accounts
cannot be produced in court, without bad or other documents which cannot be examined in
faith on the part of the offeror; court without great loss of time and the fact sought
to be established from them is only the general
b. When the original is in the custody or under result of the whole;
the control of the party against whom the 4. When the original is a Public record in the custody
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to of a public officer or is recorded in a public office;
produce it after reasonable notice, or the and
original cannot be obtained by local 5. When the original is Not closely-related to a
judicial processes or procedures; controlling issue
(Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 130, Sec. 3)
c. When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot Note: Non-production of an original document
be examined in court without great loss of unless falling within the exceptions under Sec. 3 of

18
Rule 130, will give rise to the presumption of relevant) in certain situations, such as lack of objection or
suppression of evidence adverse to the party who admitted by the court. (Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 130,
withholds it. (Villarta v. CA, G.R. No. 36543, July 27, Sec. 3 (e))
1988)
Best Evidence Rule in Criminal Cases:
Applicability: The Best Evidence Rule applies only when
the terms of a written document are the subject of the 1. Falsification of Document - it is indispensable
inquiry. In an action for quieting of title based on the that the judge have before him the document
inexistence of a deed of sale with right to repurchase that alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited, or
purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a property, therefore, falsified, in order that he may find, pursuant to the
the Best Evidence Rule does not apply, and the defendant is evidence produced at trial, whether or not the
not precluded from presenting evidence other than the crime of falsification is actually committed. (U.S. v.
original document. (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez, Gregorio, G.R. No. 5791, December 17, 1910)
G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013) There is no reason to 2. Libel Based on Defamatory Article - the
apply the best evidence rule when the issue does not newspaper containing said article is the best
involve the contents of a writing. evidence (Fiscal v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-35366, August
5, 1931)
Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document
was actually executed, or exists, or in the circumstances Question: When a photocopy of a certain document is
relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence presented, is it automatically excluded because of the Best
rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. evidence Rule?
In this case, the marked money was presented by the
prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its Answer: NO. If the presentation of the photocopied
existence and not its contents. Therefore, other substitute document is only for the purpose of proving the existence,
evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is admissible without execution, or the delivery of the said photocopied document
the need of accounting for the original. (Flores Y De Leon v. without any reference as to its terms, such evidence may
People, G.R. No. 222861, April 23, 2018) still be admissible.
Requisites: (DC) Under the best evidence rule, the original document must
(a) The subject matter must involve a Document; and be produced whenever its contents are the subject of
(b) The subject of the inquiry is the Contents of the inquiry. A photocopy, being mere secondary evidence, is not
document admissible unless it is shown that the original is
unavailable. Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary
Waiver of the Rule: Mere photocopies of documents are evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror
inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. must prove the following:
Nevertheless, evidence not objected to is deemed admitted 1. The existence or due execution of the original.
and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its
judgment. Courts are not precluded to accept in evidence a 2. The loss and destruction of the original or the
mere photocopy of a document when no objection was reason for its non-production in court; and
raised when it was formally offered. (Lorenzana v. Lelina, 3. On the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith
G.R. No. 187850, August 17, 2016) to which the unavailability of the original can be
attributed.
When Document is Merely Collaterally in Issue: A
document is collaterally in issue when the purpose of The correct order of proof is as follows: existence,
introducing the document is not to establish its terms but to execution, loss, and contents
show facts that have no reference to its contents like its
(ECED) Existence, Condition, Execution or Delivery. In this Question: When the original of a document is presented. Is
case, the best evidence rule does not apply. (RIANO, p. 191) it automatically admitted?
When Original Documentary Evidence is not closely- Answer: No. It has to undergo the process of
related to a Controlling Issue in a Case: There is no need authentication, except if the document is a public document.
to produce the original of an irrelevant document, where
such document or evidence was nevertheless admitted in
evidence (note: evidence in order to be admissible must be

19
Section 4. Original of document Before secondary evidence can be presented, all duplicates
and/or counterparts must be accounted for, and no
(a) An “original” of a document is the document excuse for the non-production of the original document
itself or any counterpart intended to have the itself can be regarded as established until all parts are
same effect by a person executing or issuing it. unavailable. (Heirs of Dela Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 117384,
An “original” of a photograph includes the October 21, 1998)
negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored
in a computer or similar device, any printout or Reason: All the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the
other output readable by sight or other means, writing itself to be proved (De Vera v. Aguilar, G.R. No.
shown to reflect the data accurately, is an 83377, February 9, 1993)
“original.”
Document Amended or Altered by the Parties: Where
(b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the the duplicate or a copy is amended or altered by the party
same impression as the original, or from the or parties, it becomes the original. (FRANCISCO, supra at 62)
same matrix, or by means of photography,
including enlargements and miniatures, or by Rule on Duplicate Original
mechanical or electronic re-recording or by A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by
techniques which accurately reproduce the means of photography, including enlargements and
original. miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording or
by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
original unless: (1) a genuine question is raised (Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 130, Sec. 4 (b))
as the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the
circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to However, in the instant case, contrary to petitioner’s
admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. contention, the receipt presented by SMP is deemed as an
original, considering that the triplicate copy of the
ORIGINAL Document is the document itself or any provisional receipt was executed at the same time as the
counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person other copies of the same receipt involving the same
executing or issuing it. transaction. (BPI v. SMP, Inc., G.R. No. 175466, December 23,
2009)
Original Photograph includes the negative or any print
therefrom. The transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) clearly show
that Chiu convincingly explained that CSFL usually
If the data is stored in a computer or similar device, “any prepared two (2) copies of invoices for a particular
printout or other output readable by sight or other transaction, giving one copy to a client and retaining the
means, shown to reflect the data accurately” is an other copy. The Court combed through her testimony and
original. found nothing that would indicate that the documents
offered were mere photocopies. She remained firm and
Note: However, while the definition adopted the consistent with her statement that the subject invoices
phrasing of an original of an electronic document, were duplicate originals as they were prepared at the same
it appears that the definition of a document under time. The Court sees no reason why Section 4(b), Rule 130
the Revised Rules does not contemplate an of the Rules of Court should not apply (Capital Shoes v.
electronic document. This is because under Section Traveler Kids, G.R. No. 200065, September 24, 2014)
1(h) of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the
electronic document refers to those that are Note: Under the amendment, the phrase “duplicate
“received, recorded, transmitted, stored is a counterpart produced by the same impression
processed, retrieved or produced electronically”. as the original,” may still encompass the
The Revised Rule only states that if the document definition under the original paragraph (b)
or data is stored in a computer or other similar
device, any printout or other output readable by Illustration:
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data 1. A duplicate produced by photography, such as for
accurately, is considered as its original. instance, a screen shot, is still considered the

20
original, given that by definition, a photograph is without bad faith on his or her part, may prove its contents:
documentary evidence. (CoRT)
2. An enlargement of an x-ray film, for instance, is 1. By a Copy
considered the duplicate thereof, and hence, the 2. By a Recital of its contents in some authentic
original. document
3. An electronic re-recording can pertain to a re- 3. By the Testimony of witnesses
recorded audio or video, such as CCTV footage.
Note: The order must be followed.
Note: However, consistent with the ruling in
National Power Corporation v. Codilla, Jr., G.R. No. Predicates of Secondary Evidence
170491, April 3, 2007, a reproduction of a paper The offeror of the secondary evidence is burdened to prove
based document with the use of a photocopy satisfactorily the predicates thereof, namely: (BOLD)
machine, would not make the copy produced 1. Unavailability of the original is not due to Bad faith
thereby an original document. It is still secondary on the part of the proponent or offeror
to the original paper based that was photocopied, 2. Execution or existence of the Original
similar to MCC Industial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong 3. Loss and destruction of the original or its non-
Corp., G.R. No. 170633, October 17, 2007, where it production in court; and
was held that the facsimile copy is not an original 4. Proof of the Due execution of the document and its
but secondary evidence, there being a paper based subsequent loss would constitute the basis for the
original thereof. introduction of secondary evidence
(Dantis v. Maghinang Jr., G.R. No. 191696, April 10,
Duplicates shall not be admissible as original if: (QU) 2013)
(1) A genuine Question is raised as to the authenticity
of the original; or The Original must be duly shown to be unavailable
(2) In the circumstances, it is Unjust or equitable to A photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not
admit the duplicate in lieu of the original admissible unless it is shown that the original is
(Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 130, Sec. 4 (c)) unavailable. In the case at bar, Lagman mentioned during
the direct examination that there are actually four (4)
Deletion of the Old Paragraph (c): It appears that an entry duplicate originals of the 1990 Bond: the first is kept by the
repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied NFA, the second is with the Loan Officer of the NFA in
from another at or near the time of the transaction, is no Tarlac, the third is with Country Bankers and the fourth was
longer considered an original, unless it may be argued to in his possession. Despite knowledge of the existence and
fall under the definition of a counterpart produced by the whereabouts of these duplicate originals, Lagman merely
same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, presented a photocopy. He admitted that he kept a copy of
among others. the 1990 Bond but he could no longer produce it because he
had already severed his ties with Country Bankers.
However, he did not explain why severance of ties is by
2. Secondary Evidence itself reason enough for the non- availability of his copy of
the bond considering that, as it appears from the 1989
Section 5. When original document is unavailable Bonds, Lagman himself is a bondsman. (Country Bankers v.
Lagman, G.R. No. 165487, July 13, 2011)
When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the Rule when more than One Copy exists
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and When more than one original copy exists, it must appear
the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on that all of them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be
his or her part, may prove its contents by a copy, or produced in court before secondary evidence can be given
by recital of its contents in some authentic of any one. A photocopy may not be used without
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the accounting for the other originals. (Citibank v. Teodoro,
order stated. G.R. No. 150905, September 23, 2003)
When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or When opponent does not dispute contents
cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its Production of the original may be dispensed with in the trial
execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability court’s discretion whenever the opponent does not bona
fide dispute the contents of the documents and no other

21
useful purpose will be served by requiring production. this may be shown by a bona fide and diligent
(Gaw v. Chua, G.R. No. 160855, April 16, 2006) search, fruitlessly made, for it in places where it is
likely to be found. (Paylago v. Jarabe, G.R. No. L-
Order of Proof 20046, March 27, 1968)
The correct order of proof is as follows: (EELC)
1. Existence Note: Proof of loss of the original
2. Execution document may be dispensed with where
3. Loss, and both the parties admit that an instrument
4. Contents has been lost. The contents of an
instrument may be proved against a party
Note: The order may, however, be changed if by his admission in writing without
necessary at the discretion of the court. The accounting for non-production of the
sufficiency of the proof offered as a predicate for original document. (Tria v. Ortiz, G.R. No.
the admission of an allegedly lost document lies 5244, December 2, 1909)
within the judicial discretion of the trial court
under all the circumstances of the particular case. C. The contents of a document may be proven by any
In fine, the Mateos have not satisfactorily shown person who: (SRH-PC)
that the original of the TCT has been lost or is no (1) Signed the document
longer available. (Republic v. Spouses Mateo, G.R. (2) Read it
No. 148025, August 13, 2004) (3) Who Heard it being read, knowing or it
being proved from other sources that the
A. The execution and authenticity of the document document so read was the one in question
must be proved by any person/s: (E-CASA) (4) Was Present when the contents of the
(1) Who Executed the document; document were talked over between the
(2) To whom the parties to the instrument had parties thereto to such extent as to give
previously Confessed the execution him reasonably full information as to its
thereof; contents;
(3) Before whom its execution was (5) To whom the parties to the instrument
Acknowledged; have Confessed or stated the contents
(4) Who was present and Saw it executed and thereof
delivered (E. Michael & Co. Inc, v. Enriquez, G.R., No. L-10824,
(5) Who After its execution and delivery, saw December 24, 1915)
it and recognized the signatures
(E. Michael & Co. Inc, v. Enriquez, G.R., No. L-10824, Note: Secondary evidence of the contents
December 24, 1915) of a writing cannot be introduced where it
appears that the writing of produced
B. The loss or destruction of a document may be proven would not be admissible even if its
by: (KEI) absence is satisfactorily explained. If the
(1) Any person who Knew the fact of loss fact to which the writing relates can be
(2) Anyone who has made a sufficient proved independently of the writing, it
Examination in the place/s where the may be proved by parol evidence even
document or papers of similar character though the writing if produced could not
are usually kept by the persons in whose be received as evidence of the fact.
custody the document lost was and has (FRANCISCO, supra at 78)
been unable to find it.
(3) Anyone who has made Investigation Section 6. When original document is in adverse party’s
which is sufficient to satisfy the court that custody or control
the instrument is indeed lost.
(E. Michael & Co. Inc, v. Enriquez, G.R., No. L-10824, If the document is in the custody or under the control
December 24, 1915) of the adverse party, he or she must have a
reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice
It is not necessary to prove the loss of the original and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she
document beyond all possibility of mistake. A fails to produce the document, secondary evidence
reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient and may be presented as in the case of its loss.

22
regarded as a judicial admission in advance of the
Requisites: (PNP-F) correctness of the first party’s evidence. (5 HERRERA, supra
1. Opponent’s Possession of the original at 200)
2. Reasonable Notice to opponent to produce the
original Paragraph (b) was amended to reflect the rule that the
3. Satisfactory Proof of its existence; and notice notice may be in the form of a motion for the
4. Failure or refusal of opponent to produce the production of the original or made in open court in the
original in court presence of the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum,
provided that the party in custody of the original has
Admission of Secondary Evidence sufficient time to produce the same. When such party has
The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to
custody or control of the party against whom it is offered produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may
does not warrant the admission of secondary evidence. The be admitted. (Bayani Magdayao v. People, G.R. No. 152881,
offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to August 17, 2004)
secure the best evidence by giving notice to the said party
to produce the document. When such party has the original Section 7. Summaries
of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or
refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted. When the documents, records, photographs, or
(Magdayao v. People, G.R. No. 152881, August 17, 2004) numerous accounts are voluminous and cannot
be examined in court without great loss of time,
Possession of the Original by Adverse Party and the fact sought to be established is only the
Regarding the first element, it is not necessary for a party general result of the whole, the contents of such
seeking to introduce secondary evidence to show that the evidence may be presented in the form of a chart,
original is in the actual possession of his adversary. It is summary, or calculations
enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that
the writing is in his possession or under his control. Neither The originals shall be available for examination
is it required that the party entitled to the custody of the or copying, or both, by the adverse party at a
instrument should on being notified to produce it admit reasonable time and place. The court may order
having it in his possession. (Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Ferrer, that be produced in court.
G.R. No. L-23893, October 29, 1968)
Note: It should be read together with Rule 130, Sec. 3 (c).
Notice The new Section 7 provides the manner by which the
The notice may be in the form of a motion for the production original consisting of voluminous accounts may be
of the original or made in open court in the presence of the presented, i.e., in the form of a chart, summary or
adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that calculation.
the party in custody of the original has sufficient time to
produce the same. When such party has the original of the Originals shall be available for Examination or Copying,
writing, and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or or Both
refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted. While the summary may be produced, still the originals of
(Edsa Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc., v. BF the voluminous accounts shall be available for examination
Corporation, G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008) or copying, or both, by the adverse party at a reasonable
time and place. The court may also order that the
Even in criminal cases, there must still be a request for voluminous accounts be produced in court.
production of a document even if it is in the possession of
the accused and if he refuses to produce it invoking his
constitutional right against self-incrimination, then the Section 8. Evidence admissible when original document
secondary evidence may be introduced. (People B. Tan is a public record
Bomping, G.R. No. L-24187, March 15, 1926)
When the original of a document is in the custody of
Failure to Produce Original a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
If there is failure to produce the original despite reasonable contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by
notice, the adverse party is afterwards forbidden to the public officer in custody thereof.
produce the document in order to contradict the other
party’s copy or evidence of its contents or it may also be

23
When the original of a document is in the custody of a public affiant, but by another one who uses his or her own
officer or is recorded in a public office, its content may be language in writing the affiant’s statements, parts of which
proved by Secondary Evidence which may consist of: may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one
1. Certified true copy issued by the public officer in writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of
custody thereof; or the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. For this
2. Official publication reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay,
(5 HERRERA, supra at 203) unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness
stand to testify thereon. (Republic v. Marcos Manotoc, G.R.
While evidence is admissible when the original of a No. 171701, February 8, 2012)
document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office, there is a need to present a certified copy Irremovability of Public Record
of it issued by the public officer having custody of the Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in
document to prove its contents. (Republic v. Development evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is
Resources, G.R. 180218, December 18, 2009) kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection of
the record is essential to the just determination of a pending
Certified Xerox Copies admissible case (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 26)
The certified xerox copies of the marriage contracts, issued
by a public officer in custody thereof, are admissible as the Section 9. Party who calls for document not bound to
best evidence of their contents, as provided for under offer it
Section 7 of Rule 130. The certified xerox copies should be
accorded the full faith and credence given to public A party who calls for the production of a document
documents. (Bunagan-Bansig v. Celera, A.C. No. 5581, and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as
January 14, 2014) evidence.
Rule on Public Documents Note: No obligation to offer what he asks to be produced
While the L.C. Map may be considered a public document 3. Parol Evidence Rule
and prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, the
map, to be admissible for any purpose, must be evidenced Section 10. Evidence of written agreements
by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by
the officer having legal custody of the records. The rules of When the terms of an agreement have been reduced
admissibility must be applied uniformly. The same rule to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
holds true when the Government is one of the parties. agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties
(SAAD-Agro Industries v. Republic, G.R. 152570, September and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
27, 2006) terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.
No Particular Form for Certification
The Rules does not require that the certification should be However, a party may present evidence to modify,
in a particular form. The four-page Resolution dated explain or add to the terms of the written agreement
December 8, 1997 contains a stamped certification signed if he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading:
by Police Inspector David U. Ursua of the Legal Service, PNP
Regional Office I of Parian, San Fernando, La Union. The (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
three-page Decision dated February 28, 1997 has the imperfection in the written agreement
handwritten authentication of Police Inspector Mario L. (b) The failure of the written agreement to
Aduan, also from the same office, on each and every page. express the true intent and agreement of
They ought to satisfy the requirement of the Rules on the parties thereto;
certification. (Cabugao y Sison v. People, G.R. 158033, July (c) The validity of the written agreement
30, 2004) (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by
the parties or their successors in interest
Affidavits after the execution of the agreement.
While affidavits may be considered as public documents if
they are acknowledged before a notary public, these The term “agreement” includes wills.
affidavits are still classified as hearsay evidence. The reason
for this rule is that they are not generally prepared by the

24
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE Presupposes that the Contemplates a
The Parol Evidence Rule forbids any addition to or original is available in situation where the
contradiction of the terms of a written agreement by court original os not available
testimony or other evidence purporting to show that in court and/or there is
different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying a dispute as to whether
the purport of the written contract. Whatever is not found
said writing is the
in the writing is understood to have been waived and original
abandoned. (Edrada v. Ramos, G.R. No. 154413, August 31,
2005) As to Purposes
What is Parol Evidence?

Parol evidence is any evidence aliunde, whether oral or To modify, explain or To prove the written
written, which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a alter the terms of the contents of a written
complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a written contract. document.
document
As to Persons who may invoke the Rule
General Rule: When the terms of an agreement have been
reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties Can be invoked only Can be invoked by any
and successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other when the controversy is party to an action
than the contents of the written agreement. (Revised Rules between the parties to regardless of whether
on Evidence, Rule 130, Sec. 10) the written agreement, such party participated
their privies, or any or not in the writing
Exceptions: A party may present evidence to modify, party directly affected involved
explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he thereby.
puts in issue in his pleading: (RIGUERA, supra at 520-
521)
1. The validity of the written agreement;
2. The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent of the parties thereto Purpose of the Rule
3. Subsequent agreements existence of other terms When an agreement has been reduced into writing, they are
agreed to by the parties or their successors in presumed to have intended the writing as the ONLY
interest after the execution of the written EVIDENCE of their agreement, and, therefore, they are
agreement. supposed to have embodied all the terms of such
4. Ambiguity (Intrinsic), imperfection or mistake in agreement. Consequently, all prior or contemporaneous
the written agreement collateral stipulations which the parties might have had and
The term “agreement” includes wills. which do not appear in writing, are presumed to have been
(Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 130, Sec. 10) waived or abandoned by them, and therefore, not provable.
PAROL EVIDENCE BEST EVIDENCE RULE Under this Rule, the terms of a contract are rendered
RULE conclusive upon the parties and evidence aliunde is not
admissible to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable
As to Applicability agreement embodied in a document. (Rosario Textile v.
Home Bankers, G.R. No. 137232, June 29, 2005)
With the exception of Applies to all kinds of Documents Referred to in the Written Agreement
wills, applies only to writings What is forbidden under the parol evidence rule is the
written agreement presentation of oral or extrinsic evidence, not those
expressly referred to in the written agreement. "Documents
As to Availability of Original Document can be read together when one refers to the other." By the
express terms of the deed of assignment, it is clear that the
deed of assignment was meant to be read in conjunction

25
with the LSPA. (Eagleridge Development v. Granville which it deals and of the circumstances attending
Asset Management, G.R. 204700, Nov. 24, 2014) its execution.
Requisites for Applicability: (VW-PIT) 2. Ascertain the subject of the oral agreement
(a) There must be a Valid contract; offered to be proved. To this effect, the parol
(b) The terms of the writing must be reduced into evidence may be admitted provisionally.
Writing
(c) The dispute is between Parties and their 3. A comparison should be made between the
successors-in-interest writing and the oral negotiation and from that
(d) Grounds for applicability must be put in Issue in comparison it may be seen whether or not the
the pleadings, and subject of the writing is separate and distinct from
(e) There is dispute as to the Terms of the agreement that of the oral negotiation.
APPLICABILITY: 4. If the subject of the oral negotiation is not so

1. Integrated Agreements closely connected with the subject of the writing as
PER applies only to integrated (finalized) to form part and parcel of it, then parol evidence is
agreements, intended by both parties as the final admissible.
and exclusive written memorial of their agreement
(5 HERRERA, supra at 207) Inapplicability of PER
1. The PER does not apply when the subsequent
2. Collateral Oral Agreement collateral oral agreement refers to separate and
PER may also apply to collateral oral agreements. A distinct subjects
contract made prior to or contemporaneous with 2. PER is not applicable to a mere receipt, unless that
another agreement and if oral and not inconsistent receipt can qualify as a valid and enforceable
with the written contract is admissible within the contract. Hence, as to a receipt being given for the
exception to parol evidence rule payment of rent due on the lease, parol evidence is
admissible to show that the payment was made by
Requirements: a note (PERALTA Jr., Perspectives of Evidence
a. It is not part of the integrated (2005))
written in any way; 3. PER may not be invoked where at least one of the
b. It is not inconsistent with the parties to the suit is not a party or privy of a party
written agreement in any way, to the written document in question, and does not
including both the express and base his claim on the instrument or assert a right
implied provisions of the written origination in the instrument (Marquez v. Espejo,
agreement; and G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010)
c. It is not closely connected with 4. Parol evidence cannot be used to ratify or
the principal transaction as to supplement a void contract
form part and parcel thereof (5
HERRERA, supra at 217) Parties must NOT be Strangers to the Written
Agreement
Reason: The parties to a contract cannot However, even the application of the Parol Evidence Rule is
be presumed to have embodies in a single improper in the case at bar. In the first place, respondents
writing all the agreements which they had are not parties to the VLTs executed between RBBI and
on different subjects. petitioners; they are strangers to the written contracts. Rule
130, Section 9 specifically provides that parol evidence rule
How do you determine whether or not the subject of an is exclusive only as between the parties and their
oral agreement is separate and distinct from the successors‐in‐interest. The parol evidence rule may not be
subject of the writing? invoked where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a
party or a privy of a party to the written document in
Steps: question, and does not base his claim on the instrument or
1. Determine first what is the whole subject assert a right originating in the instrument. (Marquez v.
intended by the parties to be covered by such Espejo, G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010)
writing. This question may be determined from the
contract itself, in light of the subject-matter with

26
Waiver of PER: A party’s failure to timely object is deemed
a waiver, and parol evidence may then be entertained Note: When a mutual mistake of the
(Paras v. Kimwa Construction and Dev’t Corp, G.R. No. parties causes the failure of the instrument
171601, April 8, 2015) to disclose their real agreement, said
instrument may be reformed. (CIVIL CODE,
Moreover, petitioners also failed to make a timely objection Art. 1361)
against respondent’s assertion of their prior agreement on
the construction of the buildings. Where a party entitled to Elements of Mistake: (M²C)
the benefit of the parol evidence rule allows such evidence a. It should be a Mistake of fact and not a
to be received without objection, he cannot, after the trial mistake of law;
has closed and the case has been decided against him, b. It should be Mutual or common to both
invoke the rule in order to secure a reversal of the parties to the instrument; and
judgment. Hence, by failing to object to respondent’s c. It should be alleged and proved by clear
testimony in the trial court, petitioners waived the and Convincing evidence
protection of the parol evidence rule. (Spouses Amoncio v. (Maagad v. Maagad, G.R. No. 171762, June
Benedicto, G.R. No. 171707, July 28, 2008) 5, 2009)
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: IMPERFECTION
1. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in Imperfection

the written agreement Any accurate statement in the agreement or
incompleteness in the writing, or the presence of
INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY inconsistent provisions therein (FRANCISO, supra
at 520)
Extrinsic v. Intrinsic Ambiguity
Where a writing although embodying an
agreement is manifestly incomplete, and is not
EXTRINSIC INTRINSIC
intended by the parties to exhibit the whole
agreement, but only to define some of its terms, the
Refers to a situation where a An ambiguity wherein a writing is conclusive as far as it goes. But such parts
word or phrase has no word or phrase is of the actual contract as are not embraced within
definite meaning at all or is susceptible of two or more its scope may be established by parol evidence (5
not susceptible of any definite meanings HERRERA, supra at 235)
meaning
(RIGUERA, supra at 518-519) 2. Failure of the written agreement to express
true intent
Reason for the Exclusion of Parol Evidence to
Explain Extrinsic Ambiguity This ground can only be invoked when the contract
If the language is literally ambiguous or obscure in its terms and
If the language be too doubtful for any settled that the contractual intention of the parties cannot
construction by the admission of parol evidence be understood from the mere reading of the
you create and do not merely construe the contract. instrument.
You attempt to do that for the party which he has
not chosen to do for himself and the law very The court may order the reformation of the
properly denies such an authority. (Pelsch v. instrument when it does not convey the true
Dickson, Fed. Cas. No. 100, 911, 1 Mason 9) intention of the parties because of the ignorance,
lack of skill or bad faith of the drafter of the
MISTAKE instrument, or the clerk, or the typist. (Azarraga,
Annotation: The Parol Evidence Rule Revisited, 512
Mistake SCRA 700, January 25, 2007)
An error in the drafting or wording of the written
agreement which changes the intended meaning Even if the deed of sale stated that the buyers had
thereof (RIGUERA, supra at 519) paid the consideration, the seller may prove
otherwise. This is an exception to the parol

27
evidence rule, that is, the failure of the written Conditional Agreements
agreement to express the true intent of the parties. Conditions qualifying the operation of a
(Spouses Lequin v. Spouses Vizconde, G.R. No. clear and complete written agreement is
177710, October 12, 2009) not allowed, for they would tend to vary,
alter or contradict terms of written
A Notarized Document is not Incontrovertible agreement.
The fact that the Deed of Assignment and Transfer
of Rights was put in writing and notarized does not Conditions Precedent
accord it the quality of incontrovertibility Conditions which may be established by
otherwise provided by the Parole Evidence Rule. parol evidence because there is no varying
The rule on parole evidence is not, as it were, of the terms of the written contract by
ironclad. Thus, Section 9 (b) Rule 130 of the Rules extrinsic agreement for the reason that
of Court provides that “(b) The failure of the there is no contract in existence; there is
written agreement to express the true intent and nothing to which to apply the excluding
agreement of the parties thereto.” (Spouses rule.
Trinidad v. Imson, G.R. No. 197728, September 16,
2015) Conditions Subsequent
Conditions which may not be established
3. Validity of the written agreement by parol evidence
(5 HERRERA, supra at 240-244)
The rule making a writing the exclusive evidence of
the written agreement stated therein is not Although parol evidence is admissible to explain
applicable when the validity of such agreement is the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the
the fact in dispute purpose of incorporating into the contract
additional contemporaneous conditions which are
The operation of the parol evidence rule requires not mentioned at all in the writing unless there has
the existence of a valid agreement. It is, thus, not been fraud or mistake (Seaoil v. Autocorp, G.R. No.
applicable ina a proceeding where the validity of 164326, October 17, 2008)
such agreement is the fact in dispute, such as when
a contract may be void for lack of consideration. Exceptions must be put in Issue
(Heris of Ureta Sr. v. Heirs of Ureta, G.R. No. For parol evidence to be admissible to vary the terms of the
165748, September 14, 2011) written agreement, the mistake or imperfection thereof or
its failure to express the true agreement of the parties
While the terms and provisions of a void contract should be put in issue by the pleadings. (Pilipinas Bank v.
cannot be enforced since it is deemed inexistent, CA, G.R. No. 141060, September 29, 2000)
the contract is admissible as evidence to prove
matters that occurred in the course of executing Two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be
the contract. (Tan v. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, admitted: first, that the existence of any of the four (4)
February 3, 2016) exceptions has been put in issue in a party’s pleading or has
not been objected to by the adverse party; and second, that
4. Existence of other terms agreement upon by the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form
the parties or their successors in interest after the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting
the execution of the written agreement party. (Spouses Paras v. Kimwa Construction, G.R. No.
(subsequent agreements) 171601, April 8, 2015)
Reason: A written agreement does not preclude PAROL EVIDENCE RULE APPLICABLE TO WILLS
the parties from entering into any subsequent
agreement modifying or altering the first written General Rule: No evidence on the terms of the will and its
agreement. To hold otherwise would in effect say attestation clause is admissible other than the content of the
that a written agreement cannot be amended or will.
modified thereafter.
(RIGUERA, supra at 518) Exception:
Art. 789. When there is an imperfect description, or when
no person or property exactly answers the description;

28
mistakes and omissions must be corrected; if the error
appears from the context of the will or from extrinsic Note: The contract under scrutiny is so explicit and
evidence, excluding the oral declarations of the testator as unambiguous that it does not justify any attempt to read
to his intention; and when an uncertainty arises upon the into it any supposed intention of the parties, as the said
face of the will, as to the application of any of its provisions, contract is to be understood literally, just as they appear on
the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words its face. (De Mesa v. CA, G.R. No. 106467-68, October 19,
of the will, taking into consideration the circumstances 1999)
under which it was made, excluding such oral declarations.
Section 14. Interpretation according to circumstances
A photostatic copy of a lost or destroyed will is admissible
because comparison can be made with the standard writing For the proper construction of an instrument, the
of the testator (Bonilla v. Aranza, G.R. No. L-58509, circumstances under which it was made, including
December 7, 1982) the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties
to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed
4. Interpretation of Documents in the position of those whose language he or she is
to interpret.
Section 11. Interpretation of a writing according to its Section 15. Peculiar signification of terms
legal meaning
The terms of a writing are presumed to have been
The language of a writing is to be interpreted used in their primary and general acceptation, but
according to the legal meaning it bears in the place evidence is admissible to show that they have a local,
of its execution, unless the parties intended technical or otherwise peculiar signification, and
otherwise. were so used and understood in the particular
instance, in which case the agreement must be
Section 12. Instrument construed so as to give effect to construed accordingly.
all provisions
Section 16. Written words control printed
In the construction of an instrument, where there
are several provisions or particulars, such a When an instrument consists partly of written words
construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give and partly of a printed form, and the two are
effect to all. inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
Time‐honored is the rule that "In the construction of an Section 17. Experts and interpreters to be used in
instrument where there are several provisions or explaining certain writings
particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted
as will give effect to all." Article 1374 of the New Civil Code, When the characters in which an instrument is
on the other hand, requires that "The various stipulations of written are difficult to be deciphered, or the
a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the language is not understood by the court, the
doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the
taken jointly." Consequently, petitioners' interpretation characters, or who understand the language, is
solely based on the first clause, and which completely admissible to declare the characters or the meaning
ignored the second clause under scrutiny, cannot be upheld. of the language.
(Home Development v. CA, G.R. No. 118971, April 3, 1998)
Section 18. Of two constructions, which preferred
Section 13. Interpretation according to intention;
general and particular provisions When the terms of an agreement have been intended
in a different sense by the different parties to it, that
In the construction of an instrument, the intention of sense is to prevail against either party in which he or
the parties is to be pursued; she is supposed the other understood it.
When a general and a particular provision are When different constructions of a provision are
inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is
So a particular intent will control a general one that the most favorable to the party in whose favor the
is inconsistent with it. provision was made.

29
Consists of the statement of a witness offered to the court.
Note: The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations It may be oral or by judicial affidavit (RIGUERA, Primer-
in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the Reviewer on Remedial Law Vol. 2 (2019), p. 481 [hereinafter,
obscurity. (CIVIL CODE, Art. 1377) RIGUERA]).
Contra Proferentem Rule Based on jurisprudence, testimonial evidence has the least
weight, if incredible.
The doctrine provides that in the interpretation of
documents, ambiguities are to be construed against the Reason: Man’s memory is being relied upon. Moreover,
drafter. By its very nature, the precept assumes the both parties and their witnesses will recall only those
existence of an ambiguity in the contract, which is why favorable to them and deliberately forget those which are
contra proferentem is also called the ambiguity doctrine. In adverse to them (People v. Pasco, G.R. No. L-68520, January
this case, the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage clearly 22, 1990).
establishes that the improvements found on the real
properties listed therein are included as subject-matter of SECTION 21. Witnesses; their qualifications.—All
the contract. It covers not only the real properties, but the persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known
buildings and improvements thereon as well. (Cahayag v. their perception to others, may be witnesses.
Commercial Credit Corporation, G.R. No. 168078 & 168357,
January 13, 2016) Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the
case, or conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by
In resolving this ambiguity, we refer to a basic principle in law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.
the law of contracts: "Any ambiguity is to be taken contra
proferentem, that is, construed against the party who Qualifications of a Witness
caused the ambiguity which could have avoided it by the Any person who:
exercise of a little more care." 35 Therefore, the ambiguity in a. Can perceive
the mortgage deed whose terms are susceptible of different b. Is perceiving; and
interpretations must be read against the bank that drafted c. Can make known his perception to others (ROC,
it. Consequently, we cannot impute grave error on the part RULE 130, Sec. 21).
of the courts a quo for not appreciating a charge of 18%
interest per annum. (Asia Trust Development Bank v. Tuble, Presumption in Favor of Competence of Witness
G.R. No. 183987, July 25, 2012) As a general rule, a person who takes the stand as a witness
is presumed to be qualified to testify. A party who desires
Section 19. Construction in favor of natural right to question the competence of a witness must do so by
making an objection as soon as the facts tending to show
When an instrument is equally susceptible of two incompetency are apparent (RIANO, Evidence: The Bar
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the Lectures Series (2016), p. 181 [hereinafter, RIANO]).
other against it, the former is to be adopted.
Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec.20) to the New
Section 20. Interpretation according to usage Rule (Sec. 21)
Old Rule (Sec. 20) New Rule (Sec. 21)
An instrument may be construed according to usage, Witnesses; their Witnesses; their
in order to determine its true character. qualifications. – Except as qualifications. – All
provided in the next persons who can perceive,
Note: Rules for the interpretation of a contract are provided succeeding section, all and perceiving, can make
by Arts. 1370 to 1379 of the Civil Code. For rules on persons who can perceive, known their perception to
interpretation or construction of wills, see Articles 788 to and perceiving, can make others, may be witnesses.
794 of the same Code. known their perception to
others, may be witnesses. Religious or political
belief, interest in the
QUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES Religious or political belief, outcome of the case, or
interest in the outcome of conviction of a crime,
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE the case, or conviction of a unless otherwise provided
crime, unless otherwise by law, shall not be a

30
provided by law, shall not ground for
be a ground for disqualification. Being in Default Does Not Render Him Incompetent as
disqualification. Witness
A party in default loses his right to present his defense,
Sec. 21. Disqualification by [deleted] control the proceedings, and examine or cross-examine
reason of mental incapacity witnesses. He has no right to expect that his pleadings
or immaturity. – The would be acted upon by the court nor may he object to or
following persons cannot refute evidence or motions filed against him. There is
be witnesses: nothing in the rule, however, which contemplates a
(a) Those whose mental disqualification to be a witness or an opponent in a case.
condition, at the time Default does not make him an incompetent (Cavili v.
of their production for Florendo, G.R. No. 73039, October 9, 1987).
examination, is such
that they are incapable Witness’ Relationship to the Victim Does Not Affect His
of intelligently making or Her Testimony
known their A witness’ relationship to the victim does not automatically
perception to others; affect the veracity of his or her testimony. While this
(b) Children whose mental principle is often applied in criminal cases, the same
maturity is such as to principle may apply in this case, albeit civil in nature. If a
render them incapable witness’ relationship with a party does not ipso facto render
of perceiving the facts him a biased witness in criminal cases where the quantum
respecting which they of evidence required is proof beyond reasonable doubt,
are examined and of there is no reason why the same principle should not apply
relating them in civil cases where the quantum of evidence is only
truthfully. preponderance of evidence (Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 127473, December 8, 2003).
No Authorization Required to be Presented to Testify as When Qualifications and Disqualifications are

Witness Determined
There is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are
witness for a party to present some form of authorization to determined as of the time they are produced for
testify as a witness for the party presenting him or her. All examination in court or at the taking of their depositions
that the Rules require of a witness is that the witness (RIANO, supra at 189).
possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided therein (AFP Retirement and Non-Objection Operates as Waiver
Separation Benefits System v. Republic, G.R. No. 188956, Had the opposing party interposed an objection to this
March 20, 2013). witness on the ground of incompetency, her testimony
could not have been received. His omission to object to her
“Conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by operated as a waiver (Marella v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-4389,
law” November 10, 1908).
The phrase “conviction of a crime unless otherwise
provided by law” takes into account Article 821 of the Civil SECTION 22. Testimony confined to personal
Code which states that “persons convicted of falsification of knowledge.—A witness can testify only to those facts which
a document, perjury or false testimony are disqualified he or she knows or his or her personal knowledge; that is,
from being witnesses to a will.” which are derived from his or her own perception.
Since the witness Francisco Manalo is not convicted of any Witness Must Have Personal Knowledge
of the above-mentioned crimes to disqualify him as a A witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact
witness and this case does not involve the probate of a will, cannot be called upon for that purpose because her
the Supreme Court ruled that the fact that said witness is testimony derives its value not from the credit accorded to
facing several criminal charges when he testified did not in her as a witness presently testifying but from the veracity
any way disqualify him as a witness (People v. Umali, G.R. No. and competency of the extrajudicial source of her
84450, February 4, 1991). information.

31
She did not have personal knowledge of the actual steel 2. That the spouses are legally married (valid until
billets received. Even though she prepared the summary of annulled);
the received steel billets, she based the summary only on 3. Testimony is offered during the existence of marriage;
the receipts prepared by other persons. Her testimony on and
steel billets received was hearsay. It has no probative value 4. The case is not one of the exceptions provided in the
even if not objected to at the trial (Patula v. People, G.R. No. rule (HERRERA, Remedial Law Book V (1999), p. 302
164457, April 11, 2012). [hereinafter HERRERA]).
Note: This rule was formerly Section 36, and was the basis Reason for the rule:
for the hearsay rule. Under the amendment, the hearsay 1. There is identity of interests between husband and
rule is at Section 37. wife;
2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is
Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 36) to the New consequent danger of perjury;
Rule (Sec. 22) 3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and
Old Rule (Sec. 36) New Rule (Sec. 22) confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
Testimony generally Testimony confined to occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic
confined to personal personal knowledge. – A disunion and unhappiness; and
knowledge; hearsay witness can testify only to 4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is
excluded. – A witness can those facts which he or she danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile
testify only to those facts knows or his or her testimony of the other (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No.
which he knows of his personal knowledge; that 143439, October 14, 2005).
personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from
is, which are derived from his or her own perception. Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 22) to the New
his own perception, except Rule (Sec. 23)
as otherwise provided in Old Rule (Sec. 22) New Rule (Sec. 23)
these rules. Disqualification by reason Disqualification by reason
of marriage.—During their of marriage.—During their
marriage, neither the marriage, the husband or
Mysterious Letter Cannot Negate the Resignation of husband nor the wife may the wife cannot testify
President Estrada testify for or against the against the other without
Under any circumstance, the mysterious letter cannot other without the consent the consent of the affected
negate the resignation of the petitioner. It was prepared of the affected spouse, spouse, except in a civil
before the press release of the petitioner clearly as a later except in a civil case by one case by one against the
act. If, however, it was prepared after the press release, still, against the other, or in a other, or in a criminal case
it commands scant legal significance. Petitioner's criminal case for a crime for a crime committed by
resignation from the presidency cannot be the subject of a committed by one against one against the other or
changing caprice nor of a whimsical will especially if the the other or the latter’s the latter’s direct
resignation is the result of his reputation by the people direct descendants or descendants or
(Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001). ascendants. ascendants.
SECTION 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage.—

During their marriage, the husband or the wife cannot Exceptions to the Marital Disqualification Rule
testify against the other without the consent of the affected The rule on disqualification does not apply in the following:
spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in (a) Where the testimony was made outside the marriage;
a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the (b) Where the spouse-party gives his or her consent;
other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. (c) In a civil case by one against the other;
(d) In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
Note: The new rule amended the “for or against the other” the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
into just “against the other.” ascendants (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 23);
(e) Strained Relations Doctrine
Requisites:
1. That the spouse for or against whom the testimony is Strained Relations Doctrine
offered is a party to the case;

32
Where the marital and domestic relations are so crime committed by one against the other or the latter's
strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved direct descendants or ascendants.
nor peace and tranquility of interests disappears and
the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity (b) An attorney or person reasonably believed by the
is non-existent. Likewise, in such a situation, the client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law
security and confidences of private life which the law cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined
aims at protecting will be nothing but ideals which, as to any communication made by the client to him or
through their absence, merely leave a void in the her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of,
unhappy home (People v. Francisco, G.R. No. L-568, July or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an
16, 1947). attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or
other persons assisting the attorney be examined
Act of setting fire to the house of his sister-in-law where without the consent of the client and his or her
his wife stayed is an act inimical to the harmony and employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which
confidences of marital relation which the has been acquired in such capacity, except in the
disqualification seeks to protect following cases:
(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or
The act of private respondent in setting fire to the house of advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained
his sister-in-law Susan Ramirez, knowing fully well that his to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to
wife was there, and in fact with the alleged intent of injuring commit what the client knew or reasonably
the latter, is an act totally alien to the harmony and should have known to be a crime or fraud;
confidences of marital relation which the disqualification (ii) Claimants through same deceased client. As to
primarily seeks to protect. The criminal act complained of a communication relevant to an issue between
had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal parties who claim through the same deceased
relation. It underscored the fact that the marital and client, regardless of whether the claims are by
domestic relations between her and the accused-husband testate or intestate or by inter vivos
have become so strained that there is no more harmony, transaction;
peace or tranquility to be preserved. The Supreme Court (iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a
has held that in such a case, identity is non-existent. In such communication relevant to an issue of breach
a situation, the security and confidences of private life of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by
which the law aims to protect are nothing but ideals which the client to his or her lawyer;
through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy (iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to a
home Thus, there is no longer any reason to apply the communication relevant to an issue
Marital Disqualification Rule (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. concerning an attested document to which the
143439, October 14, 2005). lawyer is an attesting witness; or
(v) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to
Separation De Facto May Show Strained Relationship a matter of common interest between two or
It should be stressed that as shown by the records, prior to more clients if the communication was made
the commission of the offense, the relationship between by any of them to a lawyer retained or
petitioner and his wife was already strained. In fact, they consulted in common, when offered in an
were separated de facto almost six months before the action between any of the clients, unless they
incident. Indeed, the evidence and facts presented reveal have expressly agreed otherwise.
that the preservation of the marriage between petitioner
and Esperanza is no longer an interest the State aims to (c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably
protect (Alvarez v. Ramirez, supra). believed by the patient to be authorized to practice
medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case,
SECTION 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged without the consent of the patient, be examined as to
communications.—The following persons cannot testify as any confidential communication made for the purpose
to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's physical,
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or
cannot be examined without the consent of the other as drug addiction, between the patient and his or her
to any communication received in confidence by one physician or psychotherapist. This privilege also
from the other during the marriage except in a civil case applies to persons, including members of the
by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a patient's family, who have participated in the

33
diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the the other spouse or by absolute divorce (FRANCISCO, supra
direction of the physician or psychotherapist. at 269).
A "psychotherapist" is: What is the rule when the communication was made in
(a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the presence of third persons?
the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional
condition, or General Rule: They are not regarded as confidential and
(b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the are not protected by the privilege (FRANCISCO, supra at
government while similarly engaged. 414).
(d) A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to Exception: If a confidential communication made by one
be so cannot, without the consent of the affected spouse to the other is overheard by a third person, the
person, be examined as to any communication or communication does not cease to be confidential between
confession made to or any advice given by him or her, the spouses, and neither of them can testify without the
in his or her professional character, in the course of consent of the other (FRANCISCO, supra at 414).
discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister
or priest belongs. If the third party comes into possession of the
communication by collusion and voluntary disclosure on
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after his the part of either of the souses, he thereby becomes an agent
or her tenure as to communications made to him or her of such spouse and cannot testify without the consent of the
in official confidence, when the court finds that the other (Id.)
public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
Absolute Freedom of Communication between Spouses
The communication shall remain privileged, even in the The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any
hands of a third person who may have obtained the one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the
information, provided that the original parties to the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of
communication took reasonable precaution to protect marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does
its confidentiality. not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an
individual and the constitutional protection is ever
A. Privileged Communication between Husband and available to him or to her.
Wife (Sec. 24(a))
The law insures absolute freedom of communication
Requisites: between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither
1. There was a valid marital relation; husband nor wife may testify for or against the other
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential without the consent of the affected spouse while the
communication between the spouses given during said marriage subsists. Neither may be examined without the
marriage; and consent of the other as to any communication received in
3. The spouse against whom such evidence is being confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save
offered has not given his or her consent to such for specified exceptions (Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383,
testimony (REGALADO, Remedial Law Compendium February 20, 1996).
Volume II (2008), p. 748 [hereinafter REGALADO]).
B. Privileged Communication between Attorney and
Is a valid marriage essential before invoking this Client (Sec. 24(b))
privilege?
Yes. It is essential that they be legally married. If they live Attorney-Client Privilege
together in illicit cohabitation, they are not entitled to the Requisites:
privilege. It is immaterial whether they believe in good faith 1. There is an attorney or a person reasonably believed by
that they were legally married, if in fact they were not the client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law
(FRANCISCO, Basic Evidence (2017), p. 413 [hereinafter and client relationship or a kind of consultancy
FRANCISCO]). relationship with a prospective client
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
Does death affect the privilege? communication between them made in the course of or
No. The rule rendering one spouse incompetent to testify to with a view to professional employment; and
confidential communications is not affected by the death of

34
3. The client has not given consent to the attorney’s The privilege extends even after termination of the
testimony thereon; or if they attorney’s secretary, relationship (Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105928,
stenographer, or clerk, or other persons assisting the September 20, 1996).
attorney is sought to be examined, that both the client
and the attorney have not given their consent thereto Exception: Statements which have been made by a client to
(REGALADO, supra at 749). his attorneys by way of instructions to be carried out by
them, after the client’s death, and which must then
Exceptions necessarily be disclosed, are privileged only during the
Under the amended rule, the following are the exceptions to client’s life (HERRERA, supra at 340).
the application of the Attorney-Client Privilege:
1. Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or Exception to the Exception: When the client’s will is
advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable attacked. The lawyer may disclose confidential
or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the communications to uphold the will of the testator (Id.).
client knew or reasonably should have known to be a
crime or fraud; Attorney-Client Privilege as Applied to the Identity of
2. Claimants through same deceased client. As to a Client
communication relevant to an issue between parties General Rule: A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and
who claim through the same deceased client, regardless refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client (Regala
of whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105928, September 20, 1996).
inter vivos transaction;
3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a Reasons:
communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty 1. The court has a right to know that the client whose
by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his privileged information is sought to be protected is
or her lawyer; flesh and blood.
4. Document attested by the lawyer. As to a 2. The privilege begins to exist only after the
communication relevant to an issue concerning an attorney-client relationship has been established.
attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting 3. The privilege generally pertains to the subject
witness; or matter of the relationship.
5. Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a 4. Due process considerations require that the
matter of common interest between two or more opposing party should, as a general rule, know his
clients if the communication was made by any of them adversary (Id.)
to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when
offered in an action between any of the clients, unless Exceptions:
they have expressly agreed otherwise (ROC, RULE 130, In the following cases, a lawyer may invoke the privilege
Sec. 24(b)). and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client:
1. Where a strong possibility exists that revealing the
What is the test to determine whether or not the client’s name would implicate the client in the very
communications made by a client are covered by the activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice;
Attorney-Client Privilege? 2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability;
The test to determine if the communications are covered by 3. Where the prosecutors have no case against against the
the privilege is whether the communications are made to an client unless by revealing the client’s name, the said
attorney with a view obtaining from him professional name would furnish the only link that would form the
assistance or advice regardless of whether there is pending chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual
or merely impending litigation or any litigation (HERRERA, for a crime (Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105928,
supra at 327). September 20, 1996).
4. When such communications are for an unlawful
Coverage purpose, having for their object the commission of a
It is not confined to verbal or written communications made crime (FRANCISCO, supra at 420).
by the client to his attorney but extends as well to
information communicated by the client to the attorney by When Overheard by Third Persons
other means (RIGUERA, supra at 419). General Rule: When the communication is made by the
client to the attorney in the presence of third persons, not
Duration of the Privilege agents of either client or attorney, it cannot be regarded as

35
confidential thus not covered by the privilege (FRANCISCO, Privileged Not Violated Where Doctor Testified as
supra at 421). Expert
A physician may give expert opinion testimony in response
C. Privileged Communication between Doctor and to a strictly hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving
Patient (Sec. 24(c)) physical mental condition of a patient whom he has
attended professionally, where his opinion is based strictly
Requisites: upon the hypothetical facts stated, excluding and
1. The privilege is claimed in a civil case; disregarding any personal professional knowledge he may
2. The claim is against the physician, psychotherapist, or have concerning such patient (Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 91114,
person reasonably believed by the patient to be September 25, 1992).
authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy;
3. The information was acquired by such person while
attending to the patient in his professional capacity; D. Privilege Communication between Priest and
4. The information is necessary to enable the person to act Penitent (Sec. 24(d))
in his professional capacity; and
5. The information is confidential (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. Requisites:
24(c)). 1. The confession must have been made to a minister,
priest, or person reasonably believed to be so:
Note: The requirement that the information, if disclosed, a. in his or her professional character
would blacken the reputation of the patient has been b. in the course of discipline enjoined by the
deleted from the new rule. church to which the minister or priest belongs
2. The communications made were penitential in
Who are covered by the privilege? character that is confessions of sins with a view to
1. Physician obtaining pardon and spiritual advice or assistance.
2. Psychotherapist (FRANCISCO, supra at 430).
3. Person believed by the patient to be authorized to
practice medicine or psychotherapy Communications Made In Contemplation of a Crime
4. Persons, including members of the patient’s family, Communications made not in the course of religious
who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment of discipline but in contemplation of a crime are not privileged
the patient under the direction of the physician or (State v. Brown, 95 Iowa 381, 64 N.W. 277).
psychotherapist (Id.).
E. Privileged Communication to Public Officers (Sec.
Who is a psychotherapist? 24(e))
1. A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the
diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional Requisites:
condition, or 1. The holder of the privilege is the government acting
2. A person licensed as a psychologist by the government through a public officer
while similarly engaged (Id.). 2. The communication was given to the public officer in
confidence
What matters are covered? 3. The communication was given during the term of office
For the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s of the public officer or afterwards; and
physical, mental, or emotional condition, including alcohol 4. The public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the
or drug addiction (Id.). communication (HERRERA, supra at 359).
What is the scope of the prohibition? What is meant by public interest?

It applies not only to communication but also to opinions or Public interest means more than a mere curiosity; it means
prescriptions (HERRERA, supra at 353). something which the public, the community at large, has
some pecuniary interest by which their legal rights or
It is only the tenor of the communication by the patient to liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow
the doctor that is privileged. Hence, the fact of as to interest the particular localities which may be affected
communication, the date, and the frequency of consultation by the matters in question (Banco Filipino v. Monetary
with the doctor are excluded (Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 91114, Board, G.R. No. 70054, July 8, 1986).
September 25, 1992).

36
General Rule: People should have access to public of public officers, the power of legislative inquiry, and the
information. judicial power to secure evidence in deciding cases (From
the lectures of Dean Inigo, Atty. Europa, Atty. Espejo, 2018).
Exception: If the public interest requires suppression of the
information, the burden falls upon that public officer to For the claim of executive privilege to be invoked, there
show that it affects public interest. must be a formal claim of the privilege, lodged by the head
The privilege is not waivable because it affects public of the department which has control of the matter, and that
interest (From the lectures of Dean Inigo, Atty. Europa, Atty. a formal and proper claim of the privilege requires a
Espejo, 2018). “precise and certain reason” for preserving confidentiality,
but Congress must not require the executive to state the
There is a privilege against disclosure on certain matters reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel
involving state secrets regarding the following: the disclosure of the information which the privilege is
(a) Military; meant to protect (Neri v. Senate Committee on
(b) Diplomatic; and Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No.
(c) Other national security matters (Chavez v. PCGG, 180643, September 4, 2008).
G.R. No. 130716, Dec. 9, 1998).
Other Privileged Matters
The right to information does not also extend to 1. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any
presidential conversations, correspondences, and proceeding concerning any information, statement, or
discussions in closed-door cabinet meetings (Chavez v. opinion received from the child in the course of serving
Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2000). as a guardian ad litem, unless the courts it necessary to
promote the best interests of the child (Sec. 5(e) of the
Information on inter-government exchanges prior to the Rule on Examination of Child Witness);
conclusion of treaties and executive agreements may be 2. The publisher, editor, or duly accredited reporter of any
subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national newspaper, magazine, or periodical of general
interest. While the final text of the Japan-Philippines circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of
Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) may not be left any news report of information which was related in
perpetually confidential since there is a need to discuss the confidence to him, unless the court or a house, or
same before it is approved, the offers exchanged by the committee of Congress finds that such revelation is
parties during the negotiations continue to be privileged, demanded by the security of the State (R.A. no. 53, as
even after the JPEPA is published. Disclosing these amended by R.A. No. 1477);
exchanges could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal 3. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they
not only with Japan but with other foreign governments in voted (B.P. Blg. 81, Art. XXII, par. (z)(5));
future negotiations (AKBAYAN v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, 4. Trade Secrets – formulas of manufacture, but may also
July 16, 2008). include price lists and customers’ lists
What is the duration of the privilege? General rule: There is a privilege not to disclose one’s
Even after the public officer is no longer in government trade secrets.
service, the privilege still exists (From the lectures of Dean
Inigo, Atty. Europa, Atty. Espejo) Exception: Trial courts may compel disclosure where
it is indispensable for doing justice (FRANCISCO, supra
What is executive privilege? at 434).
The power of the government to withhold information from
the public, the courts, and the Congress or the right of the 5. Bank deposits (R.A. No. 1405, Sec. 2)
President and high level executive branch to withhold While Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 declares bank deposits
information from Congress, and ultimately the public to be “absolutely confidential,” it nevertheless allows
(Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006). such disclosure in the following instances:
1. Upon written permission of the depositor,
Is executive privilege absolute? 2. In cases of impeachment,
No. Any claim of executive privilege must be weighed 3. Upon order of a competent court in cases of
against other interests recognized by the constitution, like bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials,
the state policy of full public disclosure of all transactions 4. In cases where the money deposited is the subject
involving public interest, the right of the people to matter of the litigation (PNB v. Gancayco, G.R. No. L-
information on matter of public concern, the accountability 18343, September 30, 1965).

37
The communication shall remain privileged, even in the
Other Instances Where Disclosure of Bank Deposits hands of a third person who may have obtained the
is Allowed information, provided that the original parties to the
1. When a public official has been found to have communication took reasonable precaution to protect
acquired during his incumbency, whether in his its confidentiality.
name or in the name of other persons, an amount
of property and/or money manifestly out of Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 24) to the New
proportion to his salary and to his other lawful Rule (Sec. 24)
income, bank deposits shall be taken into Old Rule (Sec. 24) New Rule (Sec. 24)
consideration in finding whether or not there is Disqualification by Disqualification by
unexplained wealth (R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 8). reason of privileged reason of privileged
2. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is communication. — The communications. — The
authorized to inquire into bank deposits of and following persons following persons
other related information held by financial cannot testify as to cannot testify as to
institutions of: matters learned in matters learned in
(1) A decedent to determine his gross estate; confidence in the confidence in the
(2) Any taxpayer who has filed an application following cases: following cases:
for compromise of his tax liability;
(3) A specific taxpayer or taxpayers subject of (a) The husband or the (a) The husband or the
a request for the supply of tax information wife, during or after the wife, during or after the
from a foreign tax authority (NIRC, Sec. marriage, cannot be marriage, cannot be
6(F)). examined without the examined without the
consent of the other as consent of the other as
6. Informer’s privilege – the prosecutor may not be to any communication to any communication
compelled to present an informer to protect his identity received in confidence received in confidence
and when his testimony would be merely cumulative by one from the other by one from the other
and corroborative (HERRERA, supra at 363); during the marriage during the marriage
7. Conciliator’s and similar officials shall not testify in except in a civil case by except in a civil case by
any court or body regarding any matter taken up at the one against the other, or one against the other, or
conciliation proceedings conducted by them (LABOR in a criminal case for a in a criminal case for a
CODE, Art. 233); crime committed by one crime committed by one
8. Information contained in tax census returns against the other or the against the other or the
latter's direct latter's direct
In case a taxpayer files an application to compromise descendants or descendants or
the payment of his tax liabilities, on his claim that his ascendants; ascendants.
financial position demonstrates a clear inability to pay
the tax assessed, his application shall not be considered (b) An attorney or
(b) An attorney cannot,
unless and until he waives in writing his privilege under person reasonably
without the consent of
R.A. No. 1405 or other general or special laws, and such believed by the client to
his client, be examined
waiver shall constitute the authority of the be licensed to engage in
as to any
Commissioner to inquire into the bank deposits of the practice of law
communication made
taxpayer (NIRC, Sec. 6(F)). cannot, without the
by the client to him, or
his advice given thereon consent of the client, be
9. Communications of suspicious transactions to Anti- examined as to any
in the course of, or with
Money Laundering Council under the Anti-Money communication made
a view to, professional
Laundering Act (R.A. No. 10365, Sec. 7); by the client to him or
employment, nor can an
10. Deliberative Process Privilege – protects candid her, or his or her advice
attorney's secretary,
discussions within an agency, it prevents public given thereon in the
stenographer, or clerk
confusion from premature disclosure of agency course of, or with a view
be examined, without
opinions before the agency establishes final policy, and to, professional
the consent of the client
it protects the integrity of an agency’s decision (DFA v. employment, nor can an
and his employer,
BCA International, G.R. No. 210858, June 29, 2016). attorney's secretary,
concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has stenographer, or clerk,

38
been acquired in such or other persons to which the lawyer
capacity; assisting the attorney is an attesting
be examined without witness; or
(c) A person authorized the consent of the client (v) Joint clients. As
to practice medicine, and his or her employer, to a communication
surgery or obstetrics concerning any fact the relevant to a matter
cannot in a civil case, knowledge of which has of common interest
without the consent of been acquired in such between two or
the patient, be capacity, except in the more clients if the
examined as to any following cases: communication was
advice or treatment (i) Furtherance of made by any of
given by him or any crime or fraud. If the them to a lawyer
information which he services or advice of retained or
may have acquired in the lawyer were consulted in
attending such patient sought or obtained common, when
in a professional to enable or aid offered in an action
capacity, which anyone to commit between any of the
information was or plan to commit clients, unless they
necessary to enable him what the client have expressly
to act in capacity, and knew or reasonably agreed otherwise.
which would blacken should have known
the reputation of the to be a crime or (c) A physician,
patient; fraud; psychotherapist or
(d) A minister or priest (ii) Claimants person reasonably
cannot, without the through same believed by the patient
consent of the person deceased client. As to be authorized to
making the confession, to a communication practice medicine or
be examined as to any relevant to an issue psychotherapy cannot
confession made to or between parties in a civil case, without
any advice given by him who claim through the consent of the
in his professional the same deceased patient, be examined as
character in the course client, regardless of to any confidential
of discipline enjoined by whether the claims communication made
the church to which the are by testate or for the purpose of
minister or priest intestate or by inter diagnosis or treatment
belongs; vivos transaction; of the patient's physical,
(iii) Breach of duty mental or emotional
(e) A public officer by lawyer or client. condition, including
cannot be examined As to a alcohol or drug
during his term of office communication addiction, between the
or afterwards, as to relevant to an issue patient and his or her
communications made of breach of duty by physician or
to him in official the lawyer to his or psychotherapist. This
confidence, when the her client, or by the privilege also applies to
court finds that the client to his or her persons, including
public interest would lawyer; members of the
suffer by the disclosure. (iv) Document patient's family, who
attested by the have participated in the
lawyer. As to a diagnosis or treatment
communication of the patient under the
relevant to an issue direction of the
concerning an physician or
attested document psychotherapist.

39
precaution to protect its
A "psychotherapist" is: confidentiality
(a) A person
licensed to practice
medicine engaged TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
in the diagnosis or
treatment of a SECTION 25. Parental and filial privilege.— No person
mental or emotional shall be compelled to testify against his or her parents,
condition, or other direct ascendants, children or other direct
(b) A person licensed descendants, except when such testimony is indispensable
as a psychologist by in a crime against that person or by one parent against the
the government other.
while similarly
engaged. No person may be compelled to testify against his:
1. Parents
(d) A minister, priest or 2. Other direct ascendants
person reasonably 3. Children or
believed to be so 4. Other direct descendants.
cannot, without the
consent of the affected Except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime:
person, be examined as 1. Against that person or
to any communication 2. By one parent against the other.
or confession made to The new rule now uses the word “shall” which makes it
or any advice given by mandatory in character, as compared to the word “may”
him or her, in his or her which suggests it to be directory. It now also incorporates
professional character, the exception to the privilege as stated in Art 215 of the
in the course of Family Code i.e., when the testimony is indispensable in a
discipline enjoined by crime against that person or by one parent against the
the church to which the other.
minister or priest
belongs. No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to
testify against his parents and grandparents except when
(e) A public officer such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the
cannot be examined descendant or by one parent against the other (FAMILY
during or after his or CODE, Art. 215).
her tenure as to
communications made Applicability
to him or her in official The rule is applied to both civil and criminal cases
confidence, when the (FRANCISCO, supra at 434).
court finds that the
public interest would A child can waive the filial privilege and choose to testify
suffer by the disclosure. against his father. The rule refers to a privilege not to testify,
which can be invoked or waived like other privileges
The communication (People v. Invencion y Soriano, G.R. No. 131636, March 5,
shall remain privileged, 2003).
even in the hands of a
third person who may There are two privileges embodied in this rule:
have obtained the 1. Parental Privilege – a parent cannot be compelled to
information, provided testify against his child or direct descendants
that the original parties 2. Filial Privilege – a child may not be compelled to
to the communication testify against his parents or other direct ascendants.
took reasonable

40
Who can invoke: It is invoked by the witness himself 1. The extent to which the information is known outside
(RIGUERA, supra at 581). of the employer's business;
2. The extent to which the information is known by
When the Privilege Does Not Apply employees and others involved in the business;
1. Voluntary testimony; waiver 3. The extent of measures taken by the employer to guard
A person may voluntary testify against his parents, but the secrecy of the information;
if he refuses to do so, the rule protects him from any 4. The value of the information to the employer and to
compulsion. competitors;
5. The amount of effort or money expended by the
This rule is not strictly a rule on disqualification company in developing the information; and ·
because a descendant is not incompetent or 6. The extent to which the information could be easily or
disqualified to testify against an ascendant. The rule readily obtained through an independent source (Air
refers to a privilege not to testify, which can be invoked Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, G.R. No. 172835,
or waived like other privileges. Elven was not December 13, 2007).
compelled to testify against his father; he chose to
waive that filial privilege when he voluntarily testified Requisites:
against Artemio, Elven declared that he was testifying It is protected information if it complies with the
as a witness against his father of his own accord and following requisites:
only to tell the truth (People v. lnvencion, G.R. No. 1. A secret in a sense that it is not generally known among
131636, March 5, 2003). or readily accessible to persons within the circles that
normally deal with the kind of info in question,
2. Persons other than direct ascendants and 2. Has commercial value because it is a secret;
descendants 3. Has been subject to reasonable steps, under the
The privilege cannot apply between stepmothers and circumstances by the person lawfully in control of the
stepchildren because the rule applies only to “direct” information, to keep it a secret (Art. 39, TRIPS
ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by Agreement)
a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no common
ancestry by her stepmother (Lee v. C.A., G.R. No. 177861, Exception to the Privilege
July 13, 2010). The non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work
injustice.
SECTION 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets.—A
person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade Though this provision was not under the old rule, it has long
secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or been recognized that Trade Secrets is one of the other
otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the privileged matters though not mentioned under Rule 130
court shall take such protective measure as the interest of but is covered by special laws and jurisprudence. Among
the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and the them are the following:
furtherance of justice may require. (a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of
published news;
TRADE SECRET (b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they
A process or device intended for continuous use in the voted;
operation of the business, for example, a machine or (c) trade secrets;
formula, but can be a price list or catalogue or specialized (d) information contained in tax census returns; and
customer list. Trade secrets constitute proprietary rights. (e) bank deposits.
The inventor, discoverer, or possessor of a trade secret or
similar innovation has rights therein which may be treated Jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged the private
as property, and ordinarily an injunction will be granted to character of trade secrets. There is a privilege not to
prevent the disclosure of the trade secret by one who disclose one’s trade secrets. The Supreme Court has
obtained the information "in confidence" or through a declared that trade secrets are among the recognized
"confidential relationship (Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, restrictions to the right of the people to information as
Inc., G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007). embodied in the Constitution. The drafters of the
Constitution also unequivocally affirmed that, aside from
The following are factors in determining if an information is national security matters and intelligence information,
a trade secret protected from disclosure: trade or industrial secrets, pursuant to the Intellectual

41
Property Code and other related laws are also exempted 6. Offered and presented in court in an admissible manner
from compulsory disclosure (Air Philippines Corp. v. (e.g. non-hearsay)
Pennswell G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007)
EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Any determination by management as to the confidential Any statement of fact made by a party against his interest
nature of technologies, processes, formulae or other so- or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or
called trade secrets must have a substantial factual basis is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him (REGALADO,
which can pass judicial scrutiny. The Court said that to rule supra at 754).
otherwise would be to permit an employer to label almost
anything a trade secret, and thereby create a weapon with A statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts
which he/it may arbitrarily dismiss an employee on the pertinent to the issue, and tending in connection with proof
pretext that the latter somehow disclosed a trade secret, of other facts, to prove his guilt (People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No.
even if in fact there be none at all to speak of (Cocoland 110107, January 26, 1995).
Development Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 98458, July 17, 1996). Requisites for Admissibility
1. They must involve matters of fact and not of law;
For compelling reasons, the courts may lift the veil of 2. They must be categorical and definite;
confidentiality which shields trade secrets (Air Philippines 3. They must be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
Corp. v. Pennswell G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007). 4. They must be adverse to admitter’s interests,
otherwise, it would be self-serving and inadmissible
(REGALADO, supra at 754).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Judicial Admissions and Extrajudicial Admissions,
Distinguished
SECTION 27. Admission of a party.—The act, declaration Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial
or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in (Rule 129, Sec. 4) Admissions
evidence against him or her. Made in connection with a Any other admission
judicial proceeding in which it
Note: The amendment is only to address gender sensitivity. is offered
The section was renumbered because of the inclusion of a
Does not require proof Must still be formally
new provision.
offered in evidence
Admission May be conclusive unless Rebuttable
A voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the contradicted
existence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent May be written, oral express or implied
with his claims in an action (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.,
p. 44). Effect of an Admission
It may be given in evidence against the admitter.
Express Admissions
Those made in definite, certain and unequivocal language. Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and
circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt (US v.
Implied Admissions Sarikala, G.R. No. L-12988, January 21, 1918).
Those which may be inferred from the acts, declarations or
omissions of a party. Therefore, an admission may be Rationale
implied from conduct, statement, or silence of a party. No man would make any declaration against himself unless
it is true (Republic v. Bautista, G.R. No. 169801, September 11,
Elements: 2007).
1. The act, declaration or omission Admission Must be Made in Context
2. Of a party It is a rule that a statement is not competent as an admission
3. As to a relevant fact where it does not, under reasonable construction, appear to
4. Against his interest (Sec. 26, Rule 130 states “may be admit or acknowledge the fact which is sought to be proved
given in evidence against him”) by it (CMS Logging, Inc. v. C.A., G.R. No. L-41420, July 10,
5. Made out of court (Those made in court are governed 1992).
by Sec. 4, Rule 129.)

42
The Supreme Court held that a Partition Agreement Statements in affidavits are not sufficient to prove the
between partners having an extramarital affair is NOT an existence of agricultural tenancy. It is self-serving. It will not
admission against interest such that a party to it who suffice to prove consent of the owner. Independent
admitted the existence of co-ownership can no longer assail evidence is necessary (Rodriguez v. Salvador, G.R.
the agreement. The question on the Partition Agreement No.171972, June 8, 2011).
indicates a question of law to determine whether the parties
have the right to freely divide among themselves the subject SECTION 28. Offer of compromise not admissible.—In
properties. An admission must involve matters of fact and civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of
not of law (Lacbayan v. Samoy, Jr. G.R. No. 165427, March 21, any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the
2011) offeror. Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made
in compromise negotiations admissible, except evidence
Admission and Confession, Distinguished otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose,
Admission of a Party Confession such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a
A statement of fact Acknowledgment of guilt or contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct
liability a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Maybe express or tacit Must be express
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a
Maybe made by third Can be made only by the party plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in
parties, and in certain himself, and admissible evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
cases, admissible against his co-accused in some Neither is any statement made in the course of plea
against a party instances bargaining with the prosecution, which does not result in a
Acts, declarations or Declarations (Sec. 34, Rule plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty
omissions (Sec. 27, Rule 130) later withdrawn, admissible.
130)
May be in any Criminal case An offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital or other
proceeding (Sec. 34, Rule 130 refers to expenses occasioned by an injury, is not admissible in
(Sec. 27, Rule 130 refers “accused”) evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
to a party without
distinction as to nature Evidence not considered as admission under Rule 130,
of proceeding) Sec 28:
(REGALADO, supra at 754). 1. Offer of compromise in civil cases
2. Evidence of conduct made in compromise negotiations
An admission, in general sense, includes confessions, the (new rule)
former being a broader term because, accordingly, a 3. Statements made in compromise negotiations (new
confession is also an "admission ... by the accused of the fact rule)
charged against him or of some fact essential to the charge." Exception:
A confession is a specific type of admission which refers When that evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for
only to an acknowledgement of guilt (RIANO, supra at 246). another purpose
Example:
1. Proving bias or prejudice of a witness
Self-serving Declaration 2. Negativing a contention of undue delay, or
It is one which has been made extra-judicially by the party 3. Proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or
to favor his interest. It is not admissible in evidence because prosecution (ROC, RULE 130, Sec 28).
they are inherently untrustworthy, and would open the
door to fraud and fabrication of testimony (Lichauco v. The new rule in the third paragraph adds that the rule also
Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, G.R. No. L-2016 now covers and makes inadmissible any statement made in
August 23, 1949). the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which
does not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea
Self-serving evidence are inadmissible because the adverse of guilty later withdrawn. This should also be read in
party is not given the opportunity for cross-examination, connection with Section 5, Rule 116 on withdrawal of
and their admission would encourage fabrication of improvident plea of guilty.
testimony (Hernandez v. CA, G.R. No. 104874, December 14,
1993).

43
RULE ON COMPROMISES The accused is permitted to show that the offer was not
1. In Civil Cases made under the consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid
Offer of compromise in CIVIL CASES is NOT an the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other
admission of any liability, and is not admissible in reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the
evidence against the offeror (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 28). offer to compromise was not in truth and admission of guilt,
or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would
Exceptions: The party making the offer admits the ordinarily ensue therefrom (People v. Godoy, G.R. No.
existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal 115908-09, December 6, 1995).
to settle the claim amicably. In Tan, petitioner made
categorical judicial admissions, not only as to his Unaccepted Offer
liability, but also, as to the amount of indebtedness in An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to
the form of rentals due (Tan v. Rodil Enterprises, G. R. deliver a written instrument or specific personal property
No. 168071, December 18, 2006). is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual
production and tender of the money, instrument, or
2. In Criminal Cases property
Offer of compromise by the accused in CRIMINAL
CASES may be received in evidence as an implied An offer of compromise does not require that a criminal
admission of guilt. complaint be first filed before the offer can be received in
evidence against the offeror. What is required is that after
A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous committing the crime, the accused or his representative
to an attempt to compromise. In criminal cases, except makes an offer to compromise and such offer is proved
those involving quasi-offense or those allowed by law (People v. Yparraguie, G.R. No. 117702, February 10, 1997).
to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt (People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. SECTION 29. Admission by third party.—The rights of a
117217, December 2, 1996). party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
Exceptions:
a. Quasi-offenses or criminal negligence (ROC, RULE Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
130, Sec. 27); Things done between strangers ought not to injure those
b. Those allowed by law to be compromised; who are not parties to them (Black’s Law Dictionary;
Payment of any internal revenue tax may be Dynamic Signmaker Outdoor Advertising Services, Inc. v.
compromised, and all criminal violations may Potonqan, G.R. No. 156589, June 27, 2005)
likewise be compromised (NIRC, Sec. 204)
This rule refers to the maxim, "res inter alios acta alteri
c. Plea of guilty later withdrawn (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. nocere non debet" which means, "a thing done among some
27); persons ought not to do harm to another (REGALADO, supra
d. Offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital, or at 758).
other expenses occasioned by an injury (ROC, RULE
130, Sec. 27); Reason:
e. Unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a
offense; man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence
f. Those covered by Katarungang Pambarangay Law; against him. It would not only be inconvenient, but also
g. B.P. 22 cases. manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of
mere unauthorized strangers; and that if a party ought not
Good Samaritan Rule to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital and or conduct be used as evidence against him. (People v.
other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in Raquel, G.R. No. 119005, December 2, 1996; People v. Guittap,
evidence as proof of civil and criminal liability for the injury. G.R. No.144621, May 9, 2003).
Reason: Humanitarian acts or charitable responses should Two Branches

be encouraged and rewarded instead of being discouraged 1. First branch: ADMISSION BY A THIRD PARTY
or penalized (REGALADO, supra at 758).

44
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule
declaration, or omission of another (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint
29). debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.
Exceptions: Requisites for Admissibility

a. Admission by a Co-Partner or Agent (Rule 130, Sec. 1. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party
30); must be within the scope of his authority;
b. Admission by a Co-Conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 31); 2. Admission was made during the existence of the
c. Admission by Privies (Rule 130, Sec. 32); partnership or agency;
d. Admission by Silence (Rule 130, Sec. 33; Tan Siok 3. The existence of the partnership or agency is proven by
Kuan v. Returta, G.R. No. 175085, 2016); and independent evidence tither than such act or
e. Interlocking Confessions (People v. Muit, G.R. No. declaration (FRANCISCO, supra at 162).
181043, 2008)
f. Statements made by an employee against his Reason: Identity of interests between the co-partners or
employer are admissible against the latter, where agents.
the statements while in employ and where they
concerned a matter within the scope of his Joint Owner, Joint Debtor or Other Person Jointly
employment, (Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Interested with the Party
Research Center, 1978) The same rule applies to an act or declaration of a joint
owner, joint debtor or other person jointly interested with
By virtue of a particular relation between them the party:
A third party may be so united in interest with the 1. There exists a joint interest ·between the joint owner,
party-opponent that the other person’s admissions joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the
may be receivable against the party himself. The term party;
“privy” is the orthodox catchword for the relation. 2. Such party, which joint interest must first be made to
appear by evidence other than the act or declaration
2. Second branch: SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE itself;
(Previous Conduct Rule) 3. The act or declaration was made while the interest was
Evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time subsisting; and
is not admissible to prove that one did or did not do the 4. The act relates to the subject matter of the joint interest
same act at another time (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 35). (FRANCISCO, supra at 167-168).
This rule only applies to extrajudicial declarations The individual and separate admissions of each respondent
(People v. Raquel, G.R. No. 119006, December 2, 2006). bind all of them pursuant to Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court. The declaration of a party is admissible against a
Hence, statements made in open court by a witness party whenever a "privity of estate" exists between the
implicating persons aside from him are admissible as declarant and the party. It generally denotes a succession of
declarations from one who has personal knowledge of rights. Without doubt, privity exists among the respondents
the facts testified to (RIANO, supra at 256). in this case. Where several co-parties exist, who are jointly
interested in the subject matter of the controversy, the
Inadmissibility of Extrajudicial Declaration of Accused admission of one is competent against all (Republic v.
As a general rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003).
accused, although deliberately made, is not admissible and
does not have probative value against his co-accused. It is Statements made after partnership is dissolved
merely hearsay evidence as far as the other accused are General Rule: Statements made after the partnership has
concerned (People v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423, November 7, been dissolved do not fall within the exception
1979).
Exception: Where the admissions are made in connection
SECTION 30. Admission by co-partner or agent.—The act with the winding up of the partnership affairs, said
or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the party admissions are still admissible as the partner is acting as an
to make a statement concerning the subject, or within the agent of his co-partners in said winding up (REGALADO,
scope of his or her authority, and during the existence of the supra at 759).
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against
such party after the partnership or agency is shown by

45
Admissions by Counsel existence, may be given in during its existence may be
Admissions by counsel are admissible against the client as evidence against the co- given in evidence against
the former acts in representation and as an agent of the conspirator after the the co-conspirator after
client, subject to the limitation that the same should not conspiracy is shown by the conspiracy is shown by
amount to a compromise (ROC, Rule 138, Sec. 23) or evidence other than such evidence other than such
confession of judgment (Acenas, et al. v. Sison, et al., G.R. No. act of declaration. act of declaration.
L-17011, August 30, 1963).
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
Joint Interests agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
1. The joint interest must be first made to appear by decide to commit it (REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 8, par.1).
evidence other than the admission itself Once the conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all.
2. The admission must relate to the subject-matter of joint Hence, the statement of one may be admitted against the
interest (HERRERA, supra). other co-conspirators as an exception to the rule on res inter
alios acta.
The word “joint” must be construed according to its
meaning in the common law system, that is, in solidum for The admission referred to by this section pertains to an
the whole (Jaucian v. Querol, G.R. No. L-11307, October 5, extrajudicial declaration of a conspirator, and NOT to his
1918). testimony given on the stand which is subject to cross-
examination (People v. Serrano, G.R. No. L-7973, April 27,
A mere community of interests between several persons is 1959). While it is true that statements made by a
not sufficient to make the admissions of one admissible conspirator against a co-conspirator are admissible only
against all. Just like in partnership and agency, the interest when made during the existence of the conspiracy, if the
must be a subsisting one unless for the admission to be declarant repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial
admissible (HERRERA, supra). confession becomes a judicial admission, making the
testimony admissible as to both conspirators (People v.
Note: The revision in the New Rule is just a minor addition Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011). Such
that adds that declarations of a partner or agent authorized extrajudicial confession ceases to be hearsay.
by the party to make a statement concerning the subject is
admissible, in addition to the existing rule. The extrajudicial confession or admission, when repeated
during the trial, is transposed into judicial admissions
SECTION 31. Admission by conspirator. – The act or (People v. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, April 14, 2004).
declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy
and during its existence may be given in evidence against Admissibility of Confession of an Accused Against Co-
the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by Accused
evidence other than such act of declaration. Extrajudicial Confession Judicial Confession
May be given in evidence Admissible against the
Requisites: against the confessant but declarant’s co-accused
1. The declaration or act be made or done during the not against his co-accused since the latter is afforded
existence of the conspiracy; since the latter are not the opportunity to cross-
2. The declaration or act must relates to acts or afforded the opportunity to examine the former.
declarations made in furtherance of conspiracy; cross-examine him.
3. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than
such of declaration or act; and Only declarations which were made DURING the progress
4. The admission relates to the common object (Tamargo of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its object are
v. Awinga, G. R. No. 177727). admissible. Declarations of alleged co-conspirators before
the existence or after the termination of a conspiracy may
Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 30) to the New not be accepted against any of the conspirators. Hence, if the
Rule (Sec. 31) confession was made after the conspiracy had ended and
Old Rule (Sec. 30) New Rule (Sec. 31) after the consummation of the crime it cannot be
Admission by Conspirator – Admission by Conspirator – considered as admissible (RIANO, supra at 261).
The act or declaration of a The act or declaration of a
conspirator relating to the conspirator in furtherance Also, for the statement to be admitted, the extrajudicial
conspiracy and during its of the conspiracy and statements of the co-conspirator must be proven by

46
evidence other than such admission. Hence, if the only cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
evidence of the conspiracy is the extrajudicial declaration of another (Gevero v. IAC, G.R. No. 77029, August 30, 1990).
the declarant, the statements are not admissible against the Such evidence is not admissible to contradict the terms of
others (RIANO, p. 261). If apart from the extrajudicial written instrument, as, for example, to vary the tenor of a
confession of the confessant, no other evidence of the deed or destroy the record title (FRANCISCO, p. 175).
alleged participation of the accused in the conspiracy was SECTION 33. Admission by silence.—An act or declaration
presented by the prosecution, the culpability of the accused made in the presence and within the hearing or observation
could not be sufficiently established (People v. Guittap, G.R. of a party of a party who does or says nothing when the act
No. 144621, May 9, 2003). or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or
comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him
SECTION 32. Admission by privies.—Where one derives or her to do so, may be given in evidence against him or her.
title to property from another, the latter’s act, declaration, Requisites:
or omission, in relation to the property, is evidence against 1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration
the former if done while the latter was holding the title. of another person;
2. He must have understood the statement (People v.
Requisites: Ranario, G.R. No. 25083, August 17, 1926);
1. There must be an act, declaration or omission by a 3. He was at liberty to make a denial;
predecessor-in-interest; 4. The statement was about a matter affecting his rights
2. The act, declaration, or omission of the predecessor or in which he was interested and which naturally calls
must have occurred while he was holding the title to the for a response;
property; and 5. The facts were within his knowledge; and
3. The act, declaration, or omission must be in relation to 6. The fact admitted from his silence is material to the
the property. issue (People v. Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060, July 20, 1978).
Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 31) to the New Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 32) to the New
Rule (Sec. 32) Rule (Sec. 33)
Old Rule (Sec. 31) New Rule (Sec. 32)
Admission by privies – Admission by Privies – Old Rule (Sec. 32) New Rule (Sec. 33)
Where one derives title to Where one derives title to Admission by silence – An Admission by Silence – An
property from another, the property from another, the act or declaration made in act or declaration made in
act, declaration, or latter’s act, declaration, or the presence and within the presence and within
omission of the latter, omission, in relation to the the hearing or observation the hearing or observation
while holding title, in property, is evidence of a party of a party who of a party of a party who
relation to the property, is against the former if done does or says nothing when does or says nothing when
evidence against the while the latter was the act or declaration is the act or declaration is
former. holding the title. such as naturally to call for such as naturally to call for
action or comment if not action or comment if not
Privies are persons who are partakers or have an interest true, and when proper and true, and when proper and
in any action or thing, or any relation to another (Black’s possible for him to do so, possible for him or her to
Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., p. 1077, cited in RIANO, supra at 262). may be given in evidence do so, may be given in
against him. evidence against him or
Examples of privies: her.
a. Lessor and his lessee
b. Grantor and grantee Usual pattern for its admissibility:
c. Assignor and assignee, in an estate or contract 1) There’s a statement by a person in the presence of a
d. Executor or administrator and the estate of the party to the action, criminal or civil;
deceased, in representation 2) The statement contains assertion against the party
e. Heir and his ascendant, in succession. which, if untrue, would be sufficient cause for the party
to make a denial; and
Accordingly, when the former owner of the property made 3) His failure to speak against the statement is admissible
the declaration after he ceased to be the owner of the as an admission (RIANO, supra at 254).
property, the rule on admission by privies does not apply.
What applies is the general rule that the rights of a party

47
Qui tacet consentire videtur means he who is silent charged, or of some essential parts thereof (Wigmore on
appears to consent. The idea of the rule on admission by Evidence, Vol. 1, Sec. 821).
silence is that if an accusation is made, and a reasonable
person would have denied the same if it was false; the This section refers to extrajudicial confession.
failure to deny the accusation by the person accused may be
construed as an implied admission of the truth of the Judicial Confession and Extrajudicial Confession,
accusation and may be given in evidence against him. Distinguished
Judicial Confession Extrajudicial Confession
The silence of a person under investigation for the One made by the accused The declaration of an
commission of an offense should not be construed as an before a court in which the accused acknowledging
implied admission of the truth of the accusation because of case is pending and in the his guilt of the offense
constitutional reasons (RA 7438, Sec. 2[b]). course of legal proceedings charged or of any offense
therein. When one enters a necessarily included
SECTION 34. Confession.—The declaration of an accused plea of guilty in a criminal therein. Such may be given
acknowledging his or her guilt of the offense charged, or of case. in evidence against him.
any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in
evidence against him or her. Note: However, in capital
offenses, the prosecution is
required to present
Requisites: evidence notwithstanding
1. The confession must have been intelligently made, the the plea of guilt by the
accused realizing the importance or legal significance accused and the court must
of his act; be satisfied that such plea
2. There must have been no violation of Sec. 12, Art. III of was entered voluntarily
the 1987 Constitution; and with full
3. The confession must involve an express and categorical comprehension of the
acknowledgment of guilt; consequences of such act
4. The confession must have been voluntarily made; (ROC, RULE 116, Sec. 3).
5. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal By itself, it can sustain a It cannot sustain a
offense; and conviction. conviction unless it
6. Any extrajudicial confession made by a person voluntariness is proven
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation and unless corroborated
shall be in writing and signed by such person in the by evidence of the corpus
presence of his counsel, or, in the latter’s absence, upon delicti.
a valid waiver (R.A. No. 7438). (FRANCISCO, supra at 179).
Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 33) to the New A confession is not required to be in any particular form. It
Rule (Sec. 34) may be oral or written or informal in character. It may be
recorded on video tape, sound motion pictures, or tape.
Old Rule (Sec. 33) New Rule (Sec. 34) HOWEVER, while not required to be in writing to be
Confession – The Confession – The admissible in evidence, it is advisable, if not otherwise
declaration of an accused declaration of an accused recorded by video tape or other means, to reduce the
acknowledging his guilt of acknowledging his or her confession to writing (People v. Satorre, G.R. No. 133858,
the offense charged, or of guilt of the offense August 12, 2003).
any offense necessarily charged, or of any offense
included therein, may be necessarily included The rule is well-settled that a confession is presumed to be
given in evidence against therein, may be given in voluntary and that the confessant, who bears the burden of
him. evidence against him or proving otherwise must duly substantiate his claim that the
her. admissions on his affidavit are untrue and unwillingly
executed (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L-32661, July 20,
Confession is an acknowledgment in express words, by the 1982).
accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the offense

48
The rule on extrajudicial confession in the Rules of Court PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
must be considered together with applicable constitutional
and substantive laws which must be complied with for the SECTION 35. Similar acts as evidence.—Evidence that one
confession to be admissible. The rights enumerated in Sec. did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible
12(1), Art. III of the Constitution exist only in custodial to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or similar
investigations. Hence, admissions in a counter-affidavit thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a
during a preliminary, even if made in the absence of a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme,
counsel, are admissible in evidence. A person undergoing habit, custom or usage, and the like.
preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor
cannot be considered as being under custodial investigation Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 34) to the New
(Ladiana v. People, G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002). Rule (Sec. 35)
An accused’s confession made to a Bantay Bayan made Old Rule (Sec. 34) New Rule (Sec. 35)
without the assistance of the counsel is inadmissible in Similar acts as evidence. – Similar Acts as Evidence. –
evidence. Inquiry made by a Bantay Bayan has the color of Evidence that one did or Evidence that one did or
a state-related function and entitles the suspect to his did not do a certain thing at did not do a certain thing at
Miranda right (People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, one time is not admissible one time is not admissible
2010). to prove that he did or did to prove that he or she did
not do the same or similar or did not do the same or
The accused’s admissions before Barangay Tanods and thing at another time; but similar thing at another
Barangay officials made in public with other persons it may be received to prove time; but it may be
present were held admissible even though the accused was a specific intent or received to prove a specific
not afforded his Miranda rights (People v. Sace, G.R. No. knowledge, identity, plan, intent or knowledge,
178063, April 5, 2010). system, scheme, habit, identity, plan, system,
custom or usage, and the scheme, habit, custom or
General Rule: An extrajudicial confession is admissible like. usage, and the like.
against the confessor only. It is an incompetent evidence
against his co-accused for being hearsay and because of the General Rule: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
res inter alios acta rule. thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or
Exceptions: When admissible against the co-defendants as did not do the same or similar thing at another time.
well –
a. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently Exceptions: It may be received to prove –
executed identical confession without collusion, and a. Specific intent;
corroborated by other evidence – Interlocking b. Knowledge;
Confessions; c. Identity;
b. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant; d. Plan;
c. If the co-defendants impliedly acquiesced in or adopted e. System;
said confession; f. Scheme;
d. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the g. Custom;
confessor after being apprised of such confession; h. Habit; or
e. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime i. Usage; and
which was confessed by one of the accused and said j. The like (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 34).
confession is used only as corroborating evidence;
f. Where the confession is used as circumstantial The rule is founded upon reason, public policy, justice and
evidence to show the probability of participation by the judicial convenience. The fact that a person has committed
co-conspirator; or the same or similar acts at some prior time affords, as a
g. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is general rule, no logical guaranty that he committed the act
corroborated by other evidence of record (2 in question. Besides, if evidence of similar acts are to be
REGALADO, supra at 772-773). invariably admitted, they will give rise to a multiplicity of
collateral issues and will subject the defendant to surprise
as well as confuse the court and prolong the trial (Citibank,
N.A. v. Sebeniano, G.R. No. 156132, October 12, 2006).

49
The admissibility of similar acts or previous conduct would
depend on the purpose for which such acts or conduct is Scope:
offered. Example, evidence of the other crimes, acts or 1. Payment of sum of money;
wrongs of the accused is admissible to show that the offense 2. Delivery of written instrument; and
for which he is currently charges and the said previous 3. Delivery of specific personal property.
similar acts show the “signature” or “handiwork” of the
accused because of identical modus operandi. The similar The tender of payment, if refused, does not extinguish an
acts may be offered to show that they share distinctive obligation unless completed or followed by a consignation
features as the offense for which the accused is currently of the sum due, instrument, or property (McLaughlin v. CA,
charged with, but the evidence cannot be offered to show G.R. No. 567552, October 10, 1986). The effect of tender
that the accused is likely to be guilty of the charge for having without consignation is to exempt the debtor from payment
committed the same or similar acts before his present of interest and/or damages.
indictment (RIANO, supra at 268).
Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, HEARSAY

especially in actions based on fraud and deceit, because:
1. It sheds light on the state of mine or knowledge of a SECTION 37. Hearsay.—Hearsay is a statement other than
person; one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or
2. It provides insight into such person’s motive or intent; hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted
3. It uncovers a scheme, design or plan; or therein. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion; or
4. It reveals a mistake (Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 126713, July 27, (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him
1998). or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible
except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
The offering party must allege and prove specific, repetitive
conduct that might constitute evidence of habit. The A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the
examples offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination
evidence must be numerous enough to base inference of concerning the statement, and the statement is (a)
systematic conduct. Mere similarity of contracts does not inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given
present the kind of sufficiently similar to outweigh the under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial,
danger of prejudice and confusion (Boston Bank of the PHL hearing or other proceeding, or in a deposition; (b)
v. Manalo, G.R. No. 158149, February 9, 2006). consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to
rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of
SECTION 36. Unaccepted offer.—An offer in writing to pay recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or (c)
a particular sum of money or to deliver a written one of the identification of a person made after perceiving
instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected him or her.
without a valid cause, equivalent to the actual production
and tender of the money, instrument, or property. Hearsay Rule
Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the
Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 35) to the New declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to
Rule (Sec. 36) prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement is
(1) an oral or written assertion; or (2) a non-verbal conduct
Old Rule (Sec. 35) New Rule (Sec. 36) of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an assertion.
Unaccepted offer – An offer Unaccepted Offer – An offer Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise
in writing to pay a in writing to pay a provided in these Rules.
particular sum of money or particular sum of money or
to deliver a written to deliver a written Hearsay signifies evidence which is not founded upon the
instrument or specific instrument or specific personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited
personal property is, if personal property is, if and which consequently does not depend wholly for its
rejected without a valid rejected without a valid credibility and weight upon the confidence which the court
cause, equivalent to the cause, equivalent to the may have in him; its value, if any, is measured by the credit
actual production and actual production and to be given to some third person not sworn as a witness to
tender of the money, tender of the money, that fact, and consequently not subject to cross-
instrument, or property. instrument, or property.

50
examination (People vs. Pruna, G. R. No. 138471, October 10, In criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would
2002). be a violative of the constitutional provision that the
accused shall enjoy the right of being confronted with the
“Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine them.
declarant while testifying at a trial” – refers to an out-of- (People vs. Mamalias, G. R. No. 128073, March 27, 2000).
court statement. An out-of-court statement is a statement
by a trial witness which is not admissible as to the truth of Note: It has also been held that hearsay evidence not
the matters asserted therein (Salvador, Tranquil. objected to may be admissible but, whether objected to or
“Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence.” REX not, has no probative value and, as opposed to direct
Bookstore, May 8, 2020). primary evidence, the latter always prevails (People vs.
Valero, G. R. No. L – 45283-84, March 19, 1982).
Definition of hearsay is of two types: (1) focus on the type
of statement and the purpose for which it was offered; or Elements of Hearsay in General (DOST 2)
(2) those which focus on the defects in the testimony is 1. It is a statement other than one made by the Declarant;
classified as hearsay (Salvador, Tranquil. “Amendments to 2. The statement is (a) an Oral or written assertion; or (2)
the Revised Rules on Evidence.” REX Bookstore, May 8, 2020). a non-verbal conduct of a person;
3. The Statement is intended as an assertion;
Its probative value depends, in whole or in part, on the 4. It is made while the witness, other than the declarant,
competence and credibility of some persons other than the is testifying at a Trial or hearing; and
witness by whom it is sought to produce it (Estrada vs. 5. It is offered to prove the Truth of the facts asserted
Desierto, G. R. No. 14710-15, April 3, 2001). therein. (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 37, par. 1).
Exclusion on the Ground of Hearsay Specific Elements of Hearsay

Any deposition offered to prove the facts therein set out 1. There must be an out of court statement, whether oral
during a trial or hearing, in lieu of the actual oral testimony or written, or non-verbal conduct intended as an
of the deponent in open court, may be opposed and assertion; and
excluded on the ground that it is hearsay; the party against 2. That statement made out of court, is repeated and
whom it is offered has no opportunity to cross-examine the offered by the witness in court to prove the truth of the
deponent at the time that his testimony is offered. It matters facts asserted therein (RIANO, p. 284-285).
not that that opportunity for cross-examination was
afforded during the taking of the deposition; for normally, Classification of Out-of-Court Statements
the opportunity for cross-examination must be accorded a 1. Hearsay – Inadmissible. This occurs when the purpose
party at the time that the testimonial evidence is actually for introducing the out-of-court statements is to prove
presented against him during the trial or hearing the truth of the facts asserted therein.
(Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 108229, August 2. Non-Hearsay –Admissible.
24, 1993). A. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is
subject to cross-examination concerning the
Hearsay may be Oral or Written statement, and the statement is: (ICO)
Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony or statements. The a) Inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and
rule excludes hearsay evidence applies to both written and was given under oath subject to the penalty of
oral statements (Malayan Insurance Co., vs. Alberto, G. R. No. perjury at a trial, hearing or other proceeding, or in
194320, February 1, 2012). a deposition;
Note: To impeach on a prior inconsistent
Reasons for Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence statement. You have to lay the basis of time, place,
1. The party against whom the hearsay testimony is and persons. (Salvador, Tranquil. “Amendments to
presented is deprived of the right of opportunity to the Revised Rules on Evidence.” REX Bookstore, May
cross-examine the person to whom the statements are 8, 2020).
attributed. b) Consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is
2. The court is without opportunity to test the credibility offered to rebut an express or implied charge
of hearsay statements by observing the demeanor of against the declarant of recent fabrication or
the person who made them (People vs. Pruna, G. R. No. improper influence or motive; or
138471, October 10, 2002).

51
Note: The testimony presented in court is and the particulars of it, including the name and
consistent with the declarant. This refers to address of the declarant. (REVISED RULES ON
cumulative proof. EVIDENCE, Rule 130, Sec. 50).
Purpose: To correct the practice of introducing Concepts of Hearsay Evidence

earlier affidavits because affidavits on the stand 1. Any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay
after making them reaffirm the truth of the if its probative value is not based on the personal
contents thereof. (Salvador, Tranquil. “Amendments knowledge of some other person not on the witness
to the Revised Rules on Evidence.” REX Bookstore, stand (REGALADO, supra at 776).
May 8, 2020). 2. Hearsay evidence also includes all assertions, which
c) One of the identification of a person made after (although derived from personal knowledge) have not
perceiving him or her. (REVISED RULES ON been subject to cross-examination by the adversary at
EVIDENCE, Rule 130, Sec. 37, par. 2); and the trial in which they are being offered against him (5
HERRERA, supra at 564).
Note: This is given a certain level of reliability and
trustworthiness because they identify a party not Note: It is the loss of opportunity to cross-examine, and
only is available for cross-examination but closer in not the loss of cross-examination itself which makes an
time to the event in question (Salvador, Tranquil. assertion hearsay evidence.
“Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence.” REX Double Hearsay
Bookstore, May 8, 2020). The testimony of a person with respect to what was told
him by one who was not an eyewitness to the crime but who
B. When the purpose of introducing the statement is obtained knowledge thereof only from the alleged victim
not to prove the truth of the facts therein but only constitutes “double hearsay” (People vs. Manhuyod, Jr., G. R.
the making of the statements and are admissible in No. 124676, May 20, 1998) (e.g. newspaper articles).
evidence when the making of the statement is
relevant. These are so-called Independently Newspaper clippings or facts published in the newspaper
Relevant Statements (IRS) are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless
substantiated by persons with personal knowledge of said
3. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule – Admissible. Those facts (People vs. Aguel, et al., G. R. No. L-36554, May 19, 1980).
which are hearsay but are considered as exceptions to
the hearsay rule and are therefore admissible. These Non-Human Evidence
are from Sections 38 to 49 of Rule 130. The testimony of a witness as to statements made by non-
4. Residual Exceptions – Admissible. A statement not human declarants (machines). It does not violate the rule
specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions, against hearsay. The law permits the so-called ‘non-human
having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of evidence’ on the ground that machines and animals, unlike
trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines human, lack a conscious motivation to tell falsehood and
that: (MRI) because the workings of machines can be explained by
a) The statement is offered as evidence of a Material human witnesses who are then subject to cross-
fact; examination by opposing counsel (5 HERRERA, p. 581).
b) The statements is more probative on the point for
which it is offered than any other evidence which Self-serving Statements
the proponent can procure through Reasonable These are statements made by a party out of court
efforts; and advocating his own interest. They do not include a party’s
c) The general purpose of these rules and the testimony in court as witness. The proper ground for
Interests of justice will be best served by admission objecting to these statements is that they are hearsay.
of the statement into evidence. (People vs. Omictin, G. R. No. 188130, July 26, 2010)
Note: However, a statement may not be admitted Independently Relevant Statements (Apparent
under this exception unless the proponent makes Hearsay)
known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance A declarant’s statement may have relevance to an issue in a
of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in the case case from the mere fact that the words were spoken or
of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse written, irrespective of the truth or falsity of the assertion
party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, (RIANO, supra at 294).
the proponent’s intention to offer the statement

52
Well-settled is the rule that, unless the affiant is presented Facts: American President Lines, Ltd. (APL) filed a
as a witness, an affidavit is considered hearsay. An complaint in the RTC for a sum of money against
exception to the foregoing rule is that on “independently Dasmarinas Garments Inc (Dasmarinas). Trial was
relevant statements”. A report made by a person is scheduled and a witness was presented by APL, after which
admissible if it is intended to prove the tenor, not the truth, the case was reset on May 3 to receive two more witnesses
of the statements. Independent of the truth or the falsity of on APL’s behalf. On May 3, instead of presenting its two
the statement given in the report, the fact that it has been witnesses, APL prayed that the court allow the issuance of
made is relevant. Here, the hearsay rule does not apply (Lea “letters rogatory” to take depositions of two Taiwan
Mer Industries, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G. R. No. nationals. RTC resolved the rogatory issue in favor of APL
161745, September 30, 2005). where deposition will be coursed through a private entity,
Asian Exchange Center, Inc. (AEC). An appeal was filed at
Evidence as to the making of such statements is not the CA but the latter also affirmed the challenged order of
secondary is not secondary but primary, for in itself: the RTC. Now, Dasmarinas contends that the CA erred in
1. It constitutes a fact in issue; or holding that a party could, during the trial of the case,
2. It is circumstantially relevant to the existence of such present its evidence by taking the deposition of its
fact (Republic vs. Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, Sr., G. R. No. witnesses in a foreign jurisdiction before a private entity
178301, April 24, 2009). not authorized by law to take depositions in lieu of their oral
examination in open Court
Classes of Independently Relevant Statements Issue: Whether or not foreign depositions may be taken by
1. Those statements which are the very fact in issue (e.g. a private entity.
slander); Held: Yes, but with qualifications. Depositions are chiefly
2. Promises of Marriage – The fact to be proved is not the a mode of discovery. They are intended as a means to
truth or falsity of the promise, but the promise itself; compel disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge of a
3. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of party or other person which are relevant in some suit or
the fact in issue (e.g. statement of a person showing his proceeding in court. Depositions are principally made by
state of mind, that is, his mental condition, knowledge, law to the parties as a means of informing themselves of all
belief, intention, ill will and other emotions); the relevant facts, they are not therefore generally meant to
4. Statement introduced for the purpose of establishing be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a
the fact a party already relied and acted upon; party witness. Leave of court is not necessary where the
5. Statement of a person which show his physical deposition is to be taken before a secretary or embassy or
condition as illness and the like; legation, consul gen. etc., and the defendants answer has
6. Statements of a person from which an inference may be already been served. Rule 132 says that examinations must
made as to the state of mind of another, that is, be done in an open court. Any depositions offered to prove
knowledge, belief, motive, good faith/bad faith of the the facts may be opposed as hearsay, and any party must be
latter; afforded an opportunity to cross-examine a witness taking
7. Statements which may identify the date, place and deposition. However, depositions may be used without the
person in question; or witness actually called to the witness stand, under certain
8. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness conditions and under limited purposes, as seen in R23 S4,
(5 HERRERA, p. 588-595). and in line with R24 and R132. In R24 S11, depositions of
persons in a foreign state shall be taken before the consul
Hearsay Statements may be the basis of Probable Cause or under letters rogatory. Since PH does not have a
Probable Cause can be established with hearsay evidence, consulate in Taiwan because of PH’s One China Policy, it
as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the would have no embassy or consulate in Taiwan. Foreign
hearsay. Hearsay Evidence is admissible in determining depositions may thus be taken under letters rogatory as
probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such provided for in R24 S12.
investigation is merely preliminary and does not finally
adjudicate rights and obligations of parties (Estrada vs. Patula v. People
Desierto, G. R. No. 14710-15, April 3, 2001). 669 SCRA 135 (2012)
CASES: Facts: Patula, a saleswoman of Footlucker’s Chain of Stores,
Inc. in Dumaguete City, was charged with estafa. Trials on
Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes the merits ensued having pled not guilty at the arraignment.
225 SCRA 622 (1993) Guivencan, Footlucker’s auditor, was the second and last
witness of the Prosecution. It was in the course of her audit

53
that she discovered differences between the original Kulasa’s rescue. Kulasa who was then in a state of hysteria,
receipts held by the customers and the duplicate copies of kept mentioning to PO2 Asintado “Si Rene, gusto akong
the receipts submitted by Patula to the office. She then patayin! Sinaksak niya ako!” When PO2 Asintado was about
presented a list of the discrepancies between the to carry her, Kulasa refused and said “Kaya ko. Mababaw
customers’ confirmations and the office records as per lang to. Habulin mo si Rene.” The following day, Rene
audit. However, during Guivencan’s direct-examination, learned of Kulasa’s death and, bothered by his conscience,
petitioner’s counsel continuously objected and question the surrendered to the authorities with his counsel. As his
evidences and testimony of Guivencan on the ground that surrender was broadcasted all over media, Rene opted to
they were hearsay. release his statement to the press which goes:
Issue: Whether or not Guivencan’s testimony on the ledgers “I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence
is inadmissible as judicial evidence for being hearsay. until my guilt is proven beyond reaso nable doubt. Although
I admit that I performed acts that may take one’s life away,
Held: YES. Section 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, states that I hope and pray that justice will be served in the right way.
witness can testify only to those facts that she knows of her God bless us all.
personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his
own perception, except as otherwise provided in these (Sgd.) Rene”
rules. Since Guivencan was not the one who prepared the
said ledger, her testimony could not be considered reliable. The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis of
The Prosecution’s defense was that the ledgers was done in PO2 Asintado’s testimony, Kulasa’s statements, and Rene’s
the ordinary course of business and, therefore, exempt from statement to the press.
the hearsay rule, as per Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court. However, Prosecution and the RTC failed to consider On appeal, Rene raises the following errors:
the requisites in applying this rule, such as that the person A) The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2 Asintado’s
who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify. testimony, as the latter did not have personal
However, this is not true with the current case, therefore knowledge of the facts in issue, and violated Rene’s
Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court could not be right to due process when it considered Kulasa’s
applied. The testimony is therefore proven to be hearsay statements despite lack of opportunity for her cross-
and inadmissible. examination. (2014 BAR QUESTION)
B) The trial court erred in holding that Rene’s statement
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO VARIOUS to the press was a confession which, standing alone,
HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS: would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. Resolve.
(2014 BAR QUESTION)
QUESTION NO. 1:
Counsel A objected to a question posed by opposing Counsel SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B on the grounds that it was hearsay and it assumed a fact A) The trial court did not err in giving weight to PO2
not yet established. The judge banged his gavel and ruled by Asintado’s testimony.
saying "Objection Sustained". Can Counsel B ask for a
reconsideration of the ruling? Why? (2012 BAR QUESTION) While a witness can only testify as to those facts which
he has personal knowledge of, the Rules provide that a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: statement made under the influence of a startling event
Yes, Counsel B may ask the Judge to specify the grounds witnessed by the person who made the declaration
relied upon for sustaining the objection and thereafter before he had time to think and make up a story, or to
move for its reconsideration thereof. (Rule 132, Sec.38, Rules concoct or contrive a falsehood, or to fabricate an
of Court). account, and without any undue influence in obtaining
it, aside from referring to the event in question or its
QUESTION NO. 2: immediate attending circumstances, is an exception
While passing by a dark uninhabited part of their barangay, being part of res gestae. In the case, the statements
PO2 Asintado observed shadows and heard screams from a made by PO2 Asintado constitutes part of res gestae
distance. PO2 Asintado hid himself behind the bushes and since the same were made without any opportunity to
saw a man beating a woman whom he recognized as his fabricate and while a startling occurrence was actually
neighbour, Kulasa. When Kulasa was already in agony the taking place.
man stabbed her and she fell on the ground. The man
hurriedly left thereafter. PO2 Asintado immediately went to

54
In addition, the statement of PO2 Asintado may fall NO. In administrative proceedings, complainants have the
within the purview of the doctrine of independent burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by
relevant statement, where only the fact that such substantial evidence. Umali failed to support by substantial
statements were made is relevant, and the truth and proof any of the allegations in his complaint He was only
falsity thereof is immaterial (People v. Malibiran, G.R. relying in hearsay evidence to support his complaint. He did
No. 178301, April 24, 2009). not provide any further details on the so-called extortion
attempt in the complaint, such as the time and place of the
On the other hand, Kulasa’s statements are also incident; the identities of the persons from his camp who
admissible as part of res gestae since the same were were approached by Ricarte; and the person who relayed to
made under the influence of a startling event and him the P15 million demand (Umali v. Hernandez, IP/ No.
without any opportunity to concoct or devise a 15-35-SB-J, February 23, 2016).
falsehood.
QUESTION NO. 5:
B) The trial court did not err in holding that Rene’s Romeo is sued for damages for injuries suffered by the
statement to the press is a confession. Rene’s plaintiff in a vehicular accident. Julieta, a witness in court,
confessions to the media were properly admitted testifies that Romeo told her that he heard Antonio, a
because statements spontaneously made by a suspect witness to the accident, gives an excited account of the
to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed accident immediately after its occurrence. Is Julieta's
voluntary and are admissible in evidence (People v. testimony admissible against Romeo over proper and
Hipona, G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010). timely objection? Why? (2002 Bar)
QUESTION NO. 3: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Blinded by extreme jealousy, Alberto shot his wife, Betty, in NO, because while the excited account of Antonio, a witness
the presence of his sister, Carla. Carla brought Betty to the to the accident, was told to Romeo, it was only Romeo who
hospital. Outside the operating room, Carla told Domingo, a told Julieta about it, which makes it hearsay.
male nurse, that it was Alberto who shot Betty. Betty died
while undergoing emergency surgery. At the trial of the QUESTION NO. 6:
parricide charges filed against Alberto, the prosecutor Annie overheard Billy call Rocky a thief. In an action for
sought to present Domingo as witness, to testify on what defamation filed by Rocky against Billy, is the testimony of
Carla told him. The defense counsel objected on the ground Annie offered to prove the fact of utterance i.e., that Billy
that Domingo’s testimony is inadmissible for being hearsay. called Rocky a thief, admissible in evidence? Explain. (1999
Rule on the objection with reasons. (2009 BAR QUESTION) Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Objection overruled. The disclosure received by Domingo YES. The testimony of Annie is admissible in evidence as an
from Carla may be regarded as independently relevant independently relevant statement. It is offered in evidence
statement which is not covered by the hearsay rule; hence only to prove the tenor thereof, not to prove the truth of the
admissible. The statement may be received not as evidence facts asserted therein. Independently relevant statements
of the truth of what was stated but only as to the tenor include statements which are on the very facts in issue or
thereof and the occurrence when it was said, independently those which are circumstantial evidence thereof. The
of whether it was true or false. (People v. Cloud, 333 Phil. hearsay rule does not apply (People v. Gaddi, G.R. No. 74065,
306[1996]; People v. Malibiran, et al., G.R. No. 178301, April February 27, 1989).
24, 2009)
QUESTION NO. 4:
Umali filed a complaint against Justice Hernandez for grave
misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. He alleged,
among others, that it was "relayed" to him that he needed
to pay P15 million if he wanted to be acquitted; and that it
was a one-time, "take it or leave it" offer. Will the action
prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

55
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE impending death, may be received in any case wherein his
or her death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
1. Dying Declaration; Note: Amendment only to address gender sensitivity, and
2. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind; renumbering of section.
3. Declaration against Interest; Dying Declaration (Ante Mortem Statement or
4. Act or declaration against Pedigree; Statement in Articulo Mortis)
5. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree; As an exception to the rule against the hearsay evidence, a
6. Common reputation; dying declaration or ante mortem statement is evidence of
7. Part of the Res Gestae; the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence
8. Records of regularly conducted business activity; since no person aware of his impending death would make
9. Entries in official records; a careless and false accusation (People vs. Serenas, G. R. No.
10. Commercial lists and the like; 188124, June 29, 2010).
11. Learned treaties; It applies to any case civil or criminal, where death of the
12. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. declarant is the subject of the inquiry (RIANO, p. 301-302).
13. Residual Exception
The admission of dying declaration does NOT violate the
It is not correct to say that the exceptions to the hearsay rule constitutional right of the accused to confront and cross-
are not hearsay. They are hearsay evidence but they ate examine the witness because the person who testifies to the
deemed admissible for certain reasons (RIANO, supra at dying declarations is the witness against the accused and he
299). witness with whom the accused is entitled to be confronted.
The declarant is not testifying against him (FRANCISCO,
Other Exceptions: supra at 278).
1. Section 28 of the Rules on Examination of a Child
Witness – A statement made by a child describing any Reason for Admissibility
act or attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise 1. Necessity – the declarant’s death renders impossible
admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in his taking the witness stand.
evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding. 2. Trustworthiness – a man at the point of death not
2. Rule 8 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence – prone to invent a story (FRANCISCO, supra at 274).
Business Records as exception to the Hearsay Rule
– a memorandum, report, record or data compilation of Dying declarations may be used to corroborate the
acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses, made by testimony of a witness (People vs. Brioso, G. R. No. L-28482,
electronic, optical, or other similar means at a near the January 30, 1971).
time of or other similar means at or near the time of or
from transmission or supply of information by a person Truth Sits on the Lips of the Dying Man
with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course Such declaration, when the party is at the point of death and
or conduct of business activity, and such was the the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to
regular practice to make the memorandum, report, speak the truth, is considered by the law as creating an
record, or data compilation by electronic, optical, or obligation equal to that which is created by a positive oath
similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony administered in a court of justice. The idea is that “truth sits
of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is on the lips of dying men” (People vs. Marollano, G. R. No.
excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence. 105004, July 24, 1997).
3. Those which reflect state of mind - the Angara Diary Requisites: (C4D2 )
contains statements of Erap which reflect his state of 1. The declaration is made by a dying person under a
mind and are circumstantial evidence of his intent to Consciousness of an impending death;
resign. It also contains statements are independently 2. The declaration refers to the Cause and surrounding
relevant and are excluded from the hearsay rule circumstances of such death;
(Estrada vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 14710-15, April 3, 2001). 3. It was made by a declarant Competent to testify as
witness, had that person been called to testify
It is the purpose for which the evidence is offered which (Marturillas vs. People, G. R. No. 163217, April 18, 2006).
would determine whether the same is hearsay or not 4. The statement is Competent in itself (People vs. De Joya,
(RIANO, supra at 282). G. R. No. 75028, November 8, 1991);
SECTION 38. Dying declaration.—The declaration of a 5. The declarant thereafter Died; and
dying person, made under the consciousness of an

56
6. The declaration is offered in a case wherein the imminent death; although the same may be admitted as part
declarant’s Death is the subject of the inquiry (People of the res gestae (People vs. Laquinon, G. R. No. L-45470,
vs. Peña, G. R. No. 133964, February 13, 2002). February 28, 1985).
Considerations in Determining whether the
A dying declaration is not considered confidential Declarations were Made under the Consciousness of
communication between spouses (U.S. vs. Antipolo, G. R. No. Death:
L-13109, March 6, 1918). 1. The words or statement of the declarant on the same
occasion;
A dying declaration stand upon the same footing as the 2. The declarant’s conduct at the time the declaration is
testimony of a witness sworn in the case. Consequently, it made; and
may be impeached by the same means employed to 3. The serious nature of his wounds as would necessarily
impeach the latter (FRANCISCO, P. 261). engender a belief on his part that he would not survive
therefrom (5 HERRERA, p. 602).
Consciousness of an Impending Death
The declarant must at the time of making his ante-mortem All facts relating to the cause of death are admissible
statement believe that death was inevitable, not merely whether the same are in favor of or against the accused
possible nor even probable but a definite certainty, that is, (REGALADO, supra).
he must have no hope of recovery whatsoever (FRANCISCO,
supra at 275). Doctrine of Completeness
A dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in
However, death need not follow soon, and rebirth of hope itself. To be complete in itself does not mean that the
between the statement and the declarant’s death is declarant must recite everything that constituted the res
immaterial. Neither is the interval between declarant’s gestae of the subject of his statement, but that his statement
death and his declaration controlling (BAUTISTA, supra). of any given fact should be a full expression of all that he
intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of
It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid such fact. The reason upon which incomplete declarations
succession of death in point of fact that renders the dying are generally excluded, or if admitted, accorded little or no
declaration admissible (People vs. Bautista, G. R. No. 111149, weight, is that since the declarant was prevented (by death
September 5, 1997). or other circumstances) from saying all that he wished to
say, what he did say might have been qualified by the
It is of no moment that the victim died seven days from the statements which he was prevented from making (People
stabbing incident incident and after receiving adequate care vs. Joya, supra).
and treatment, because the apparent proximate cause of his
death, the punctures in his lungs, was a consequence of Thus, while a dying declaration may be admissible in
appellant’s stabbing him in the chest. At the time the victim evidence, it must identify with certainty the assailant.
made his declaration, his breathing labored, he realized that Otherwise, it loses its significance (People vs. Ador, G. R. Nos.
could die after having been stabbed twice in the chest 140538-39, June 14, 2004).
(People vs. Rarugal, G. R. No. 188603, January 16, 2013).
Form of Dying Declaration
Note: However, the interval of time between the The Revised Rules on Evidence do not require that a dying
declaration may be taken into account where the declaration must be made in writing to be admissible.
declaration is ambiguous as to whether the declarant Indeed, to impose such a requirement would exclude many
believed that his death was imminent when he made such statements from a victim in extrimis for want of paper and
declaration (2 REGALADO, supra at 780). pen at a critical moment (People vs. Viovicente, G. R. No.
118707, February 2, 1998).
Where shortly after he was wounded, the victim was asked
as to whether he believed he would die and replied “I cannot The statement made by the deceased to his wife may not
ascertain,” and he died the following day, his statement is qualify as a dying declaration, nevertheless, it may be
admissible BOTH as part of res gestae and as a dying admitted as part of the res gestae (People vs. Hernandez, G.
declaration (People vs. Gueron, G. R. No. L-29365, March 25, R. Nos. 67690-91, January 21, 1992).
1983). The fact that the victim’s statement constituted a dying
declaration does not preclude it from being admitted as part
But where the victim replied “I don’t know,” his declaration of the res gestae, if the elements of both are present
cannot be considered made under the consciousness of his (Marturillas vs. People, G. R. No. 163217, April 18, 2006).

57
accusation. Hence, not infrequently, pronouncements of
Dying Declaration are Admissible Both Civil and guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the dying
Criminal Cases declaration of the deceased victim. To be admissible, a dying
The former rule was that dying declaration were admissible declaration must 1) refer to the cause and circumstances
only in criminal prosecutions for homicide, murder, or surrounding the declarant’s death; 2) be made under the
parricide wherein the declarant is the victim. As amended, consciousness of an impending death; 3) be made freely and
the rule now provides for such admissibility in any case as voluntarily without coercion or suggestions of improper
long as requisites concur (REGALADO, supra). influence; 4) be offered in a criminal case, in which the
death of the declarant is the subject of inquiry; and 5) have
CASES: been made by a declarant competent to testify as a witness,
People v. Salison, Jr. had that person been called upon to testify.
253 SCRA 758 (1996)
People v. Salafranca
Facts: The victim asked Alcoseba, the purok leader, to write GR No. 173476 (2012)
down his declaration regarding the incident explaining that
if he should die and no witness would testify, his written The testimony of Estano provides for the circumstances
declaration could be utilized as evidence. which qualified the utterance of Bolanon as both a dying
declaration and as part of the res gestae, considering that
Issue: Whether or not the victim’s written declaration the Court has recognized that the statement of the victim an
could be utilized as evidence hour before his death and right after the hacking incident
bore all the earmarks either of a dying declaration or part
Held: YES. At the time the deceased made the declaration of the res gestae either of which was an exception to the
he was in great pain. He expressed a belief on his imminent hearsay rule. A dying declaration, although generally
death and the hope that his declaration could be used as inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may
evidence regarding the circumstances thereof. A person nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites
would not say so if he believes he would recover and be able concur, namely: (a) that the declaration must concern the
to testify against his assailants. At all events, assuming that cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
declaration is not admissible as a dying declaration, it is still death; (b) that at the time the declaration is made, the
admissible as part of the res gestae, since it was made declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death;
shortly after the startling incident and, under the (c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d)
circumstances, the victim had no opportunity to contrive. that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for
Also, while such statement was given, as in the nature of homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a
things they are generally in oral form, they are not thereby victim.
rendered inadmissible as they may even be communicated
by means of signs. If the declarations have thereafter been A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res
reduced to writing and signed by the declarant, the writing gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to
is generally held to be the best evidence, and it must be the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to
produced. wit: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
occurrence; (b) the statements are made before the
Marturillas v. People declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the
187 SCRA 273 (2006) statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances. The court ruled that
Generally, witnesses can testify only to those facts derived the requisites for admissibility of a declaration as part of the
from their own perception. A recognized exception, though, res gestae concur in the case at bar.
is a report in open court of a dying person’s declaration
made under the consciousness of an impending death that
is the subject of inquiry in the case. Statements identifying People v. Cerilla
the assailant, if uttered by a victim on the verge of death, are 539 SCRA 251 (2007)
entitled to the highest degree of credence and respect.
Persons aware of an impending death have been known to A dying declaration is a statement made by the victim of
be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely homicide, referring to the material facts which concern the
scrupulous in their accusations. The dying declaration is cause and circumstances of the killing and which is uttered
given credence, on the premise that no one who knows of under a fixed belief that death is impending and is certain to
one’s impending death will make a careless and false follow immediately, or in a very short time, without an

58
opportunity of retraction and in the absence of all hopes of severity of his wounds, it may be reasonably presumed that
recovery. he uttered the same under a fixed belief •that his own death
was already imminent.
As an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence, a
dying declaration or ante mortem statement is evidence of In the same vein, Borre's statements may likewise be
the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since deemed to form part of the res gestae as they refer to a
no person aware of his impending death would make a startling occurrence, i.e., him being shot. While on his way
careless and false accusation. It is thus admissible to to the hospital, Borre had no time to contrive the
provide the identity of the accused and the deceased, to identification of his assailants, thus, his utterance was made
show the cause of death of the deceased, and the in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling
circumstances under which the assault was made upon him. occurrence (People vs Palanas, G.R. No. 214453, June 17,
The reasons for its admissibility is necessity and 2015).
trustworthiness. Necessity, because the declarant’s death
renders it impossible his taking the witness stand, and it SECTION 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound
often happens that there is no other equally satisfactory mind.—In an action against an executor or administrator or
proof of the crime; allowing it, therefore, prevents a failure other representative of a deceased person, or against a
of justice. And trustworthiness, because the declaration is person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against
made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death the estate of such deceased person or against such person
and when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the of unsound mind, where a party or assignor or a party or a
mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a
speak the truth. The law considers the point of death as a matter of fact occurring before the death of the deceased
situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation person or before the person become of unsound mind, any
equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind,
court. may be received in evidence if the statement was made
upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or the person
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO VARIOUS of unsound mind at a time when the matter had been
HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS: recently perceived by him or her and while his or her
recollection was clear. Such statement, however, is
QUESTION NO. 1: inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its
Zapanta, while watching television, heard 4 successive lack of trustworthiness.
gunshots. When Zapanta looked through the open door, he
saw 2 men armed with .38 caliber revolvers standing a Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 23) to the New
meter away from Borre. He saw Palanas deliver the fourth Rule (Sec. 39)
shot but he could not identify the other shooter. On the way
to the hospital, Borre told Zapanta that it was "Abe", Old Rule (Sec. 23)
New Rule (Sec. 39)
"Aspog" or "Abe Palanas", his neighbor, who shot him, This Dead Man Statute
statement was repeated to Borre's wife, Resurrecclon, who Disqualification by reason Statement of Decedent or
followed him at the hospital. For his part, Palanas of death or insanity of Person of Unsound Mind. –
interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He claimed that adverse party. – Parties or In an action against an
on the day before the incident, he was in Paraftaque City assignors of parties to a executor or administrator
attending to the needs of his sick father. On the next day, he case, or persons in whose or other representative of a
went to Tondo, Manila for a baptism and stayed there from behalf a case is deceased person, or against
morning until 9:00 p.m., after which he returned to his prosecuted, against an a person of unsound mind,
father in Parafiaque City. He maintained that he was not executor or administrator upon a claim or demand
aware of the death of Borre until he was informed by a or other representative of against the estate of such
neighbor that Resurreccion was accusing him of killing her a deceased person, or deceased person or against
husband. Can Borre's statements on his way to the hospital against a person of such person of unsound
be considered a dying declaration and part of the res unsound mind, upon a mind, where a party or
gestae? claim or demand against assignor or a party or a
the estate of such person in whose behalf a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: deceased person or case is prosecuted testifies
YES. Borre's statements constitute a dying declaration as against such person of on a matter of fact
they pertained to the cause and circumstances of his death. unsound mind, cannot occurring before the death
Moreover, taking into consideration the number and

59
testify as to any matter of of the deceased person or 1. The witness is a party or assignor or a party or a person
fact, occurring before the before the person become in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies;
death of such deceased of unsound mind, any 2. The action is against an executor or administrator or
person or before such statement of the deceased other representative of a deceased person, or against a
person became of unsound or the person of unsound person of unsound mind;
mind. mind, may be received in 3. The subject matter of the action is a claim or demand
evidence if the statement against the estate of such deceased person or against
was made upon the such person of unsound mind;
personal knowledge of the 4. His testimony refers to a matter of fact occurring before
deceased or the person of the death of the deceased person or before the person
unsound mind at a time become of unsound mind;
when the matter had been 5. The statement was made upon the personal knowledge
recently perceived by him of the deceased or the person of unsound mind;
or her and while his or her 6. It was made at a time when the matter had been
recollection was clear. Such recently perceived by him or her AND while his or her
statement, however, is recollection was clear; and
inadmissible if made under 7. The statement is made under circumstances indicating
circumstances indicating its trustworthiness.
its lack of trustworthiness.
Assignor
Note: The original Section 23 deals with a similar matter as Pertains to the assignor of a cause of action which has
that contained under the amended Section 39. already arisen and not the assignor of a right before any
cause of action accrued (5 HERRERA, supra at 312).
The old Section 23 was also known as the “Dead Man’s
Statute”, which provides that if one party to the alleged Reason for Admissibility
transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, 1. Trustworthiness
or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not 2. Reliability (Salvador, Tranquil. “Amendments to the
entitled to the under advantage of giving his own Revised Rules on Evidence.” REX Bookstore, May 8, 2020).
uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.
But before this can be successfully invoked to bar the Applicability
introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that: Applies only to a civil case or special proceeding over the
1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case or estate of a deceased or insane person.
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted;
2. The action is against an executor or administrator or Inapplicability of Rule 130, Section 39
other representative of a deceased person or a person 1. Testimony of mere witnesses who are neither party
of unsound mind; plaintiffs, nor their assignors, nor persons in whose
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand behalf a case is prosecuted, nor to a nominal party, nor
against the estate of such deceased person or against to officers and stockholders of a plaintiff corporation
person or unsound mind; (Sanson vs. CA, G. R. No. 127745, April 22, 2003).
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact which 2. If the plaintiff is the executor or administrator or other
occurred before the death of such deceased person or representative of a deceased person, or the person of
before such person became of unsound mind. (Sunga- unsound mind;
Chan vs. Chua, G. R. No. 143340, August 15, 2001). 3. Testimony offered to prove a claim less than what is
actually established under a written document signed
The presence of the foregoing requisites under the old by the defendant (Bar 2011; Icad vs. Marasigan, G. R. No.
Section 23 renders the testimonial evidence inadmissible. L-47442, April 8, 1941);
4. The statement of the deceased or the person of
Under the new rule, with the foregoing requisites, any unsound mind was not made upon the personal
statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind, knowledge of the deceased or the person of unsound
may now be received in evidence. mind at a time when the matter had been recently
perceived by him or her and while his or her
Requisites: recollection was clear; and
5. The statement is made under circumstances indicating
its lack of trustworthiness.

60
SECTION 40. Declaration against interest.—The Persons do not make statements that are disadvantageous
declaration made by a person deceased or unable to testify to themselves without substantial reason to believe that the
against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in statements are true. Self-interest induces men to be
the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary cautious in saying anything against themselves. In other
to the declarant’s own interest that a reasonable person in words, we can safely trust a man when he speaks his
his or her position would not have made the declaration interest (Baker vs. State, 336 So.2d 364, 1976).
unless he or she believed it to be true, may be received in Exception: A statement tending to expose the declarant to
evidence against himself or herself or his or her successors criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not
in interest and against third persons. A statement tending admissible UNLESS corroborating circumstances clearly
to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to indicate the trustworthiness of the statement (ROC, RULE
exculpate the accused is not admissible unless 130, Sec. 40).
corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the
trustworthiness of the statement. Requisites: (DIANoM)
1. That the declarant is Dead or unable to testify;
Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 38) to the New 2. That it relates to a fact against the Interest of the
Rule (Sec. 40) declarant;
3. That at the time he made said declaration the declarant
Old Rule (Sec. 38) New Rule (Sec. 40) was Aware that it was contrary to his aforesaid
Declaration against Declaration against interest. interest; and
interest. – The – The declaration made by a 4. That the declarant had No Motive to falsify and he
declaration made by a person deceased or unable believed such declaration to be true.
person deceased, or to testify against the interest
unable to testify, against of the declarant, if the fact When Inapplicable
the interest of the asserted in the declaration Where the declarant is NOT unable to testify or there is no
declarant, if the fact was at the time it was made showing that he cannot be available to testify, the rule does
asserted in the so far contrary to the not apply (Fuentes, Jr. vs. CA, G. R. No. 111692, February 9,
declaration was at the declarant’s own interest that 1996).
time it was made so far a reasonable person in his or
contrary to declarant’s her position would not have If his whereabouts are known, his deposition may be taken
own interest, that a made the declaration unless and the exception will not apply (RIANO, supra at 324).
reasonable man in his he or she believed it to be
position would not have true, may be received in Interest Covered
made the declaration evidence against himself or 1. Declarations against the proprietary interest are
unless he believed it to be herself or his or her those which are at variance with the declarant’s
true, may be received in successors in interest and property rights. It is essential that at the time of the
evidence against himself against third persons. A statement, the declarant’s interest affected thereby
or his successors in statement tending to expose should be actual/real/apparent and not merely
interest and against third the declarant to criminal contingent, future or conditional, otherwise, the
persons. liability and offered to declaration would not in reality be against interest.
exculpate the accused is not 2. Declarations against pecuniary interest are those
admissible unless which may bar in whole or in part the declarant’s
corroborating interests or which may give rise to a monetary claim
circumstances clearly against him.
indicate the trustworthiness 3. Declaration against penal interest are those which
of the statement. put the declarant at the risk of prosecution.
Reason for Admissibility In People vs. Toledo and Holgado (G.R. No. L-28655, August 6,
1. Necessity – because of the impossibility of obtaining 1928), it was opined by three justices that a declaration
other evidence from the same source, the declarant admitting that he was the one who killed the victim, made
being unavailable in person on the stand. by a declarant who died shortly thereafter, is admissible
2. Trustworthiness – there is a presumption that men where another person was subsequently charged as the
will not falsify to their prejudice (FRANCISCO, supra at killer of the same victim, under the theory that said
284). declaration was one against the penal interest of the
declarant. This would be a justifiable theory since under our

61
penal laws a person criminally liable is also civilly liable, CASES:
and is sustained under the present amended rule does not Fuentes v. CA
delimit or distinguish as to the interest against which the G.R. No. 111692 February 9, 1996
declaration is made.
One of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule is that
Form of Declaration pertaining to declarations made against interest. Sec. 38 of
A declaration against interest may be oral or written. Its Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that" (t)he
form is immaterial, provided all the essential requisites for declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify,
its admissibility are present (FRANCISCO, supra at 287). against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in
the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary
Declaration against Interest and Admissions, to declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable man in his
Distinguished position would not have made the declaration unless he
believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
Declaration against Admissions himself or his successors in interest and against third
Interest persons." The admissibility in evidence of such declaration
As to Declarant is grounded on necessity and trustworthiness. There are
Made by a non-party. Made by a Party. three (3) essential requisites for the admissibility of a
As to Whom Made Against declaration against interest: (a) the declarant must not be
Must be against the Need not be against the available to testify; (b) the declaration must concern a fact
declarant’s Interest. admitter’s interest. cognizable by the declarant; and (c) the circumstances must
As to Admissibility render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed.
Hearsay but admissible as Not hearsay and thus
an exception to the hearsay admissible. Parel v. Prudencio
rule. G.R. No. 146556 April 19, 2006
As to Capacity of Declarant
The declarant must be No requirement that the The theory under which declarations against interest are
dead or unable to testify. admitter is dead or unable received in evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is
to testify. that the necessity of the occasion renders the reception of
As to Conclusiveness such evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of
Admissible against Admissible only against such declaration asserts facts which are against his own
declarant, his successors- the admitter. pecuniary or moral interest.
in-interest, and third
persons. SECTION 41. Act or declaration about pedigree.—The act
As to Time when the Declaration is Made or declaration of a person deceased or unable to testify, in
respect to the pedigree of another person related to him or
Declarations against May be made at any time,
her by birth, adoption, or marriage or, in the absence
interests must have been before or during the trial
thereof, with whose family he or she was so intimately
made ante litem motam
associated as to be likely to have accurate information
(before the controversy)
concerning his or her pedigree, may be received in evidence
(RIGUERA, supra at 653).
where it occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between two persons is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration. The word “pedigree”
includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage,
death, the dates when and the places where these facts
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also
facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.
Note: The new rule includes relationship by adoption and
adds that in the absence of those mentioned under the rule,
with whose family he or she was so intimately associated as
to be likely to have accurate information concerning his or
her pedigree.

62
Pedigree includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, Who shall testify if by Adoption
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these 1. It is the person to whom the declarant shared his
facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces declaration; or
also facts of family history intimately connected with 2. Whose family or was intimately associated to that
pedigree. family (Salvador, Tranquil. “Amendments to the Revised
Rules on Evidence.” REX Bookstore, May 8, 2020).
It is the history of family descent which is transmitted from
one generation to another by both oral and written Prior Evidence of Relationship
declarations and by traditions (FRANCISCO, supra at 288). General Rule: Where the party claiming seeks recovery
against a relative common to both claimant and declarant,
Requisites: (DR-POB) but not from the declarant himself or the declarant’s
1. The declarant is already Dead or unable to testify; estate; the relationship of the declarant to the common
2. The declarant must be Relevant of the person whose relative may not be proved by the declaration itself. There
pedigree is in question; must be some independent proof of this fact.
3. The Pedigree of a person must be at issue;
4. The relationship between the declarant and the person Exception: Where the party seeks to reach the estate of the
whose pedigree is in question must be shown by declarant himself and not merely to establish a right
evidence Other than such act or declaration; through his declarations to the property of some other
5. Declaration must be made Before the controversy has family member.
occurred (Tecson vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 161434, March
3, 2004). The rule does not require that the witness who testifies in
court must be related to the person whose pedigree is under
Reasons for Admissibility consideration. It should be the declarant who is so related
1. Necessity – because the facts about pedigree are (BAUTISTA, supra).
usually those which occurred many years before the
trial and known only to few persons. Prior evidence is not necessary anymore if the declarant’s
2. Trustworthiness – because these are matters which own relationship to another is in question. In a marriage
members of a family are presumed to be interested in nullity case, the lack of personal interview of the
ascertaining the truth (FRANCISCO, supra at 288). respondent does not render hearsay the psychological
report (Camacho-Reyes vs. Reyes, G. R. No. 185286, August 18,
By Birth, Adoption, or Marriage 2010).
The relationship may be by birth, adoption, or affinity.
Accordingly, the declaration of the husband regarding the CASES:
pedigree of his wife’s relatives, and vice versa, is admissible. Tison v. CA
But declarations of the husband’s relatives regarding the G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997
pedigree of wife’s relatives, or vice versa, are not
admissible. Facts: During the hearing, petitioner Corazon Dezoller
Tison was presented as the lone witness, with the following
Declarations of the father or sister of the wife with respect documentary evidence offered to prove petitioners' filiation
to matters of pedigree of the husband’s family have been to their father and their aunt Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, to
held to be incompetent (FRANCISCO, supra at 291). wit: a family picture; baptismal certificates; certificates of
destroyed records of birth; joint affidavit. Private
There is no provision as to the extent of the degree of respondent filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff's Evidence on the
relationship. The reputation between the declarant and the ground that petitioners failed to prove their legitimate
person subject of the inquiry must be legitimate unless the filiation with the deceased Teodora Guerrero in accordance
issue is the legitimacy itself (Id.). with Article 172 of the Family Code.
Adoption creates a status that is closely assimilated to
legitimate paternity and filiation with corresponding rights Issue: Whether or not they are able to prove their filiation
and duties that necessarily flow from adoption, such as, but
not necessarily confined to, the exercise of parental Held: YES. Petitioners' evidence consists mainly of the
authority, use of surname of the adopter by the adopted, as testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison, the baptismal, death
well as support and successional rights (Republic vs. Court and marriage certificates, the various certifications from
of Appeals, G.R. No. 100835 October 26, 1993). the civil registrar, a family picture, and several joint
affidavits executed by third persons all of which she

63
identified and explained in the course and as part of her any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the
testimony. The primary proof to be considered in witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family,
ascertaining the relationship between the parties either by consanguinity or affinity, or adoption. Entries in
concerned is the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison to the family bibles or other family books or charts, engraving on
effect that Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime, or rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as
sometime in 1946, categorically declared that the former is evidence of pedigree.
Teodora's niece. Such a statement is considered a
declaration about pedigree which is admissible, as an Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 41) to the New
exception to the hearsay rule, under Section 39, Rule 130 of Rule (Sec. 42)
the Rules of Court, subject to the following conditions: (1) Old Rule (Sec. 41) New Rule (Sec. 42)
that the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that the As to Scope
declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the Act or declaration about Family reputation or
subject of inquiry; (3) that such relationship be shown by pedigree. tradition regarding
evidence other than the declaration; and (4) that the pedigree.
declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not only As to Declarant
before the commencement of the suit involving the subject Declarant is deceased or Declarant is the witness
matter of the declaration, but before any controversy has unable to testify. himself.
arisen thereon As to Relationship with Witness
The general rule, therefore, is that where the party claiming Witness need not be a Witness is a member of the
seeks recovery against a relative common to both claimant member of the family. family.
and declarant, but not from the declarant himself or the As to Need for Independent Evidence
declarant's estate, the relationship of the declarant to the Relation of the declarant The witness himself the
common relative may not be proved by the declaration and the person subject of one to whom the fact
itself. There must be some independent proof of this the inquiry must be relates, it is not necessary
fact. As an exception, the requirement that there be other established by for him to establish by
proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the independent evidence. independent evidence his
relationship, does not apply where it is sought to reach the relationship to the family.
estate of the declarant himself and not merely to establish a
right through his declarations to the property of some other Note: The new rule also adds adoption.
member of the family.
Requisites: (CPM)
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO VARIOUS
1. There is a Controversy in respect to the pedigree of any
HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS: of the members of the family;
2. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree existed
QUESTION NO. 1: Previous to the controversy;
In relation to the hearsay rule, what do the following rules
3. The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition
of evidence have in common? (2007 BAR QUESTION) regarding the pedigree of the person must be Member
a. The rule on statements that are part of the res gestae;
of the family of said person (People vs. Llanita, G. R. No.
b. The rule on dying declarations; 134101, September 5, 2001).
c. The rule on admissions against interest.
Family Reputation or Tradition in Respect to One’s
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Pedigree May be Established:
a. The rules on the evidence specified in the question
1. Through the testimony of a witness who must be a
asked, have in common the following: The evidence member of the family either by consanguinity or
although hearsay, are allowed by the Rules as
affinity;
exceptions to the hearsay rule; 2. Through entries in:
b. The facts involved are admissible in evidence for
a. family bibles;
reasons of necessity and trustworthiness; and b. family books or charts;
c. The witness is testifying on facts which are not of his
c. engraving on rings; or
own knowledge or derived from his own perception. d. family portraits and the like.
SECTION 42. Family reputation or tradition regarding The scope of the enumeration contained in the second
pedigree.—The reputation or tradition existing in a family portion of this provision, in light of the rule of ejusdem
previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of

64
generis, is limited to objects which are commonly known as Changes Made From the Old Rule (Sec. 41) to the New
“family possessions,” or those articles which represent, in Rule (Sec. 43)
effect, a family’s joint statement of its belief as to the
pedigree of a person. These have been described as objects Old Rule (Sec. 41) New Rule (Sec. 43)
“openly exhibited and well known to the family,” or those Common Reputation. – Common Reputation. –
“which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving Common reputation Common reputation
a family tradition,” (Jison vs. CA, G. R. No. 124853, February existing previous to the existing previous to the
24, 1998). controversy, respecting controversy, as to
facts of public o general boundaries of or customs
The relationship must preliminarily be proved by direct or interest more than thirty affecting lands in the
circumstantial evidence. The rules do not require any years old, or respecting community and reputation
specific degree of relationship, but the weight to which such marriage or moral as to events of general
act or declaration is entitled may be affected by the degree character, may be given in history important to the
of relationship (REGALADO, p. 785). evidence. Monuments and community respecting
inscriptions in public facts of public o general
Other Examples places may be received as interest more than thirty
1. Inscriptions on tombstones evidence of common years old, or respecting
2. Monuments reputation. marriage or moral
3. Coffin plates (Jison vs. CA, G. R. No. 124853, February character, may be given in
24, 1998). evidence. Monuments and
inscriptions in public
Reputation or Tradition Existing in the Family places may be received as
Matters of pedigree may be proved by reputation in the evidence of common
family, and not by reputation in the neighborhood or reputation.
vicinity except where the pedigree in question is marriage,
which may be proved by common reputation in the Note: The old rule speaks of common reputation existing
community (Jison vs. CA, G. R. No. 124853, February 24, previous to the controversy as to: (1) facts of public or
1998). general interest more than thirty years old; or (2)
respecting marriage or moral character.
Example: A person’s statement as to his date of birth and
age, as he learned or these from his parents or relatives, is The new rule replaced the first item with boundaries of or
an ante litem motam declaration of a family tradition customs affecting lands in the community and reputation as
(Gravador vs. Mamigo, G. R. No. L-24989, July 21, 1967). to events of general history important to the community.
The law does not require that the entries in the said booklet Common Reputation
be made at the same time as the occurrence of those events; The definite opinion of the community in which the fact to
hence, the written memorandum in the same is not subject be proved is known or exist. It means the general or
to the defect attributed to it. The witness Joaquin Jose de substantially undivided reputation, as distinguished from a
Inchausti declared affirmatively that the memorandum partial or qualified one, although it need not be unanimous
under consideration has been written in the handwriting of (REGALADO, p. 787).
his-brother Ramon Martinez de Viademonte, whose
handwriting he was familiar with, and the testimony of this It must be a common reputation existing previous to the
witness contains some reference to a member of the family, controversy, as to boundaries of or customs affecting lands
now dead, and concerning the family genealogy of the same in the community and reputation as to events of general
(Ferret vs. de lnchausti, G.R. No. L-12993, 1918). history important to the community (ROC, RULE 130, Sec.
43).
SECTION 43. Common reputation.—Common reputation
existing previous to the controversy, as to boundaries of or What may be Established by Common Reputation
customs affecting lands in the community and reputation as 1. Matters as to boundaries of or customs affecting lands
to events of general history important to the community in the community and reputation as to events of general
respecting facts of public o general interest more than thirty history important to the community.
years old, or respecting marriage or moral character, may 2. Matters respecting marriage or moral character and
be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public related facts; or
places may be received as evidence of common reputation.

65
3. Individual Moral Character personal knowledge have disclosed facts which thus
have been discussed and generally known in the
Note: Common reputation must be existing prior to the community (BAUTISTA, p. 235).
controversy (REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 130, Sec. 3. Reliability – because of the general consensus in the
43). community and that it is subject to scrutiny (Salvador,
Tranquil. “Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Requisites for Admissibility of Common Reputation: Evidence.” REX Bookstore, May 8, 2020).
1. It is a matter relating to boundaries of or customs
affecting lands in the community and reputation as to APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO VARIOUS
events of general history important to the community; HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS:
2. The reputation must have been formed among a class
of persons who were in a position to have some sources QUESTION NO. 1:
of information and to contribute intelligently to the In an attempt to discredit and impeach a Prosecution
formation of the opinion; and witness in a homicide case, the defense counsel called to the
3. The reputation must have been existing previous to the stand a person who had been the boyhood friend and next-
controversy. door neighbor of the Prosecution witness for 30 years. One
question that the defense counsel asked of the impeaching
Requisites for Admissibility of Common Reputation witness was: "Can you tell this Honorable Court about the
Respecting Marriage: general reputation of the prosecution witness in your
1. The common reputation must have been formed community for aggressiveness and violent tendencies?" As
previous to the controversy; and the trial prosecutor, would you interpose your objection to
2. The reputation must have been formed among a class the question of the defense counsel? Explain your answer.
of - persons who were in· a position to have some
sources of information and to contribute intelligently to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the formation of the opinion. YES. Under the Law on Evidence, an adverse party's witness
may be properly impeached by reputation evidence
Requisites for Admissibility of Common Reputation provided that it is to the effect that the witness's general
Respecting Moral Character: reputation for honesty, truth, or integrity was bad. The
1. That it is the reputation in the place where the person reputation must only be on character tor truthfulness or
in question is best known; and untruthfulness. (Cordial v. People, G.R. No. L-75880,
2. That it was formed previous to the controversy (People September 25, 1992).
v. Alegado, G.R. No. 93030-31, August 21, 1991).
SECTION 44. Part of the res gestae.–Statements made by
Common reputation regarding marriage or moral character a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
is not required to be more than 30 years old. (REGALADO, immediately prior or subsequent thereto, under the stress
supra). of excitement caused by the occurrence with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of
Reputation and Character Distinguished the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
1. Character - refers to the inherent qualities of a person. equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
It means that which a person really is. significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
2. Reputation - applies to the opinion which others may
have formed and expressed of his character. It means Res gestae
that which a person is reputed to be. Literally means “things done,” and refers to:
(a) Spontaneous statements in connection with a
The character of a certain place as an "opium joint" can be startling occurrence relating to that fact and in
established by proof of facts and circumstances including effect forming part thereof, and
evidence of its common reputation in the community (U.S. (b) Statements accompanying an equivocal act,
vs. Choa Chick, G.R. No. 12423, September 6, 1917). otherwise known as verbal acts, on the theory that
they are the verbal parts of the act to be explained
Reasons for Admissibility (REGALADO, supra at 788).
1. Necessity – because of the usual difficulty of obtaining
other evidence than reputation. The term res gestae has been defined as “those
2. Trustworthiness – these facts are likely to have been circumstances which are undersigned incidents of a
generally inquired about and that persons having

66
particular litigated act and which are admissible when
illustrative of such act. “It is the event speaking through the declarant.”
The testimony by a person regarding statements made
In a general way, res gestae refers to the circumstances, by another as that startling occurrence was taking place
facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and or immediately prior or subsequent thereto, although
serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and essentially hearsay, is admissible exceptionally, on the
contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea theory that said statements are “natural and
of deliberation and fabrication (RIANO, supra at 310). spontaneous, unreflected and instinctive, made before
there had been opportunity to devise or continue
Res gestae, as an exception to the hearsay rule, refers to anything contrary to the real fact that occurred,” it
those exclamations and statements made by either the being said that in these cases, it is the event speaking
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately through the declarant, not the latter speaking of the
before, during, or after the commission of the crime, when event (People v. Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 67690-91, January
the circumstances are such that the statements were made 21, 1992).
as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the
excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for Test of Admissibility of Evidence as a Part of the Res
the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement Gestae
(DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies v. Radio The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of res
Mindanao Network, Inc., G.R. No. 147039, January 27, 2006). gestae is whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is
so intimately interwoven or connected with the
In spontaneous exclamations or statements, the res gestae principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be
is the startling occurrence, whereas in verbal acts, the res regarded a part of the principal fact or event itself, and
gestae are the statements accompanying the equivocal act also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or
(Talidano v. Falcon Maritime & Allied Services, Inc., G.R. No. purpose to manufacture testimony (People v. Villarico,
172031, July 14, 2008). Sr., G.R. No. 158362, April 4, 2011).
Types of Res Gestae Factors to be Considered

1. SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS – statements made by a The following are the factors to be considered in
person while a startling occurrence is taking place or determining whether statements offered in evidence as
immediately or prior or subsequent thereto with part of the res gestae have been made spontaneously:
respect to the circumstances thereof (RIGUERA, supra a. Time that lapsed between the occurrence of
at 836). the act or transaction and the making of the
statement,
Requisites of Admissibility of Spontaneous b. Place where the statement was made,
Statements c. Condition of the declarant when he made the
(a) The principal act is a startling occurrence; statement,
(b) The statements were made before the declarant d. Presence or absence of intervening events
had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; between the occurrence and the statement
(c) The statements must concern the occurrence in relative thereto, and
question and its immediate attending e. Nature and circumstances of the statement
circumstances (DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance itself (Belbis, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 181052,
Companies v. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., supra); November 14, 2012).
and
(d) The statement was made while the event is taking May a statement made 11 hours after the startling
place, or immediately prior to, or subsequent to the occurrence be admissible as part of the res gestae?
startling occurrence (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 44). YES. Statements made as part of the res gestae are
admissible even if made eleven hours after the incident,
Note: Under the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the provided the declarant was still under the influence of
Revised Rules on Evidence, which became effective on the startling event (Zarate v. RTC, G.R. No. 152263, July
1 May 2020, the Supreme Court makes clear that the 3, 2009).
statements made must be under the stress of
excitement caused by the occurrence. The former Reasons for Admissibility
rule (Sec. 42) merely states “with respect to the
circumstances thereof”.

67
a. Necessity – natural and spontaneous utterances The following requisites must be present for the verbal
are more convincing than the testimony of the acts to be admissible:
same person on the stand (a) The principal act to be characterized must be
b. Trustworthiness – the statement is made equivocal;
instinctively (FRANCISCO, supra at 307). (b) The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
(c) The statement must accompany the act; and
The admissibility of a spontaneous statement is (d) The statements give a legal significance to the
anchored on the theory that the statement was uttered equivocal act (Talidano v. Falcon Maritime & Allied
under circumstances where the opportunity to Services, Inc., G.R. No. 172031, July 14, 2008).
fabricate is absent. The statement is a reflex action
rather than deliberate act, instinctive rather than Objections to Admissibility
deliberate (RIANO, supra at 314). Objections to the admissibility of verbal acts depend
upon whether or not the proponent has established the
Distinctions between Dying Declaration and Res Gestae foundations for admissibility. The objector has to
in connection with a homicidal act consider the following questions:
Dying Declaration Res Gestae (a) Is there an act that is equivocal or ambiguous?
As to Who Makes the Statement (b) Will the statement accompanying the ambiguous
May be made by the killer or equivocal act explain the act or give legal
Can be made only by the significance to it?
himself after or during the
victim (c) Is the equivocal act material to the issue?
killing
As to When the Statement is Made (d) Does the statement accompany the equivocal act?
(RIANO, supra at 321).
The statement may precede,
Made only after the
accompany or be made after SECTION 45. Records of regularly conducted business
homicidal attack has been
the homicidal act was activity.—A memorandum, report, record or data
committed
committed compilation of acts, events, conditions, or opinions, or
As to Trustworthiness diagnoses, made by writing, typing, electronic, optical or
other similar means at or near the time of or from
Based upon its being given transmission or supply of information by a person with
Spontaneity of the
under an awareness of knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or
statement
impending death conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular
(REGALADO, supra at 789) practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of
Objections to Admissibility which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other
A counsel who intends to object to the presentation of qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay
a spontaneous statement as evidence needs to analyze evidence (The whole provision has been amended).
the evidence sought to be admitted by strictly weighing
it according to the standards set by Sec. 44 of Rule 130 Note: The old rule (Section 43) requires the following
(RIANO, supra at 315). requisites to be present:
1. The person who made the entry must be dead, outside
2. VERBAL ACTS – statements accompanying an the country or unable to testify;
equivocal act material to the issue and giving it legal 2. The entries were made at or near the time of the
significance (RIGUERA, supra at 846). transactions to which they refer;
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated
Equivocal Act in the entries;
An ambiguous act, one which in itself does not signify 4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or
anything when taken separately. It only acquires in the performance of a duty, whether legal,
meaning, specifically what the rules call a legal contractual, moral or religious; and
significance, only because of the statements that 5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
accompany the act (RIANO, supra at 318). course of business or duty (Canque v. CA, G.R. No. 96202,
April 13, 1999).
Requisites of Admissibility of Verbal Acts
Changes Made from the Old Rule (Sec. 43) to the New
Rule (Sec. 45)

68
Amended Rule (Sec. overriding necessity to bring into court all the clerks or
Old Rule (Sec. 43)-
45)- Records of employees who individually made the entries in a long
Entries in the course
Regularly Conducted account. It is sufficient that the person who supervises the
of business
Business Activity) work of the clerks or other employees making the entries
Requires that the No longer requires that testify that the account was prepared under his supervision
person who made the the person who made and that the entries were regularly entered in the ordinary
entry must be dead, the entry must be dead, course of business (REGALADO, supra at 792).
outside the country or outside the country or Note: Under the old rule, if the entrant is available as
unable to testify unable to testify witness, the entries will not be admitted as an exception to
The entries referred to The entries refer to the hearsay rule. The entries may nevertheless be availed of
are those made at or memorandum, report, by said entrant as a memorandum to refresh his memory
near the time of the record or data while testifying on the transactions reflected therein (ROC,
transactions to which compilation of acts, RULE 130, Sec. 16; Cang Yui v. Gardner, G.R. No. L-9974,
they refer. events, conditions, March 24, 1916).
opinions, or diagnoses,
made by writing, typing, Under the amended rule, the requirement that the witness
electronic, optical or must be unable to testify has been deleted.
other similar means at
or near the time of or Entries as Prima Facie Evidence
from transmission or The ship’s logbook is the official record of a ship’s voyage
supply of information. which its captain is obligated by law to keep. It is where the
captain records the decisions he has adopted, a summary of
“Business” the performance of the vessel, and other daily events. The
The word “business” therein is not used in the ordinary entries made in the ship’s logbook by a person performing
sense of the word but extends to all cases where the entries a duty required by law are prima facie evidence of the facts
were made in a professional capacity or in the performance stated in the logbook (Sadagnot v. Reiner Pacific
of a duty (RIGUERA, supra at 814). International Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 152636, August 8, 2007).
Reason for Admissibility SECTION 46. Entries in official records.—Entries in

Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual official records made in the performance of his or her duty
reliability because their regularity and continuity are by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the
calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima
precision (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Monet’s Exports facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
and Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 184971, April 19, 2010).
Requisites for Admissibility
When the Entries Should Be Made For entries in official records to be admissible in evidence,
The entry should have been made contemporaneously, or the following requisites must concur:
nearly so, with the fact or transaction recorded, or at a (a) The entry was made by a police officer or by another
reasonable time thereafter consistently with the fact or person specially enjoined by law to do so;
transaction recorded, or at a reasonable time thereafter (b) It was made by the public officer in the performance of
consistently with the usual and regular course of the his duties or by such other person in the performance
business in which the entry was made (FRANCISCO, supra at of a duty specially enjoined by law; and
318). (c) The public officer or other person had sufficient
knowledge of the facts stated by him, which must have
Entries in the Ordinary Course of Business been acquired by him personally or through official
It means that the entries have been made regularly, as is information (People v. San Gabriel, G.R. No. 107735,
usual, in the management of the trade or business. It is February 1, 1996).
essential that there be regularity in the entries (AGPALO,
supra at 215). Reasons for Admissibility
1. Necessity – consists in the inconvenience and difficulty
How Regularity of the Entries Proved of requiring the official’s attendance as a witness to
In the presentation and admission as evidence of entries testify to innumerable transactions in the course of his
made in the regular course of business, there is no duty. This will also unduly hamper public business.

69
2. Trustworthiness – consists in the presumption of 3. The routine and disinterested origin of most such
regularity of performance of official duty by a public statements; and
officer (Fullero v. People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 4. The publicity of record which makes more likely the
2007). prior exposure of such errors as might have occurred
(Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004).
Note: Entries in official records are merely prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated (REGALADO, supra at Entries in the Course of Business and Entries in Official
793). Records, Distinguished
It is not essential for the officer making the official Entries in the Course
Entries in Official Records
statement to have a personal knowledge of the facts stated of Business
by him, it being sufficient that the official information was As to Whether the Entrant be Dead
acquired by officers who prepared the reports from persons The person who made There is no such requirement.
who do not only have personal knowledge of the facts stated the entries must be
but must have the duty to give such statements for the dead or unable to
record (Africa v. Caltex, G.R. No. 12986, March 31, 1966). testify.
As to the Need of Authentication
Official records are admissible in evidence regardless of Needs authentication Need not be authenticated
whether the officer or person who made them was As to What Rule Applies
presented and testified in court, since these entries are Best evidence rule Exception to best evidence
considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein applies rule
(Fullero v. People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007). As to the Reasons for the Entry
The entries are made The entrant is a public officer,
Police Blotter pursuant to a duty, or if a private individual, must
Entries in a police blotter though regularly done in the which is legal, have acted pursuant to a
course of performance of official duty are not conclusive contractual, moral or specific legal duty.
proof of the truth of such entries. Entries in official records religious.
like a police blotter are only prima facie evidence of the facts (RIANO, supra at 322-333, 327-328).
set out, since the entries in the police blotter could well be
incomplete or inaccurate (People v. Cabuang, Jr., G.R. No.
Private Persons Specially Enjoined by Law
103292, January 27, 1993). The following are examples of private persons specially
enjoined by law to make official entries:
Entries in Public Records (1) A ship captain is required to keep log book entries
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in
regarding the incidents of navigation (CODE OF
the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie COMMERCE, Art. 612);
evidence of the facts therein. As such, the certifications
(2) A drawee of a check is required to secure a stamp of
issued by the local civil registrar and the clerk of court dishonor and its reason under B.P. No. 22;
regarding details of petitioner’s adoption which are entered
(3) Parties to a marriage ceremony and the solemnizing
in the records kept under their official custody, are prima officer are required to sign and attest the marriage
facie evidence of the facts contained therein (Reyes v. Sotero, certificate and the solemnizing officer is required to
G.R. No. 167405, February 16, 2006). keep a copy (FAMILY CODE, Art. 23).
A transfer certificate of title, without testimony of the
Entry Made By a Public Officer of a Foreign Country
person giving the certification, is sufficient and competent While the text of Section 46, Rule 130 would appear to
evidence which is an exception to the hearsay rule as
indicate that such entry is not excepted from the hearsay
provided in Section 46, Rule 130 (Escobar v. Luna, G.R. No. rule, it is submitted that it is so excepted taking into account
169204, March 23, 2007).
Section 19(a) and Section 23 of Rule 132.
The trustworthiness of public documents and the value
Section 19(a) classifies as public documents the written
given to the entries made therein could be grounded on: official acts or records of the official acts of public officers,
1. The sense of official duty in the preparation of the whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country.
statement made;
2. The penalty which is usually affixed to a breach of that
duty;

70
Section 23, captioned “public documents as evidence,” 4. Actuarial and annuity tables
provides that documents consisting of entries in public 5. Compilations of American cases or laws contained in
records made in the performance of a duty by a public books published by West Publishing Company – may be
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated used to prove a foreign case or foreign law (RIGUERA,
(RIGUERA, supra at 857). supra at 851).
Note: A return of service of summons executed by a foreign It is presumed that a printed or published book, purporting
sheriff is admissible to prove the fact of service even to contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of a foreign
without presenting the foreign sheriff in court. It may be country where the book is published, contained correct
presented as prima facie evidence of the fact of service. reports of such cases (ROC, RULE 131, Sec. 3(hh)).
However, the requirements of proof of official record under
Section 24, Rule 132 must be followed (RIGUERA, supra at Price Quotations do not fall under Commercial Lists
858). A PNOC ship collided with private respondent’s fishing ship
resulting in the latter ship sinking. Private respondent sued
SECTION 47. Commercial lists and the like.—Evidence of PNOC for recovery of the value of the ship and damages. In
statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an order to prove damages, private respondent offered in
occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other evidence quotation letters from a ship builder and
published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the equipment dealers quoting the price of a fishing ship,
truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is fishing gear and equipment similar to those lost by private
published for use by persons engaged in that occupation respondent. The persons who wrote the quotation letters
and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. were however not presented by private respondent in
court.
Requisites of Admissibility
The following requisites must be complied with for the The Supreme Court ruled that the price quotations are
commercial list hearsay exception to apply: hearsay, and they do not fall under the commercial lists
1. There is a list, register, periodical, or other published exception because they are not published in any list,
compilation; register, periodical or other compilation on the relevant
2. Such published compilation contains statements of subject matter. Neither are they “market reports or
matters of interest to persons engaged in an quotations” as they are not “standard handbooks or
occupation; periodicals, containing data of everyday professional need
3. The compilation is published for use by persons and relied upon in the work of the occupation.” The price
engaged in that occupation; and quotations are simply letters issued personally to private
4. The compilation is generally used and relied upon by respondent’s General Manager as response to his queries
the persons engaged in that occupation (RIGUERA, (PNOC Shipping & Transport Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 107518,
supra at 850-851). October 8, 1998).
Reasons for Admissibility SECTION 48. Learned treatises.—A published treatise,

1. Necessity – because of the usual inaccessibility of the periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science,
persons responsible for the compilation of matters or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter
contained in a list, register, periodical, or other stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness
published compilation and tremendous inconvenience expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the
it would cause to the court if it would issue summons to statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
these numerous individuals. recognized in his or her profession or calling as expert in
2. Trustworthiness – they have no motive to deceive and the subject.
they further realize that unless the list, register,
periodical, or other published compilation are Requisites of Admissibility
prepared with care and accuracy, their work will have The following requisites must be complied with before
no commercial or probative value. learned treatises may apply:
1. There is a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet;
Examples of Commercial Lists 2. The published treatise, periodical or pamphlet is on the
The following are some examples of commercial lists: subject of law, art, science, or history; and
1. Stock market reports 3. The writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical,
2. Foreign exchange tables or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as
3. Mortality tables expert in the subject. Such recognition may be proved

71
by an expert witness or taken judicial notice of by the In order that a testimony or deposition at a former
court (RIGUERA, supra at 862). proceeding becomes admissible in evidence, the following
requisites must be complied with:
Admissibility 1. The witness is dead or unable to testify;
Learned treatises are admissible in evidence if (a) the court
takes judicial notice thereof, or (b) the same are testified to “Unable to Testify”
by a witness expert in the subject. The CA took judicial The phrase refers to a physical inability to appear at the
notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values (Estrada v. Noble, witness stand and to give a testimony (Republic v.
[CA], 49 O.G. 139). Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375. December 11, 2011).
Reasons for Admissibility Note: The new rule (Section 49) adds the testimony or
1. Necessity – the ordinary expert witness has no deposition of a witness out of the Philippines or who
knowledge derived from personal observation. He cannot, with due diligence be found therein or is
virtually reproduces, literally or in substance, unavailable, in addition to one who is unable to testify.
conclusions of others which he accepts on the authority
of the eminent names responsible for them. It would be 2. The testimony or deposition of the witness was given in
costly to refuse to accept information from a competent a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
source ready at hand (5 HERRERA, supra at 764). between the same parties or those representing the
2. Trustworthiness – the learned writers have no motive same interests;
to misrepresent. Perhaps, they may be biased in favor 3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the
of a certain theory, but it is a bias in favor of the truth present case, although on different causes of action;
as they see it and most importantly, it is not a bias in 4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial
favor of a litigant in the lawsuit. is the same issue involved in the present case; and
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine
Examples the witness in the former case (Manliclic v. Calaunan,
History books and published findings of scientists fall G.R. No. 150157, January 25, 2007).
within this exception (RIANO, supra at 329). Legal treatises
are also included in this exception (REGALADO, supra at Though said section speaks only of testimony and
796). deposition, it does not mean that documents from a former
case or proceeding cannot be admitted. Said documents can
Is an article on the web by an expert covered by the be admitted they being part of the testimonies of witnesses
learned treatise exception? that have been admitted. Accordingly, they shall be given
No. “Published” refers to one done by publishing houses and the same weight as that to which the testimony may be
intended for sale or distribution to the public. Such entitled (Id.)
publication, with the safeguards of editorial and peer
review, assures quality ad authoritativeness of the treatise, Deposition in Another Case or Proceeding Inadmissible
periodical, or pamphlet and guards against inferior or in Criminal Case
mediocre material. Such safeguards are not present in the In criminal cases, either party may utilize as part of its
internet where almost anybody can post an article and evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of
represent himself to be an expert (RIGUERA, supra at 862- or cannot with due diligence be found in the Philippines,
863). unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another
case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the
SECTION 49. Testimony or deposition at a former same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having
proceeding.—The testimony or deposition of a witness the opportunity to cross-examine him (ROC, RULE 115, Sec.
deceased or out of the Philippines or who cannot, with due 1(f)).
diligence, be found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise
unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, The rule on former testimony or deposition in civil cases
judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and (Sec. 47, Rule 130) is substantially similar to that in criminal
subject matter, may be given in evidence against the cases (Sec. 1(f), Rule 115), with the notable distinction that
adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine a deposition is not mentioned in Section 1(f), Rule 115.
him or her. Taking into account the constitutional right of
confrontation, it is opined that the difference should be
Requisites of Admissibility interpreted in favor of the accused, that is, a deposition in

72
another case or proceeding is inadmissible against the The Supreme Court ruled that the consolidation was merely
accused for being hearsay (RIGUERA, supra at 821). for purposes of joint trial but each case retained its separate
character and required the entry of a separate judgment.
Note: Statements made during preliminary investigation The consolidation did not merge Civil Case No. 0009 and
are not covered by the former testimony or deposition Civil Case No. 0130 into a single action and cause the parties
exception since there is no right to cross-examine during a in one to be the parties to another. Thus the deposition was
preliminary investigation (ROC, RULE 112, Sec. 3(e)). not taken in Civil Case No. 0009 but in a separate of former
proceeding, Civil Case No. 0130, in which case the
requirements of Section 47, Rule 130 requiring identity of
Failure to Object on Admissibility of Testimony in a parties applies. Since the respondents were not parties to
Prior Criminal Case Makes the Same Admissible Civil Case No. 0130, the deposition taken therein was
The testimony of a witness in a prior criminal case for hearsay as against them and inadmissible upon proper and
reckless imprudence against the employee (bus driver) timely objection (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
cannot be introduced in a subsequent civil case for tort filed 152375. December 11, 2011).
by the offended party against the employer (bus company)
to enforce the latter’s vicarious liability under Article 2180 SECTION 50. Residual exception.—A statement not
of the Civil Code. This is because the employer is not a party specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions,
in the criminal case and thus had no opportunity to cross- having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
examine the witness. trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that
(a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
However, where the employer failed to object to the (b) the statement is more probative on the point for which
transcripts of stenographic notes when they were offered in it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent
evidence, the same are admissible. The driver’s acquittal is can procure through reasonable efforts; and (c) the general
of no moment since the tort case is an independent civil purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will be
action (Manliclic v. Calaunan, G.R. No. 150157, January 25, best served by admission of the statement into evidence.
2007). However, a statement may not be admitted under this
exception unless the proponent makes known to the
Note: A judgment of conviction of the employee is however adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by
conclusive upon the employer in a motion or action to the pre-trial stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to
enforce the employer’s subsidiary liability under Article provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare
103 of the Revised Penal Code and said judgment is to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement
admissible in evidence in the proceedings brought to and the particulars of it, including the name and address of
enforce the employer’s subsidiary liability (RIGUERA, supra the declarant.
at 824).
A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing
Consolidation Merely for Joint Trial and Not Merger of exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
Action and Parties; Deposition is Hearsay Against the trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that:
Parties in the Second Case (a) The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
The Sandiganbayan ordered the consolidation of Civil Case (b) The statement is more probative on the point for which
No. 0009 with several incident cases including Civil Case No. it is offered than any other evidence which the
0130. The PCGG in Civil Case No. 0130 took the deposition proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and
of Maurice Bane, a former officer of ETPI, before the (c) The general purposes of these rules and the interests of
Philippine Consul General in London, England. The justice will be best served by admission of the
deposition was sought to be introduced by the PCGG in Civil statement into evidence (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 50).
Case No. 0009. The respondents objected on the ground However, a statement may not be admitted under this
that the deposition did not comply with [formerly] Section exception unless the proponent makes known to the
47 of Rule 130 which requires identity of parties, they not adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by
having been parties to Civil Case No. 0130. The PCGG on the the pre-trial stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to
other hand argues that since Civil Case No. 0009 and 0130 provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare
were consolidated, the actions were merged into one and to meet it, the proponent’s intention to offer the statement
hence it is Section 4(c), Rule 23 and not Section 47, Rule 130 and the particulars of it, including the name and address of
which applies. Under Section 4(c), Rule 23, the deposition the declarant (Id.).
may be introduced in evidence for any purpose if the
deponent is outside of the Philippines. Note: This is a new provision.

73
OPINION RULE Sec 52. Opinion of expert Section 49. Opinion of
witness. – The opinion of a expert witness. — The
SECTION 51. General rule. – The opinion of a witness is not witness on a matter opinion of a witness on a
admissible, except as indicated in the following sections. requiring special matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, knowledge, skill,
A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC Rules on Evidence experience, training or experience or training
Sec 51. General rule. – Section 48. General rule. education, which he or which he shown to
The opinion of a witness — The opinion of witness she is shown to possess, posses, may be received
is not admissible, except is not admissible, except may be received in in evidence. (43a)
as indicated in the as indicated in the evidence. (49a)
following sections. (48) following sections. (42)
Expert Witness
Opinion A person who belongs to the profession or calling to which
An inference or conclusion drawn by a witness from facts, the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses
some of which are known to him and others assumed, or special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to
express an opinion (REGALADO, Remedial Law
drawn from facts, which although lending probability to the
inference, do not evolve it by a process of absolutely Compendium, p. 802).
necessary reasoning (FRANCISCO, Basic Evidence (2017), p.
251). Qualifications of an Expert Witness
There is no definite standard in determining the degree of
General Rule: A witness can testify only to those facts skill or knowledge that a witness must possess in order to
which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; testify as an expert. It is sufficient that the following factors
that is, which are derived from his or her own perception be present:
(36a) (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, RULE 130, SEC 22). 1. Training and education;
2. Particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of
Exceptions: the case; and
3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon
1. Opinion of expert witness - on a matter requiring which his opinion is based (People vs. Abriol, G.R.
No. 123137, Oct. 17, 2001)
special knowledge, skill, experience, training or
education, which he or she is shown to possess
NOTE: Before an express witness may be required to give
(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, RULE 130, SEC 52).
an opinion, the party presenting must first establish that he
is an expert on the subject upon which he is called to testify.
2. Opinion of ordinary witness:
a. The identity of a person about whom he or she Failure to prove that he possesses a special skill or
has adequate knowledge (A.M. No. 19-08-15- knowledge as to the very question on which he proposes to
SC, RULE 130, SEC 50, (a)); express an opinion, the court should not allow him to give
b. A handwriting with which he or she has an opinion thereon (FRANCISCO, supra at 253)
sufficient familiarity (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC,
RULE 130, SEC 50, (b)); Expert Opinion
c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he or It is the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
she is sufficiently acquainted (A.M. No. 19-08- knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to
possess. The expert onion may be received in evidence
15-SC, RULE 130, SEC 50, (c));
d. The witness may also testify on his or her (RIGUERA, Primer-Reviewer on Remedial Law (2019), p.
867).
impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person (A.M. No.
Basis of Expert Opinion
19-08-15-SC, RULE 130, SEC 50, last par.).
1. Personal knowledge of the facts; or
SECTION 52. Opinion of expert witness. – The opinion of a Where the expert witness is required to give an
witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, opinion based upon facts upon which he knows
experience, training or education, which he or she is shown personally, he must first state those facts before
to possess, may be received in evidence. giving an opinion thereon.
Illustration:
A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC Rules on Evidence

74
A physician is called to give his opinion as to the denied or curtailed under the rules of procedure in force in
mental or physical condition of one whom he has this jurisdiction (Camerino vs. Gonzales, et al., CA-G.R. No. L-
examined (FRANCISCO, supra at 253). 17567-R).
2. Hypothetical questions Common subjects of expert testimony:

If the expert witness has no personal knowledge 1. Handwriting;
of the facts, hypothetical questions may be asked 2. Typewritten documents;
of an expert to elicit his opinion (REGALADO, supra 3. Ballistic;
at 802). 4. Mental condition;
5. Cause of death or injury;
A hypothetical question must be so framed as to 6. Value of real property; and
show some relation between the facts assumed in 7. Market Value (FRANCISCO, supra at 258).
the question and the theory supposed to be
supported by them so that the answer or judgment SECTION 53. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion
of the expert will be something more than mere of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received
guess (FRANCISCO, supra at 256). in evidence regarding:
Illustration: (a) the identity of a person about whom he has

A clinical psychologist can testify regarding the adequate knowledge;
psychological capacity of a person even if he was
not able to personally interview the witness (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient
(RIGUERA, supra at 868). familiarity; and
Expert Opinion is admissible only if: (c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
1. The subject under examination requires expertise; sufficiently acquainted.
2. The witness must possess the knowledge, skill or
experience; The witness may also testify on his impressions of the
3. Expert testimony must pertain to the matter in emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
issue (FRANCISCO, supra at 252). Ordinary Opinion Evidence
That which is given by the witness who is of ordinary
capacity and who has by opportunity acquired a particular
knowledge which is outside the limits of common
Probative Value of Expert Testimony observation and which may be of value in elucidating a
The court is not, however, bound by the opinion of an matter under consideration (5 HERRERA, supra at 823).
expert. Expert opinion evidence is to be considered or
weighed by the court like any other testimony, in the light
of its own general knowledge and experience upon the
subject of inquiry (RIANO, The Bar Lecture Series (2016), p.
332).
Generally, expert evidence is regarded, not conclusive, but

purely advisory in character (People vs. Deauna, G.R. Nos.
143200-01, Aug. 1, 2002).
Example:
In examination of forged documents, judges must also
exercise independent judgment in determining the
authenticity or genuineness of the signature in question and
not merely on the testimony of the handwriting experts
(Mendez vs. CA, 672 SCRA 200, 209, June 13, 2012).
Courts may either accept or refuse admission of expert’s

testimony. It may also believe such testimony but the party
in a case to offer expert testimony in evidence cannot be

75
Opinion of an ordinary Opinion of an expert Opinion as to the Handwriting of a Person
witness witness Well entrenched is the rule that resort to handwriting
Opinion of an ordinary The opinion of an expert experts is not mandatory. This is so since under Section 22,
witness may be received in witness may be received Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the handwriting
evidence regarding: in evidence on a matter of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to
(a) the identity of a requiring special be the handwriting of such person, because he has seen
person about whom knowledge, skill, such person write; or has seen the handwriting purporting
he has adequate experience or training to be his upon which the witness has acted or has been
knowledge; which he shown to charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
(b) a handwriting possess. handwriting of such person. Moreover, the opinion of a non-
with which he has expert witness, for which proper basis is given, may be
sufficient received in evidence regarding the handwriting or
familiarity; and signature of a person with which he has sufficient
(c) the mental familiarity (Ernesto Fullero v. People, G.R. No. 170583,
sanity of a person September 12, 2007).
with whom he is
sufficiently Opinion as to the Mental Sanity or Insanity of a Person
acquainted. The mother of an offended party in a case of rape, though
(d)impressions of not a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and mental
the emotion, condition of the party, how she was born, what she is
behavior, condition suffering from, and what her attainments are, is competent
or appearance of a to testify on the matter.
person.
It is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion
General Rule: as to the sanity or mental condition of a person, provided
The opinion of witness is not admissible (ROC, Rule 130, the witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe the
Sec. 50). speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in
question. Generally, it is required that the witness details
Reason: the factors and reasons upon which he bases his opinion
An ordinary witness should only testify as to those facts before he can testify as to what it is (People v. Duranan, G.R.
which are within his own knowledge. Nos. 134074-75, January 16, 2001).
Exceptions (HIM-EBAC): CHARACTER EVIDENCE

1. Handwriting of a person with which he has sufficient
familiarity; Section 54. Character evidence not generally admissible;
exceptions. – Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of
2. Identity of a person about whom he has adequate character is not admissible for the purpose of proving
knowledge; action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion,
except:
3. Mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted (a) In Criminal Cases:
4. Impressions of the Emotions, Behavior, Appearance of (1) The character of the offended party may be proved
a person or Condition (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 53). if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
Laying the Proper Basis or Predicate (2) The accused may prove his or her good moral
Before an ordinary witness may be allowed to give his character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in
opinion on the HIM-EBAC, he must first establish the the offense charged. However, the prosecution may
predicate (FRANCISCO, supra at 260). not prove his or her bad moral character unless on
rebuttal.
Opinion as to the Identity of a Person
(b) In Civil Cases:
A person may be identified by his voice, his left-handedness,
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is
his skill in chemistry, his residence, his personal history at
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of the character
college.
involved in the case.

76
(c) In Criminal and Civil Cases: rebuttal and when such evidence is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged. This is intended to
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who might otherwise
admissible until such character has been impeached. be convicted not because he is guilty but because he is a
person of bad character (Id.).
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of
character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by When character evidence is introduced into a criminal case
testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an it must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved
opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into in the type of offense charged. For example, on a charge of
relevant specific instances of conduct. rape, character for chastity; on a charge of assault, character
for peaceableness or violence; on a charge for
In cases which character or a trait of character of a person embezzlement, character for honesty (FRANCISCO, supra at
is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof 214).
may also be made specific instance of the person’s conduct.
Character is the possession by a person of certain qualities Evidence of one’s character must be confined to a time not
of mind and morals, distinguishing him from others. It is the too remote from the time in question. In other words, it is
opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the the character of the accused prior to the time of the crime,
common report of the people who are acquainted with him; which is admissible, but not that which is found to exist
his reputation (People v. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002). subsequently. Likewise, it is restricted to the community or
neighborhood in which he lives, has resided, is best known,
The general rule is character evidence is not admissible in or has established a reputation. In this connection, the place
evidence (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 54). where he works is held to qualify as a neighborhood
(FRANCISCO, supra at 217).
The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is
regarded as legally irrelevant in determining in a Good or bad character does not furnish evidence of guilt or
controversy, so that evidence thereto is not admissible. innocence, but merely suggests doubts, probabilities,
Ordinarily, if the issues in the case were allowed to be likelihood or unlikelihood, as the case may be (FRANCISCO,
influenced by evidence of the character or reputation of the supra at 219).
parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a
popularity contest rather than a factual inquiry into the Failure of the accused to offer evidence as to his good moral
merits of the case (People v. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, May 29, character cannot be the basis of any adverse presumption.
2002). In the same manner, an accused is not entitled to an
acquittal simply because of his previous good moral
 IN CRIMINAL CASES character and example play conduct if the court believes
that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
Character of accused in criminal cases charged (People v. Laya, et al., 28 SCRA 73).
Character is never an issue in a criminal case unless the Character of offended person in criminal cases
accused elects to make it one. Only after he has introduced
evidence of his good character may the prosecution rebut As to the offended party, his good or bad moral character
such claims by introducing evidence of his bad character may be proved as long as it tends to establish the
(Edwards v. United States, 374 F 2d 24,27, cited in probability or improbability of the offense charged (ROC,
FRANCISCO, Basic Evidence (2017), p. 213). Rule 130, Sec. 54). This rule is applied with frequency in
cases of homicide and sex offenses (FRANCISCO, supra at
Accused may prove his good moral character which is 220).
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
Instances when the good or bad moral character of the
When the accused presents proof of his good moral offended party may be offered as evidence:
character, this strengthens the presumption of innocence, a. Character evidence offered to support a claim of
and where good character and reputation are established, self-defense in an assault or homicide case;
an inference arises that the accused did not commit the b. A claim of consent in a rape case (People v. Lee,
crime charged (People v. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002). supra); or
c. In case of seduction, the good reputation of the
Sub-paragraph 2 provides that the prosecution may not offended party is in issue under Article 339 of the
prove the bad moral character of the accused except only in Revised Penal Code (FRANCISCO, supra at 221).

77
Character of the deceased in homicide In conclusion, the civil acctions in which character may be
On prosecution for homicide, evidence of bad character of in issue are those from the nature of which the character of
the deceased is irrelevant, for, as frequently said, the law the parties, or some of them, is of particular importance,
protects everyone from unlawful violence, regardless of either as involved in the cause of action or as affecting
character, and the service done the community in ridding it damages (FRANCISCO, supra at 227).
of a violent and dangerous man is, in the eyes of the law, no
justification of the act (FRANCISCO, supra at 221).  IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES
This rule has two exceptions, when the bad character of Character of witness
deceased may be offered in evidence: In criminal and civil cases, the bad moral character of a
witness may always be proved by either party (ROC, Rule
a. Where the issue of self-defense is raised and the 132, Sec. 11) but not evidence of his good moral character,
character of the slaying is doubtful, evidence of the unless such character has been impeached (ROC, Rule 130,
violent and dangerous character of the deceased is Sec. 54).
competent for the purpose of determining whether The character of a witness must be attacked or impeached
the deceased or the accused was the aggressor; and before the testimony sustaining his character may properly
b. Where the evidence tends to prove that the accused be admitted. Evidence in rebuttal to sustain a witness’
acted in self-defense, evidence of the violent and character may be properly admitted, when his character
dangerous character of the deceased, known to the has been assailed in order to discredit him, evidence
defendant, is admissible as tending to characterize sustaining his character may be admitted when the
the acts of the deceased, as bearing on the opposite party brings out matters which, if true, tend to
reasonableness of defendant’s apprehension of diminish his credibility by disparaging his character (98
danger at the time of the homicide (FRANCISCO, C.J.S., 464).
supra at 221-222). It is not necessary that there shall be a successful
impeachment of the witness. A mere attempt to impeach his
Character of the deceased in murder character, even though unsuccessful, warrants the
While the good or bad moral character of the victim may be introduction of testimony as to his good character
availed of as an aid to determine the probability or (FRANCISCO, supra at 229).
improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not Character evidence can be shown by proof of specific acts
necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is or conduct on the part of the person in question, whether
committed with treachery or premeditation (FRANCISCO, good or bad only in cases which character or a trait of
supra at 223). character of a person is an essential element of a charge,
 IN CIVIL CASES claim or defense (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 54).
Under Sec. 54, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, evidence of
moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only
when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF,
case. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND
Character in issue is a technical expression, which does PRESUMPTIONS
not simply mean that the character may be affected by the
result, but that it is of particular importance in the suit itself, Sec 1. Burden of proof.
as the character of the plaintiff in an action for slander, or
that of a woman in an action for seduction (Porter v. Seiler, Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence
23 Pa. 242, 430, 62 Am. D 341, cited in FRANCISCO, supra at on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
224). defense by the amount of evidence required by law. (1a, 2a)
Some civil actions where the measure of compensation BURDEN OF PROOF

may be affected by the plaintiff’s character:
1. Defamation cases; Burden of Proof or “onus probandi”, defined: Obligation
2. Action for libel; imposed upon a party who alleges the existence of facts
3. Action for breach of promise to marry; and necessary for the prosecution of his action or defense to
4. Action for malicious prosecution. establish the same by the requisite quantum of evidence.
Proof, defined: The establishment of a requisite degree of

78
belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the fact in Two separate burdens in Burden of Proof:
issue.(HERRERA, Remedial Law, Vol. VI, p.1)[hereinafter 6
HERRERA] 1. Burden of going forward- that of producing
evidence
Criminal Cases: The burden of proof is on the prosecution, 2. Burden of persuasion- burden of persuading
because under Rule 133 the accused is entitled to acquittal the trier of fact that the burdened party is
unless his guilt is demonstrated by proof beyond entitled to prevail
reasonable doubt
Illustration of going forward with the evidence: For
Civil Cases: In civil cases, it is a basic rule that the party example after the existence of a debt has been proven by the
making allegations has the burden of proving them by creditor the burden of proving payment devolves upon the
preponderance of evidence. (Alano v. Mugud-Logmao, GR debtor. Where the debtor introduces evidence of payment,
No. 175540, April 7, 2014) the burden of going forward with the evidence - as distinct
from the general burden of proof- shifts to the creditor who
By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence is then under the duty of producing evidence to show non-
adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to that of the payment. (Jimenez, et al, v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No,. 116960,
other side. (NFF Industrial Corporation v G&L Associated prom. April 2, 1996)
Brokerage, GR No. 178169, January 12, 2015)
In short, the burden of going forward is the burden of
Administrative Cases: In administrative cases, the producing evidence.
complainant bears the onus in proving the averment of his
complaint by substantial evidence. Pinting out Hierarchy of Evidence
circumstances based on mere conjectures and suppositions
are not sufficient to prove accusations. (Lorenzana v 1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Austria, A.M NO. RTJ-09-2200. April 2, 2014) 2. Clear and convincing evidence
3. Preponderance of evidence
Termination cases: In termination cases, the law places 4. Substantial evidence
the burden of proof upon the employer to show by
substantial evidence that the termination was for a lawful EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE or no evidence is
case and in the manner required by law. (Deoferio v. Intel presented
Technology Philippines Inc., GR NO. 202996, June 18 2014)
CRIMINAL CASE: Accused is acquitted
It is, however, incumbent upon the employee to first
establish by substantial evidence the fact of his or her CIVIL CASE:
dismissal. (Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy
Philippines, Inc., Gr. No. 207888, June 9, 2014) a. When defendant does not file an answer-
Plaintiff wins
Disbarment Proceedings: In disbarment proceedings, the b. When defendant files an answer and sets up
burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish purely negative defenses and no evidence is
respondent attorney’s liability by clear and convincing presented by both sides- Defendant wins
evidence. (Chu v. Guico, A.C. NO. 10573, January 13, 2015) because plaintiff has not carried his burden
c. When defendant files an answer and sets up
Infringement cases: The burden of proof to substantiate a affirmative defenses and no evidence is
charge of infringement is with the plaintiff. But where he presented by both sides- Plaintiff wins
plaintiff introduces the patent in evidence, and the same is
in due form, there is created a prima facie presumption of
its correctness and validity. The decision of the Example: The defendant filed an answer: “I admit that I
Commissioner of Patent (now the Director of the borrowed money from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has no
Intellectual Property Office), in granting the patent is reason to run after me because I have paid that account long
presumed to be correct. time ago.” [If no evidence is presented by both sides then
plaintiff wins because the defendant admitted the existence of
The burden of going forward with the evidence (burden of loan. And it is the defendant’s burden to prove his affirmative
evidence) then shifts to the defendant to overcome by defense.] (ESPEJO, Evidence Explained 2019 Ed., p. 538)
competent evidence this legal presumption. (Maguan v.
Court of Appeals, et al., 146 SCRA 116, 117)

79
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE- the duty resting upon a party, by knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon
means of evidence, to create or meet a prima facie case. him. (People v. Manalo, GR No. 107623, February 23, 1994)
BURDEN OF PROOF vs. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE Example: In an information for illegal possession of firearms,
the information will contain an averment that the accused
Burden of Proof NEVER SHIFTS, while Burden of Evidence is does not have a license to possess the firearm[negative
TRANSFERRED from one litigant to another depending on the averment].
progress of trial.
* In this case, the negative averment is an essential part of
Illustration: Plaintiff files a complaint for recovery of a the commission of the crime, hence this must be proven.
defaulted loan. Defendant files an answer with a negative
defense, denying the existence of the loan. [ At the start, the Doctrine of equipoise or Equiponderance Rule
plaintiff has the burden of proof and also burden of
evidence, he should go to trial and present evidence to show Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or
that he has a cause of action. If he has introduced enough there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the
proof that he has a cause of action, the burden of evidence party having the burden of proof fails upon that issue. (Rivera
will now be shifted to the defendant. If defendant presents v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115625, prom. January 23,
enough evidence to prove his negative defense then the 1998)
burden of evidence is shifted again to the plaintiff on
Therefore, as neither party was able to make out a case,
rebuttal evidence.] (ESPEJO, Evidence Explained 2019 Ed. P.
540) neither side could establish its cause of action and prevail
with the evidence it had. They are thus no better off than
Can the accused in a criminal/civil case before before they proceeded to litigate, and, as a consequence
presenting his own evidence ascertain conditionally or thereof, the courts can only leave them as they are. (Rivera,
provisionally whether the evidence presented by the supra citing Municipality of Candijay, Bohol v. Court of
prosecution is enough to convict him? Appeals, 251 SCRA 530)
Yes. In a criminal/civil case, the PRESUMPTION

accused(defendant/plaintiff) can easily determine the
Presumption is an inference as to the existence of a fact not
sentiment of the court concerning the quantum of evidence
actually know, arising from its usual connection with
presented by the prosecution(defendant/plaintiff) by
another which is known, or a conjecture based on past
simply filing a demurrer to evidence with leave of court.
(ESPEJO, Evidence Explained 2019 Ed. P. 540) experience as to what course of human affairs ordinarily
take. (Perez v Ysip, GR NO. L-1301, July 9, 1948)
Rule 119 Section 23 provides :
IS PRESUMPTION EVIDENCE?
After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the
A presumption is not an evidence but it affects the burden
action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence(1) on its own
of offering evidence. It is not evidence in itself but it is an
initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be
assumption resulting from evidence. (ESPEJO, Evidence
heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filde by the accused
Explained, 2019 Ed., p. 544)
with or without leave of court. xxx
Example of Dean Riano:
PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVING AVERMENT
Y is a debtor of X, creditor, for P 1Million payable in 12 equal
A negative averment do not have to be proven UNLESS the
instalments. If evidence is introduced that the instalment
negative averment is an essential part of the cause of action
or defense. have been paid. This I because under the law, the receipt of
a later instalment of a debt without reservation as to prior
The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on instalments shall give rise to the presumption that such
a negative allegation, or a negative averment is an essential instalments have been paid. (Article 1176, New Civil Code
element of a crime, the prosecution has the burden to prove of the Philippines)
the charge. However, this rue admits of exceptions. Where
INFERENCE DISTINGUISED FROM A PRESUMPTION
the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or
where the facts are more immediately within the

80
presumption to establish a fact in issue. One need not
INFERENCE PRESUMPTION
introduce evidence to prove the fact, for a presumption is
Factual conclusion that can Mandated by law and prima facie proof of the fact presumed. (Diesel Contruction
Co., Inc. v. UPSI Property Holdings, Inc., 549 SCRA 12)
rationally be drawn from establishes a legal relation
other facts. It is however, between or among facts. Prima Facie Evidence (Presumptive Evidence) that
one that is a result of a which, standing alone unexplained or uncontradicted, is
reasoning process. It need sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed.
not have legal effect
because it is not mandated Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions.
by law.
(ESPEJO, Evidence Explained, 2019 Ed., p. 544) The ff are instances of conclusive presumptions:
Pyramiding Presumption or Inference (a)Whenever a party has by his own declaration, act, or
omission: - intentionally and deliberately led another: o to
General Rule: A presumption cannot arise from the believe a particular thing true, and to to act upon such
strength of another presumption. It must be based on facts. belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
Exception: An inference may be based on a fact which itself
is based on an inference justifiable drawn from (b)The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
circumstantial evidence (6 HERRERA, supra at 40) landlord: - at the time of the commencement of the relation
of landlord and tenant between them. (3a)
CLASSIFICATIONS
Classes of Conclusive Presumption:
1. PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW- a deduction which
the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts 1. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131, Sec. 2(a)) – The
fact which the party in estoppel has
-Must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish represented to be true is conclusively
the basis for the inference presumed as against him to be true.
-Reduced to fixed rules and form part of the system of

Requisites as to the party Requisites as to the Party
jurisprudence
estopped Claiming Estoppel
2. PRESUMPTION HOMINIS OR OF FACT- a deduction
a. Conduct amounting to a.Lack of knowledge of truth
which reason draws from facts proved without an express
false representation or as to the facts in question
direction from the law to that effect
concealment b. Reliance in good faith
-Discretionary on the court b. Intent or at least upon the conduct or
expectation that the conduct statements of the party to be
-Derived from circumstances of a particular case shall be acted upon stopped c. Action or
through common experience of mankind. (RIANO, supra at c. Knowledge, actual or inaction based thereon to
106-107) constructive of the real facts his detriment or prejudice
(Kalalo v Luz, GR NO. L-27782, July 31 1970)
CLASSIFICATIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW
Note: Estoppel is effective only as between the parties
1. Conclusive (juris et de jure)- which is a presumption of thereto or their successors in interest.
law that is irrebuttable and not permitted to be overcome
by any proof to the contrary, and 2. ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131, Sec. 2 (b)) –
The ownership of the landlord at the start of
2. Disputable (juris tantum) – is that which is the law
the tenancy relation is conclusively presumed
permits to be overcome or contradicted by proofs to the as against the tenant.
contrary; otherwise the same remains satisfactory. (RIANO
supra at 107-108) Note: If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have been
acquired subsequent to the commencement of that relation,
Effect of a Presumption: A party in whose favour the legal
presumption exists may rely on and invoke such legal

81
the presumption will not apply. (Santos v National Satistics A disputable presumption has been defined as a species
Office, GR NO. 171129, April 6, 2011) of evidence that may be accepted and acted on where there
is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. stands, or one which may be overcome by other evidence.
(People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 106025, February 9,1994)
The ff presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but
may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: A presumption may operate against an adversary who has
not introduced proof to rebut it. The effect of a legal
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
presumption upon a burden of proof is to create the
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent; necessity of presenting evidence to meet the legal
presumption or the prima facie case created thereby, and
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his which if no proof to the contrary is presented and offered,
voluntary act; will prevail. The burden of proof remains where it is, but by
the presumption, the one who has that burden is relieved
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns for the time being from introducing evidence in support of
the averment, because the presumption stands in the place
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if of evidence unless rebutted. (Surtida v. Rural Bank of
produced; Malinao, G.R. No. 170563, December 20, 2006)
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter; The following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the other evidence: (FRANCISCO, Basic Evidence, (2017), supra
latter; at 62) [hereinafter FRANCISCO]
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid; SECTION 3 (a). That a person is innocent of crime or
wrong;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a
receipt for the later one is produced; A person accused of crime is presumed to be innocent until
the contrary is proved, and this presumption remains with
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the him throughout the trial until it is overcome by proof guilt
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of beyond a reasonable doubt. (FRANCISCO, supra at 62)
the whole act: - otherwise, that things which a person
possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by The presumption of innocence clause of the Constitution
him;
refers to criminal prosecutions and not to forfeiture
proceedings which are civil actions in rem. The Constitution
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for: -
is likewise not violated by RA 1379 because statutes which
the payment of the money, or - the delivery of anything,
declare that as a matter of law a particular inference follows
has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
from the proof of a particular fact, one fact becoming prima
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly facie evidence of another, are not necessarily invalid, the
appointed or elected to it; effect of the presumption being merely to shift the burden
of proof upon the adverse party. (Ong v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed; No. 126858 September 16, 2005)
(o)That all the matters within an issue raised in a case: - SECTION 3 (b). That an unlawful act was done with an
were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like unlawful intent;
manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute
submitted for arbitration: - were laid before the arbitrators General rule is that, if it proved that the accused committed
and passed upon by them; the unlawful charged, it will be proved that the act was done
with a criminal intention, and it is for the accused to rebut
(p)That private transactions have been fair and regular;
this presumption. (FRANCISCO, supra at 63)
SECTION 3. Disputable Presumptions
The act in itself is evidence of the intent. (16 C.J., 81)

82
SECTION 3 (c) That a person intends the ordinary The presumption that evidence, when willfully suppressed,
consequences of his voluntary act would be adverse, if produced, does not apply if:
a. The evidence is at the disposal of both

A.M. No. 19-08-15- SC Rules on Evidence parties;
b. The suppression was not willful;
c. It is merely corroborative or cumulative;
Sec 3(c). – That a person Section 3(c). - That a person and
intends the ordinary intends the ordinary d. The suppression is covered by the
consequences of his or her consequences of his privileged communication between
voluntary act voluntary act physician and patient. (Blue Cross Health
Care, Inc. v. Olivares, G.R. No. 169737,
February 12, 2008)
Cases in this jurisdiction have consistently followed the rule

of common law that every person is deemed to contemplate, SECTION 3 (f) That money paid by one to another was
and can be held responsible for, the natural consequences due to the latter;
of his own acts. (FRANCISCO, supra at 64)
There is a presumption, where money is paid by one person
to another, that it was due to the payee, that money
SECTION 3 (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his
delivered by a debtor to his creditor is a payment, and not a
concerns;
loan and that payments made to a beneficiary by the trustee
were on account; and not as advances or loans. (FRANCISCO,
A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC Rules on Evidence
supra at 67)
Sec 3(d). – That a person Section 3(d). - That a SECTION 3 (g) That a thing delivered by one to another
takes ordinary care of his or person takes ordinary care belonged to the latter;
her concerns of his concerns; Where proof is adduced showing affirmatively that the
thing delivered to another did not belong to the latter, an
implied contract known as “solution indebiti” is created.
(FRANCISCO, supra at 67)
All men are presumed to be sane and normal and subject to

be moved by substantially the same motives. (FRANCISCO, SECTION 3 (h) That an obligation delivered up to the
supra at 64) debtor has been paid;
The rule that possession by the debtor of the evidence of a

Thus, it is presumed that a person stopped, looked and
debt, as a note, bond, bill or draft raises the presumption of
listened before crossing a railway track. The presumption is payment. (1 Jones on Evidence, Sec. 222.)
usually invoked only in such cases, and the true rule is that,
in the absence of witnesses as to what deceased did or failed The existence of a certificate of indebtedness in the hands
to do by way of precaution at and immediately before the of the creditor is evidence that the debt has not been settled,
time of injury, a presumption arises that, prompted by unless the contrary shall have been lawfully proved.
natural instinct, he exercised care for his own safety. (Bantug v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-4525, October 27, 1908)
(1Jones on Evidence, 2d., Sec 257.)
SECTION 3 (i) That prior rents or installments had been
SECTION 3 (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would paid when a receipt for the later one is produced;
be adverse if produced;
This presumption, however, does not apply when the prior
It has been held that where a party fails to present a fact installments were made payable in a separate contract.
necessary to his case when it is within his power to do so, it (FRANCISCO, supra at 68)
will be presumed that such fact does not exist and the same
is true where evidence as to a certain matter is introduced. SECTION 3 (j) That a person found in possession of a
(FRANCISCO, supra at 65) thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the
taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that

83
things which a person possess, or exercises acts of
ownership over, are owned by him; Sec 3(k). – That a person in Section 3(k). - That a
possession of an order on person in possession of an
A.M. No. 19-08-15SC Rules on Evidence himself or herself for the order on himself for the
payment of the money, or payment of the money, or
Sec 3(j). – That a person Section 3(j). - That a the delivery of anything, the delivery of anything, has
found in possession of a person found in possession has paid the money or paid the money or delivered
thing taken in the doing of of a thing taken in the delivered the thing the thing accordingly
a recent wrongful act is the doing of a recent wrongful accordingly
taker and the doer of the act is the taker and the
whole act; otherwise, that doer of the whole act;
things which a person otherwise, that things
possess, or exercises acts which a person possess, or
of ownership over, are exercises acts of Fraud is not presumed, except when a statute so provides,
owned by him or her ownership over, are or there are special circumstances, but, on the contrary, the
owned by him presumption is always against fraud. (FRANCISCO, supra at
70)
In order to raise this presumption, four basic facts must be SECTION 3 (l) That a person acting in a public office was
proved: regularly appointed or elected to it;
a. That the crime was committed However, the presumption of a regular appointment does
not apply to a public officer seeking to recover salary
b. That it was committed recently attached to the office, or the benefits of a pension system.
c. That the stolen property was found in
SECTION 3 (m) That official duty has been regularly
possession of the defendant; and
performed;
d. That the defendant is unable to explain his The general presumption that an official act or duty has
possession satisfactorily (FRANCISCO, been regularly performed is subject to qualifications. It
supra at 69) generally is indulged only where the legality of an official
act is questioned collaterally, and not where it is directly
The application of disputable presumption found in Section attacked or where a question of jurisdiction is involved.
3 (j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, that a person found in (FRANCISCO, supra at 71)
possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful
act is the taker and doer of the whole act, in this case the The real estate mortgage, it bears to stress, having been
alleged carnapping and the homicide/murder of its owner, notarized, is a public document, thus accorded the benefit
is limited to cases where such possession is either of certain presumptions. Being a public document, it enjoys
unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of
implausible in view of independent evidence inconsistent the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive
thereto. (People v. Urzais y Lanurias, G.R. No. 207662, 13 presumption of its existence and due execution. To
April 2016) overcome this presumption, there must be clear and
convincing evidence. Absent such evidence, as in this case,
SECTION 3 (k) That a person in possession of an order on the presumption must be upheld. (Philippine National Bank
himself for the payment of the money, or the delivery of v. Spouses Reblando, GR No. 194014, 12 September 2012)
anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly; The presumption that an officer will discharge his duties
according to law does not apply where his duties are not
A.M. No. 19-08-15SC Rules on Evidence
specified by law and he is given unlimited discretion.
Thus, there is no merit to petitioner's contention that

because the document is notarized and had been registered

84
with the Register of Deeds of Pasig, then there should no SECTION 3 (r) That there was a sufficient consideration
longer be any doubt as to its due execution. Note, however, for a contract;
that the presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed is not conclusive. (Pilipinas Bank v. Glee Chemical The execution of a deed supporting to convey ownership of
Laboratories, Inc, G.R. No. 148320, June 15, 2006) a realty is in itself prima facie evidence of the existence of a
valuable consideration. (FRANCISCO, supra at 74)
SECTION 3 (n) That a court, or judge acting as such,
whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in The party alleging lack of consideration has the burden of
the lawful exercise of jurisdiction; proving such allegation. (Id.)
Expediency of judicial proceedings is the reason for the SECTION 3 (s) That a negotiable instrument was given or
presumption. For, if the parties would be required to show indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
the jurisdictional competence of the court, every case
Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have
before it would result in unnecessarily long and expensive
litigations. (FRANCISCO, supra at 72) been issued for a valuable consideration; and every person
whose signature appear thereon have become a party
SECTION 3 (o) That all the matters within an issue raised thereto for value. (Sec. 24, Negotiable Instruments Law)
in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by
it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue SECTION 3 (t) That an endorsement of negotiable
instrument was made before the instrument was
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid
overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;
before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
There is a presumption that: For one to be a holder in due course, one of the requisites is
that instrument must have been negotiated to him before it
a. The issues of fact were properly raised; was overdue. Hence, the importance of this presumption.
b. That all facts within the issues, not expressly (FRANCISCO, supra at 75)
found, and not inconsistent with the other
SECTION 3 (u) That a writing is truly dated;
finding, have been found in accordance with the
judgement; SECTION 3 (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was
c. That all the issues in an action were actually received in the regular course of the mail;
heard and decided
d. That all the material issues were found in favor Requirements:
of the party who recovered the judgment;
e. That a material fact, put in issue by the pleadings, The facts to be proved in order to raise this presumption
has been found by the court in such a way as to are:
support the judgment;
f. That the court, where it makes a finding of facts, a. that the letter was properly addressed with
but does not include a finding upon one of the postage prepaid; and
issues raised, found upon that issue in such a B. that it was mailed. (Barcelon, Roxas Securities v.
way as to sustain the judgment; and CIR, GR No. 157064, 7 August 2006)
g. That all the facts necessary to the support of a While a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee
judgment, and which are embodied within the in the ordinary course of mail, this is still merely a
issues, were proven, in the absence of any facts disputable presumption subject to controversion, and a
inconsistent with the relief granted or the direct denial of the receipt thereof shifts the burden upon
allegations upon which it is based. (FRANCISCO, the party favored by the presumption to prove that the
supra at 73) mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee. (Id.)
SECTION 3 (w) That after an absence of seven years, it

SECTION 3 (p) That private transactions have been fair being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he
and regular; is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of
succession.
SECTION 3 (q) That the ordinary course of business has
been followed; A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC Rules on Evidence

85
Sec 3(w). – That after an Section 3(w). - That after the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of
absence of seven years, it an absence of seven years, only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
being unknown whether or it being unknown whether contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any
not the absentee still lives, or not the absentee still case, before marrying again, the spouse present must
he or she is considered lives, he is considered dead institute a summary proceedings as provided in the
dead for all purposes, for all purposes, except for Family Code and in the rules for declaration of
except for those of those of succession. presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to
succession. the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
Presumption of Death
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the For Succession:
purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of
ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five a. If the person is absent for 7 years, he is
years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order presumed dead, except for purposes of
that his succession may be opened. succession
b. If the person is absent for 10 years, he is
A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC Rules on Evidence presumed dead for purposes of succession
1. But if his age was 75, and is
Sec 3(w). – The absentee Section 3(w). - The absent for 5 years, he is
shall not be considered absentee shall not be presumed dead for purposes of
dead for the purpose of considered dead for the succession
opening his or her purpose of opening his c. If the person is absent for 4 years, he shall
succession until after an succession till after an be presumed dead for all purposes,
absence of ten years. If he absence of ten years. If he including the division of the estate among
or she disappeared after disappeared after the age the heirs if the following circumstances are
the age of seventy-five of seventy-five years, an present:
years, an absence of five absence of five years shall 1. He was on board a vessel lost
years shall be sufficient in be sufficient in order that during a sea voyage, or an
order that his or her his succession may be aircraft which is missing, who
succession may be opened. opened has not been heard of for four
years since the loss of the vessel
or aircraft;
2. He was a member of the armed
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes forces who has taken part in
including the division of the estate among the heirs: armed hostilities, and has been
missing for four years;
SECTION 3 (w) (1) A person on board a vessel lost during 3. He has been in danger of death
a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not under other circumstances and
been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or whose existence has not been
aircraft; known for four years
For Remarriage
SECTION 3 (w) (2) A member of the armed forces who
has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing a. 4 years, if there has been a well founded
for four years; belief that the absent spouse is already
dead
SECTION 3 (w) (3) A person who has been in danger of
b. 2 years, if there is danger of death under
death under other circumstances and whose existence
the circumstances mentioned in Rule 131,
has not been known for four years;
Sec 3(w)(3)
SECTION 3 (w) (4) If a married person has been absent
for four consecutive years, the spouse present may
SECTION 3 (x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-
that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law
founded belief that the absent spouse is already death. In
or fact;
case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death

86
It must unequivocally appear that the person knew or had marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of
notice of the fact upon which the alleged acquiescence is proof to the contrary:
founded upon knowledge. Acquiescence cannot arise unless
the party against whom it is set up is aware of his rights. SECTION 3 (dd) (1) A child born before one hundred
(FRANCISCO, supra at 84) eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been conceived during
SECTION 3 (y) That things have happened according to such marriage, even though it be born within the three
the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature hundred days after the termination of the former
habits of life; marriage.
SECTION 3 (z) That persons acting as copartners have SECTION 3 (dd) (2) A child born after one hundred eighty
entered into a contract of co-partnership; days following the celebration of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been conceived during
Where several persons carry on the same business together, such marriage, even though it be born within the three
they are properly presumed to be partners. (FRANCISCO, hundred days after the termination of the former
supra at 85) marriage.
SECTION 3 (aa) That a man and woman deporting The child is of the first marriage if the following requisites
themselves as husband and wife have entered into a are present:
lawful contract of marriage;
a. Mother remarried within 300 days from
Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are termination of 1st marriage;
presumed, in the absence of any counter presumption or b. Child born within the same 300 days;
evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The c. Child born before 180 days from
reason is that such is the common order of society, and solemnization of the 2nd marriage
if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves The child is of the second marriage if the following
out as being, they would be living in the constant requisites are present:
violation of decency and law.
a. Mother remarried within 300 days from
(Son Cui v. Guepangco, G.R. No. L-6163, March 14, 1912) termination of 1st marriage;
b. Child born within the same 300 days;
SECTION 3 (bb) That property acquired by a man and a c. Child born after 180 days from
woman who are capacitated to marry each other and solemnization of the 2nd marriage
who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage, In case of prima facie evidence, the statements in the record
has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry. of birth may be rebutted by more preponderant evidence. It
is not conclusive evidence with respect to the truthfulness
The substantive provision is anchored in Article 147 of
of the statements made therein by the interested parties.
the Family Code.
(Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 123450, 31 August
SECTION 3 (cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man 2005)
and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each
other and who have acquire properly through their SECTION 3 (ee) That a thing once proved to exist
actual joint contribution of money, property or industry, continues as long as is usual with things of the nature;
such contributions and their corresponding shares
SECTION 3 (ff) That the law has been obeyed;
including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit
are equal. It will not be presumed in any case that the law has been
violated. Every alleged violation must be established by
The substantive provision is anchored in Article 148 of
competent proof. Thus, there is presumption that the
the Family Code.
requisites of the law were observed in the execution of a
SECTION 3 (dd) That if the marriage is terminated and will, where the subscribing witnesses are forgetful of any
the mother contracted another marriage within three essential fact or are dead. (FRANCISCO, supra at 95)
hundred days after such termination of the former

87
SECTION 3 (gg) That a printed or published book, 2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed
purporting to be printed or published by public to have survived;
authority, was so printed or published;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the
SECTION 3 (hh) That a printed or published book, former is deemed to have survived;
purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in
tribunals of the country where the book is published, 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be
contains correct reports of such cases; different, the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex
be the same, the older;
SECTION 3 (ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty
it was to convey real property to a particular person has 5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other
actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is between those ages, the latter is deemed to have
necessary to perfect the title of such person or his survived.
successor in interest;
Survivorship is presumed, as between persons who have
A.M. No. 19-08-15SC Rules on Evidence perished in a common calamity, from the probability
resulting from strength, age, and sex, according to specified
Sec 3(ii). – That a trustee Section 3(ii). - That a rules. Such statues do not apply where the order of death is
or other person whose trustee or other person shown by evidence, either direct or circumstantial.
duty it was to convey real whose duty it was to (FRANCISCO, supra at 96)
property to a particular convey real property to a
person has actually particular person has SECTION 3 (kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two
conveyed it to him or her actually conveyed it to him or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as
when such presumption is when such presumption is to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of
necessary to perfect the necessary to perfect the one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the
title of such person or his title of such person or his absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at
or her successor in successor in interest. the same time.
interest
The rule refers only to cases where two or more persons
“are called to succeed each other”. Hence, it cannot apply to
cases which do not involve succession. For instance, if two
The circumstances which should concur to raise this persons, one of whose life is insured under a life insurance
presumption are the following: policy with the other as his beneficiary, perished in the
same calamity and it is shown who died first, and there are
a. It must have been the duty of the trustee to no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred,
convey; this presumption will not apply. (FRANCISCO, supra at 98)
b. There must be sufficient reason to justify
the presumption; Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy.
c. The object of the presumption must be to
support a just title; and There is NO presumption of legitimacy of a child: - born
d. The case must be clear such that a court of after 300 days following the dissolution of the marriage or
equity, if called upon, would decree a the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the
reconveyance. (FRANCISCO, supra at 96) legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his
allegation. (6)
SECTION 3 (jj) That except for purposes of succession,
Notes:
when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as
wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who 1. By way of Article 351 of the Revised Penal Code,
died first, and there are no particular circumstances
the law penalizes widows who remarry within
from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is 300 and one days after the death of her
determined from the probabilities resulting from the
husband.
strength and the age of the sexes, according to the 2. Article 108 of the Civil Code also provides:
following rules:
Children born after 180 days next following
that of the celebration or within the 300 days
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is
deemed to have survived; next following its dissolution or the separation

88
of the spouses shall be presumed to be
legitimate. This presumption may be rebutted RULE 132: PRESENTATION OF
only by proof that it was physically impossible
for the husband to have had access to his wife
EVIDENCE
during the first one hundred and twenty days
of the three hundred next preceding the birth
of the child.
3. It has been said that, medically, it is possible EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
for intra uterine life to exceed nine months.
Sec. 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The
(ESPEJO, Evidence Explained, 2019 Edition,
p.579) examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or
New provisions under A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC: affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to
speak, or the questions calls for a different mode of
Sec. 5. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. – answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise
provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption The old and new provisions are the same except for
imposes on the party against whom it is directed the amendments to address gender sensitivity.
burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet
the presumption. Requisites:
1. Examination must be done in open court;
If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that 2. Examination shall be done under oath or
is founded upon weightier considerations of policy affirmation; and
shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal 3. Examination is for the purpose of eliciting answers
weight, neither presumption applies. that shall be given orally.
This is a new insertion. Exceptions:

1. Incapacitated to speak;
The first paragraph deals with burden of evidence. 2. Questions calls for a different mode of answer;
3. When the testimonies of witnesses may be given in
The second paragraph provides the rule on how to treat affidavits is under the Rule on Summary Procedures
inconsistent presumption
(civil cases); or
Sec. 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal 4. Depositions (RIANO, supra at 220-221).
cases. – If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an
element of the offense charged, or negate a defense, the Note: The general rule under this provision that
testimonies of witnesses cannot be presented in affidavits
existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from no longer applies, in view of the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt.
Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of
This is a new insertion that deals with presumed facts that direct testimonies
establish guilt in that the existence of the basic fact must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse
follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt. party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later
than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or
the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and
incidents, the following:
1. The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which
shall take the place of such witnesses’ direct
testimonies; and
2. The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any,
which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and
marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of
the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1,
2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the

89
defendant. (AM No. 12-8-8-SC, Judicial Affidavit Rule Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness
Sec. 2, Par. (a)) must answer questions, although his or her answer may
tend to establish a claim against him or her. However, it
One-day Examination of Witness Rule is the right of a witness:
A witness has to be fully examined in one day only, and shall (1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
be strictly adhered to subject to the courts’ discretion insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
during trial on whether or not to extend the direct and/or demeanor;
cross-examination for justifiable reasons. On the last (2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of
hearing day alloted for each party, he is required to make justice require;
his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last (3) Not to be examined except only as to matters
witness and the opposing party is required to immediately pertinent to the issue;
interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter, the judge shall (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court. him or her to a penalty for an offense unless
However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of otherwise provided by law; or
evidence in writing in conformity with Sec. 35, Rule 132 (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
(AM No. 03-1-09-SC, Par. 5[j]). degrade his or her reputation, unless it to be
the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the
Most Important Witness Rule fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness
must answer to the fact of his or her previous
The trial judge shall determine the most important final conviction for an offense.
witnesses to be heard and limit the number thereof. The
facts to be proven by each witness and the approximate The old and new provisions are the same except for
number of hours per witness shall be fixed (AM No. 03-1-09- amendments to address gender sensitivity.
SC, Par. 5 [j]).
Obligation of a Witness
Conditional Examination of Witnesses in Criminal A witness must answer questions, although his or her
Cases answer may tend to establish a claim against him or her.
1. With respect to a prosecution witness, the Failure to comply is punishable by Contempt under Rule 71.
conditional examination takes place where the case
is pending (ROC, Rule 119, Sec. 15). Rights of a Witness
2. In case of defense witness, it can be before another 1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
judge, a member of IBP when designated by the insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
court, or before an inferior court if designated by a demeanor;
superior court (ROC, Rule 119, Secs. 12-13).
Whether or not a question is proper or improper depends
Sec. 2. The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, on the purpose for which it was asked and the
including the questions propounded to a witness and circumstances at the time (FRANCISCO, supra at 511).
his or her answers thereto, the statements made by the
judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with Counsel must always come to the aid of his witness being
reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of subjected to intimidation, harassment, and embarrassment.
shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording Such acts are objectionable and a timely objection should be
found suitable by the court. raised (RIANO, supra at 223).
The old and new provisions are the same except for 2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice
amendments to address gender sensitivity. require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
Stenographic notes as recorded by the stenographer are pertinent to the issue;
presumed prima facie correct.
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him
Note: If the transcript of stenographic notes appears to be or her to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
erroneous, the remedy is for the interested party to file a provided by law; or
motion to correct transcript of stenographic notes.
Right against Self-incrimination of Witness

90
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
Grants immunity to the Prohibits only the use of
himself (CONST. Art. III, Sec. 17).
witness the witness’ compelled
from prosecution for an testimony and its fruits in
A witness will not be compelled to answer any question
offense to which his any manner in connection
which incriminates him or the reply to which will supply
compelled with the criminal
evidence by which he could be convicted of a criminal
testimony relates prosecution of the witness.
offense (FRANCISCO, supra at 492).
It does not render the
witness immune from
Purpose
prosecution.
The right against self-incrimination is intended to prevent
the State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting from
the suspect testimony that may convict him and avoid a (Galman v Pamaran, G.R. No. 71208-09, August 30, 1985)
person subjected to such compulsion to perjure himself for
his own protection (People v Besonia, G.R. No. 151284-85, Acts not covered by the prohibition against self-
February 5, 2004). incrimination
1. Woman accused of adultery was ordered to submit
Scope of the Privilege her body for exam of competent doctors to
Fundamentally, the privilege of the accused to be exempt determine whether she is pregnant or not, without
from testifying as a witness involves a prohibition against the use of torture of force (Villaflor v Summers, G.R.
testimonial compulsion only. It has, however, been No. 16444, September 8, 1920).
extended to cover the production by the accused of 2. Where a person accused of acts of lasciviousness
inculpatory documents (6 HERRERA, supra at 145). against a girl, who was consequently infected with
gonorrhea, was stripped off his clothing and from
Extends to any evidence communicative in nature acquired his body was taken a portion of a substance which
under circumstances such as: revealed that he was suffering from gonorrhea (US
a. Forced re-enactment; and v Tan Teng, G.R. No. 7081, September 7, 1912).
b. Compelling the accused to give specimens of his 3. Accused was forced to discharge morphine against
handwriting (Beltran v Samson, G.R. No. 32025, his mouth and used as evidence against him (US v
September 23, 1929). Ong Siu Hong, G.R. No. L-12778, August 3, 1917)
4. Accused was required to put on a pair of pants to
It finds no application to corporations. Corporations are determine whether they fitted him (People v
creatures of the State and legislatures reserve a right to Codilla, G.R. No. 100720-23, June 30, 1993)
investigate such organizations to ensure that they have not
exceeded their powers, even by demanding self- Waiver
incriminating information (BASECO v PCGG, G.R. No. 75885, The right against self-incrimination is not self-executing or
May 27, 1987). automatically operational. It must be claimed; otherwise,
the protection does not come into play. Moreover, the right
Exception to Witness’ Right against Self-incrimination must be claimed at the appropriate time, or else, it may be
This section grants the witness the right against self- deemed waived. In the present case, it does not appear that
incrimination “unless otherwise provided by law.” This petitioner invoked her right against self-incrimination at
exception refers to immunity statutes wherein the witness the appropriate time, that is, at the time she was asked to
is granted immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses provide samples of her signature. She is therefore deemed
admitted in his testimony (2 REGALADO, supra at 843) to have waived her right against self-incrimination (Nacu v
CSC, G.R. No. 187752, November 23, 2010).
Classification of Immunity Statutes
Waiver of Witness-Accused
Transactional Immunity Use Immunity
If the witness is the accused, he may totally refuse to take a
stand. A mere witness cannot altogether refuse to take the
stand. Before he refuses to answer, he must wait for the
incriminating question (Bagadiong v Gonzales, 94 SCRA
906).

91
The accused by offering himself as a witness to disprove the RA 6981: Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act
charge waives his privilege as to all relevant facts connected
with the offense, except those facts that merely affect his Who may be Admitted
credibility. He may decline to answer any question which Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or
might implicate him for a different offense. If the witness information on the commission of a crime and has testified
discloses part of a transaction in which he was criminally or is testifying or about to testify before any judicial or
concerned, he cannot hold back the rest. His waiver is not quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority,
partial (6 HERRERA, supra at 164). may be admitted into the Program provided that:
Right against Self-incrimination of the Witness-Accused a. the offense in which his testimony will be used is a
as Distinguished from that of an Ordinary Witness grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal
Code, or its equivalent under special laws;
b. his testimony can be substantially corroborated in
Accused Ordinary Witness its material points;
c. he or any member of his family within the second
He cannot be compelled to He may be compelled to civil degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected
testify or produce evidence testify by subpoena, to threats to his life or bodily injury or there is a
in the criminal case in which having only the right to likelihood that he will be killed, forced, intimidated,
he is the accused. He cannot refuse to answer a harassed or corrupted to prevent him from
be compelled to do so even particular incriminating testifying, or to testify falsely, or evasively, because
by subpoena or other question at the time it is or on account of his testimony; and
process or order of the court. put to him. d. he is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would
He cannot be required either be testifying against the other law enforcement
for the prosecution, for co- officers. In such a case, only the immediate
accused, or even for himself. members of his family may avail themselves of the
protection provided for under this Act (RA, 6981,
He may totally refuse to take A witness who has been Sec. 3).
the stand. summoned to testify
cannot decline to appear, State Witness
nor can he decline to be
sworn as a witness, until Any person who has participated in the commission of a
a question calling for an crime and desires to be a witness for the State, can apply
incriminating answer is and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by the
asked. At that time only, Department, shall be admitted into the Program whenever
can the claim of privilege the following circumstances are present:
may be imposed. a. the offense in which his testimony will be used is a
(People v Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989) grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal
Code or its equivalent under special laws;
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his b. there is absolute necessity for his testimony;
or her reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue c. there is no other direct evidence available for the
or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be proper prosecution of the offense committed:
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his d. his testimony can be substantially corroborated on
or her previous final conviction for an offense. its material points;
e. he does not appear to be most guilty; and
General Rule: A witness is not obliged to give an answer f. he has not at any time been convicted of any crime
which will tend to degrade his reputation involving moral turpitude (RA 6981, Sec.10).
Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Witness
Exceptions:
to immunity from criminal prosecution for the offense or
a. It is the very fact at issue;
offenses in which his testimony will be given or used and all
b. It is a fact from which the fact in issue would be
the rights and benefits provided under Section 8 of RA 6981.
presumed; or
c. It is the fact of his or her previous final conviction
for an offense.

92
Sec. 4. Order in the examination of an individual 1. Witness is his own counsel; and
witness. — The order in which the individual witness 2. When allowed by the court (6 HERRERA, supra p.
may be examined is as follows; 178)
(a) Direct examination by the proponent; This examination is now subject to the Judicial Affidavit
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent; Rule which took effect on January 1, 2013 (RIANO, supra p.
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent; 227).
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
Sec. 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. —
The old and new provisions are the same except for Upon the termination of the direct examination, the
amendments to address gender sensitivity. witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party
on any relevant matter with sufficient fullness and
The order provided is optional such that the parties are not freedom to test his or her accuracy and truthfulness
required to avail of all the examination provided under the and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and
rules. to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
(6a)
Sec. 5. Direct examination. — Direct examination is the
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
The old rule provides that the cross-examination may be
presenting him or her on the facts relevant to the issue.
on any matters stated in the direct examination, or
(5a)
connected therewith, while the new rule provides that the
cross examination may be on any relevant matter,
The old and new provisions are the same except for meaning that it is allowed even if it is not necessarily
amendments to address gender sensitivity. stated in the direct examination, provided it is relevant.
However, even prior to the amendment, it was recognized
Direct Examination that even if the matter was not exactly stated in the direct
examination but is connected therewith, cross
The examination-in-chief of a witness by the party examination thereon may be allowed. The new rule seems
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. to just further clarify the old rule.
It is actually a procedure for obtaining information from Cross Examination

one’s own witness in an orderly fashion.
This is the examination of the witness by the adverse
It is information which counsel wants the court to hear party said witness has given his testimony on direct
examination.
Purpose:
The most reliable and effective way known of testing the
To elicit facts about the client’s cause of action or defenses credibility and accuracy of testimony.
(RIANO, supra at 369.)
Purposes of Cross-examination:
Testimony in Narrative Form
1. To discredit witnesses;
The reason for the rule requiring that the testimony if a 2. To discredit the testimony of the witnesses;
witness should be given an answers to question, framed by 3. To clarify certain matters; and
counsel and not in an uninterrupted narrative form is to 4. To elicit admissions from a witness.
enable the opponent to know beforehand the nature of the
testimony to be given and thus, enable him in time to object The right of a party to confront and cross-examine
and prevent the interjection of irrelevant and inadmissible opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or
matter (FRANCISCO, supra at 489). civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative
tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental
Exceptions: right which is part of due process. However, the right is a
personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly,

93
by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of Exception: A party is not bound when calling the following:
cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the
opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail 1. Required by law to be presented
himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross- 2. Unwilling witness;
examine and the testimony given on direct examination of 3. Hostile witness; and
the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the 4. Adverse party
record ( Ibanez v. People, G.R. No. 190798, January27,2016).
Unwilling or Hostile Witness
Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if
When cross-examination cannot be done or completed so declared by the court upon adequate showing of:
due to causes attributable to the party who offered the
witness, the incomplete testimony is rendered 1. His adverse interest;
incompetent and should be stricken form the record. 2. Unjustified reluctance to testify; or
Except where the prosecution witness was extensively 3. His having misled the party into calling
cross-examined on the material points and thereafter him to the witness stand.
failed o appear and cannot be produced despite a warrant
for his arrest. (People v. Gorospe, G.R. No. L-51513, May Cross-examination as to Bias and Prejudice
15m 1984)
Questions impeaching the impartiality of witnesses, while
not directly relevant to the issue on trial, are relevant in the
When to strike out for lack of cross-examination: sense that the persuasive quality of the proof is affected by
the discrediting testimony. It may thus be shown that the
It depends on who is at fault; witness is hostile, and later can be questioned as to motives,
bias, interest, conduct, state of feelings, relations to the
1. If it is the party presenting the witness who is at parties, and the like. (6 HERRERA, P. 186-187).
fault, then the direct testimony can be expunged.
Sec. 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent.
2. If the inability to cross-examine was attributable to — After the cross-examination of the witness has
the adverse party (cross-examiner), then there can be been concluded, he or she may be re-examined by the
no forfeiture of the direct testimony. party calling him or her to explain or supplement his
or her answers given during the cross examination.
Effect of Death or Absence of a Witness On re-direct examination, questions on matters not
dealt with during the cross-examination may be
The direct testimony of a witness who dies before the allowed by the court in its discretion. (7a)
conclusion of the cross-examination can be stricken only
insofar as not covered by the cross-examination, and the
absence of a witness is not enough to warrant striking of his The old and new provisions are the same except for
testimony for failure to appear for further cross- amendments to address gender sensitivity.
examination where the witness has already been sufficiently
cross-examined, which is not true in the present case, or that Purpose: To prevent injustice to the witnesses and the
the matter on which further cross-examination is sought is party who has called him by affording an opportunity to the
not in controversy (People v. Monje y Rosario, G.R. No. witness to explain or amplify the testimony which he has
146689, September 27,2002 ). given on cross examination or to explain any apparent
contradiction or inconsistency in his statements, an
Testimony of witness who died before he could be cross- opportunity which is not ordinarily afforded him during his
examined must be expunged if there is no showing od delay cross examination (6 Herrera, supra at 191).
by party waiting to cross (Sps. Dela Cruz v. Papa, G.R. No.
185899, December 8, 2010). Scope: It is a matter of right, but the time at which it may be
had is discretionary on the court.
General Rule: A party who voluntarily offers the testimony
of a witness in the case is bound by the testimony of said The witness may be allowed to reaffirm or explain his
statements, their meaning or import and to minimize or
witness.
destroy discrediting tendencies.

94
If in the exercise of discretion, the court admits matters not questions that should have been asked" in the earlier
dealt with during the cross-examination or if explanation of interrogation. To regard expressed generalities such as
the answers given is necessary, the court may permit a re- these as sufficient ground for recall of witnesses would
cross examination. make the recall of witness no longer discretionary but
ministerial (People v. Rivera, G.R. No, 98376, August
Sec. 8. Re-cross examination. — Upon the conclusion 16,1991).
of the re-direct examination, the adverse party may
re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his Sec. 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A
or her re-direct examination, and also on such other question which suggests to the witness the answer
matters as may be allowed by the court in its which the examining party desires is a leading
discretion. (8a) question. It is not allowed, except:
The old and new provisions are the same except for a. On cross-examination;
amendments to address gender sensitivity b. On preliminary matters;
c. When there is difficulty in getting direct
Purpose: To overcome the other party’s attempt to and intelligible answers from a witness
rehabilitate a witness or to rebut damaging evidence who is ignorant, a child of tender years, is
brought on the cross examination. of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
d. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
It is not a matter of right I re-cross examination for counsel e. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an
to touch on matters not brought to the re-direct officer, director, or managing agent of a
examination of the witness. public or private corporation, or of a
partnership or association which is an
Re-cross examination of the witness is limited to new adverse party.
matters brought out on the re-direct examination of the
witness and also on such other matters as may be allowed A misleading question is one which assumes
by the court in its discretion. as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he or she has previously stated.
Sec. 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of a It is not allowed. (10a)
witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness
cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The The old and new provisions are the same except for
court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as amendments to address gender sensitivity.
the interests of justice may require. (9)
Leading Questions
The old and new provisions are the same except for
Questions which suggest to the witness the answer which
amendments to address gender sensitivity.
the examining party desires (FRANCISCO, supra at 525).
General Rule: After the examination of a witness by both
sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled A leading question is one that is framed in such a way that
the question indicates to the witness the answer desired by
without leave of court.
the party asking the question. In other words of Sec. 10 of
Rule 132, it is a question “which suggests to the witness the
Reason: A witness cannot be detained longer than the
answer which the examining party desires (RIANO, supra at
interested of justice requires.
229).
Exception: Recall has been expressly reserved with the
The test whether a question is leading or not is the
approval of the court.
suggestiveness of its substance (FRANCISCO, Supra at 525).
The discretion to recall a witness is not properly invoked or
Exceptions:
exercisable by an applicant's mere general statement that
there is a need to recall a witness "in the interest of justice,"
1. On cross-examination;
or "in order to afford a party full opportunity to present his
2. On preliminary matters;
case," or that, as here, "there seems to be many points and

95
3. When there is difficulty in getting direct and of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be
intelligible answers from a witness which is ignorant, shown by the examination of the witness, or record of
or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind; the judgment, that he or she has been convicted of an
4. Unwilling or hostile witness; or offense. (l la)
5. Witness is an adverse party or an officer, director,
or managing agent of a public or private corporation or The old and new provisions are the same except for
of a partnership or association which is an adverse amendments to address gender sensitivity.
party.
To impeach a witness, means to discredit the witness’
Leading questions are not appropriate in direct and redirect testimony. It is a fundamental right on the cross-
examinations particularly when the witness is asked to examination. Since the witness’ credibility is always in
testify about a major element of the cause of action or issue, it is never beyond the permissible scope of cross-
defense (RIANO, supra at 229). examination (6 HERERA, supra at 208).
It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading Impeachment is basically a technique employed usually as
questions in conducting the examination of a witness who a part of the cross-examination to discredit a witness by
is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical condition; attacking his credibility. Destroying credibility is vital
uneducated; ignorant of, or unaccustomed to, court because it is linked with a witness’ ability and willingness to
proceedings; inexperienced; unsophisticated; feeble- tell the truth (RIANO, supra at 230-231)
minded; of sluggish mental equipment; confused and
agitated; terrified; timid or embarrassed while on the stand; Ways of Impeaching Adverse Party’s Witness
lacking in comprehension of questions asked or slow to
understand; deaf and dumb; or unable to speak or 1. By contradictory evidence
understand the English language or only imperfectly 2. By evidence that the general reputation for
familiar therewith (People v. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 135022, July truth, honesty, or integrity of the witness is bad; or
11, 2002). 3. By prior inconsistent statements.
Leading Questions to a Child Witness
Contradictory Prior Inconsistent
As to child witnesses, Section 10, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence Statements
Court should be deemed modified by Sec. 20 of Rules on
Examination of a Child Witness. Under the said rule, the Statements made outside of
court may allow leading questions in all stages of Evidence that the the case by the witness which
examination of a child under the condition that the same witness’ testimony is unexplained is different from
will further the interest of justice. Under the Rules of Court, wrong or untrue; and cannot be reconciled with
a leading question may be asked of a child only if there is the witness’ present
difficulty of eliciting from said child a direct and intelligible Testimony of other testimony.
answer (RIANO, supra at 130). witness showing other
state of facts.
Misleading Question
Predicate need not be Predicate must first be laid.
One which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the laid.
witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated.
It is not allowed in any type of examination (RIANO, supra (RIGUERA, supra at 719)
at 373).
Other Modes of Impeachment aside from Sec. 11
Sec. 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A
witness may be impeached by the party against whom 1. By involving him during cross examination in
he or she was called, by contradictory evidence, by contradiction;
evidence that his or her general reputation for truth, 2. By showing the impossibility or improbability
honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he or of his testimony;
she has made at other times statements inconsistent 3. By proving action or conduct of the witness
with his or her present testimony, but not by evidence inconsistent with his testimony;

96
4. By showing bias, interest, or hostile feeling Sec. 13. Party may not impeach his or her own
against the adverse party (6 Herrera, supra at 209). witness. — Except with respect to witnesses referred
to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10 of this Rule,
The impeachment is limited to bad reputation and the bad the party presenting the witness is not allowed to
reputation must be for lack of veracity and does not impeach his or her credibility.
extend to bad reputation for lack of morals (e.g. a witness
,may be discredited because he is a well-known liar but not
if he is a well-known sex addict ) A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile
only if so declared by the court upon adequate
showing of his or her adverse interest, unjustified
Not every aspect of a person’s reputation may be the subject reluctance to testify, or his or her having misled the
of impeachment. Evidence of bad reputation for the party into calling him or her to the witness stand.
purpose of impeachment should refer only to the following
specific aspects:
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the
a. For truth; witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached
b. For honesty; by the party presenting him or her in all respects as if
c. For integrity (RIANO, supra at 239) he or she had been called by the adverse party, except
by evidence of his or her bad character. He or she may
Prior Convictions also be impeached and cross-examined by the
adverse party, but such cross-examination must only
The theory here is that the credibility of the witness is be on the subject matter of his or her examination-in-
affected by his having been convicted of a crime. It does not chief. (12a)
matter if the crime is serious or light or minor offense
(BAUSTISTA, supra at 109). The old and the provisions are essentially the same, with
minor revisions on wording in the first paragraph (adding
The fact that a witness has been impeached does nor mean “this Rule” and changing “producing” to “presenting”) and
her testimony will be stricken or disregarded (6 HERRERA, to address gender sensitivity. The section was also
supra at 22--221). renumbered .
Sec. 12. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of
crime. — For the purpose of impeaching a witness, General Rule: A party is forbidden to impeach his own
evidence that he or she has been convicted by final witness
judgment of a crime shall be admitted if (a) the crime
was punishable by a penalty in excess of one year: or
Exceptions:
(b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of
the penalty.
1. Witness required by law;
However. evidence of a conviction is not admissible if
the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or In the probate of a will, if the will is contested, the
annulment of the conviction. (n) requires that the proponent should present all the
attesting witnesses to the will if they are still alive.
This is a new insertion. If any or all of them testify against the due
execution of the will or do not remember having
A witness may now be impeached by evidence that the attested to it or are otherwise of doubtful
witness was previously convicted by final judgment credibility, the proponent can start impeaching
involving: these witnesses (ROC, RULE 76, Sec. 11)
1. a punishable penalty exceeding 1 year, regardless of 2. Witness is an adverse party; or

whether the crime involves moral turpitude, or
2. a crime of moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty. 3. Witness is an unwilling or hostile witness.

97
The principle applies on civil cases only; not applicable in b. Facts which are themselves provable by
criminal cases because of privilege against self- the extrinsic evidence to discredit the witness
incrimination (HERRERA, supra at 224-225). (FRANCISCO, supra at 229).
Different Stages of the Process of Impeachment

Unwilling or Hostile Witness or Witness Who is an
Adverse Party
1. The facts discrediting the witness or his
testimony may be elicited from the witness himself
He may be impeached by the party presenting him in all upon cross-examination; and
respects as if he had been called by the adverse party,
except by evidence of his bad character. 2. The facts discrediting the witness are proved by
the extrinsic evidence (i.e. the adverse party in
rebuttal proves by another witness or documentary
He may also be impeached, and cross examined by the
evidence the facts discrediting the testimony of the
adverse party, but such cross examination must only be on
witness under attack) (id, at 229-230).
the subject matter of his examination in chief.
Laying a Predicate
Reason: It would be most unfair to a party, if the witness
has been called in his behalf, to permit to lose his case Effectively impeaching a witness by prior inconsistent
merely because a witness on whom he has depended for statements requires laying the proper foundation for the
the establishment of his case has betrayed him impeachment. Laying the foundation, commonly referred to
(FRANCISCO, supra at 574). as “laying the predicate”, is a preliminary requirement
before the impeachment process prospers (RIANO, supra at
235).
Sec. 14. How witness impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements. — Before a witness can be
A witness is impeached by prior inconsistent statements by
impeached by evidence that he or she has made at
“laying the predicate”:
other times statements inconsistent with his or her
present testimony, the statements must be related to
1. By confronting him with such statements, with the
him or her with the circumstances of the times and
time, place, and circumstances under which they were
places and the persons present, and he or she must be
made;
asked whether he or she made such statements, and if
so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in
2. If the witness admits the making of such
writing, they must be shown to the witness before any
contradictory statements, the accused has the benefit of
question is put to him or her concerning them. (13a)
the admission, while the witness has the opportunity to
explain the discrepancy, if he can; and
Amendment only to address gender sensitivity, and
renumbering of section (SENGA, supra at 61) 3. If the witness denies. The accused has the right to
prove that the witness did not make such a statement.
Requisites:
If the predicate is not laid, the impeachment is not laid, the
impeachment is not complete and the witness has not been
1. Prior statements of witness must be materially
impeached effectively (People v. Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732,
inconsistent with his testimony;
January 29,2002).
2. Such inconsistent statement must have a reasonable
The rule applies to out-of-court statements.
tendency to discredit the testimony on a material fact; and
The rule that the attention of the witness be called to the
3. To impeach by extrinsic proof or prior inconsistent
time, place and circumstances, does not apply where:
statements, such must have as their subject:
1. The statement is made in court; or
a. Facts relevant to the issue of the case;

98
2. The impeaching evidence is in writing. The writing of other witnesses. However, the amended rule provides
must be shown to the witness so that he may ready to that the following shall not be excluded:
him. He must be asked if he wrote it or signed it and if
he admits this, his attention must be called to the
inconsistencies. a) a party who is a natural person;
b) a duly designated representative of a juridical
entity which is a party to the case;
Reasons for Laying the Predicate:
c) a person whose presence is essential to the
presentation of the party's cause; or
1. To avoid unfair surprise to the adversary.
d) a person authorized by a statute to be present.
2. To save time, as an admission by the witness The foregoing exceptions were not present under the old
may make the extrinsic proof unnecessary; and rule.
3. To give the witness, in fairness to him, a chance

to explain the discrepancy (6 HERRERA, supra at Likewise, it was directory or not mandatory for the court
232). under the old rule to order exclusion of witnesses, as the
old rule used the word “may”. The amended rule now
Effect of Witness’ Denial of Making Statement mandates the court to exclude witnesses, with the use of
the word “shall”, subject to the exceptions provided in the
If the witness denies making the prior statement or says amended rule.
that he does not remember making it, the adverse party
should call in rebuttal a witness to prove that such On any trial or hearing, the judge shall exclude from the
statement has in facts been made (Id. at 233). court any witness not at the time under examination, so that
he may not hear the testimony of other witness, the may
Sec. 14. Evidence of good character of witness. also cause the witness to be kept separate and to be
prevented from conversing with one another until all shall
Incorporated in Section 54, Rule 130 have been examined.
Purpose: So that the testimony of a witness shall not be

The old provision was transferred to the amended Rule influenced by the statements of other witnesses or
130, Sec. 54 (c). The meaning is still the same, that suggestions of counsel of testimony among witnesses
evidence of good character of a witness is only admissible (FRANCISCO, supra at 449).
when the same has been impeached.
Without any prior order or at least a motion for exclusion
from any of the parties in a court cannot simply allow or
Sec. 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — The
court, motu proprio or upon motion shall order disallow the presentation of a witness solely on the ground
witnesses excluded so that they_ cannot hear the that the latter heard the testimony of another witness
(Design Sources International v. Eristingcol, G.R. No. 193966,
testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not
authorize exclusion of (a,) a party who is a natural February 19,2014).
person. (b) a duly designated representative of a
juridical entity which is a party to the case. (c) a Where a witness remains in court notwithstanding the
person whose presence is essential to the order excluding him therefrom, such fact may not disqualify
presentation of the party's cause, or (d) a person him from being a witness but may affect his credibility
authorized by a statute to be present. (AGPALO, supra at 326).
Persons Not Subject to the Rule:

The court may also cause witnesses to be kept
separate and to be prevented from conversing with 1. A party who is a natural person;
one another, directly or through intermediaries, until 2. A duly designated representative of a juridical
all shall have been examined. (15a) entity which is a party to the case;
3. A person whose presence is essential to the
The purpose of the rule remains the same, that witnesses presentation of the party's cause; or
may be excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony 4. A person authorized by a statute to be present.

99
5. An accused in a criminal case as it is his
The main evidence is the The main evidence is the
constitutional right to b present at all stages of the
testimony of the witness. memorandum.
proceedings;
6. Parties to the litigation will generally not be
excluded, their presence usually being necessary The witness simply Witness must swear that
to a proper management of the case; testifies that he knows that the writing correctly states
7. Party in interest though not a party to the record the memorandum is the transaction.
and an agent is necessary; correctly written by him or
8. Officers and complaining witness are customarily under his direction; no
excepted from the rule unless the circumstances need to swear.
warrant otherwise; and
9. Expert witness are not excluded until production
of evidence bearing upon the question or subject (BAUTISTA, supra at 118)
as to which they have been called or unless liable
to be influenced by the testimony of other Present Recollection Revived or Revival of Present
witnesses (6 HERRERA, supra at 243). Memory
Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. — A A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting
witness may be allowed to refresh his or her memory a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under
respecting a fact by anything written or recorded by his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
himself or herself or under his or her direction, at the immediately thereafter, or later so long as the fact was fresh
time when the fact occurred, or immediately in his memory and he knew that it was correctly recorded.
thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh
in his or her memory and he or she knew that the same The evidence is still testimonial in character. The
was correctly written or recorded; but in such case, the memorandum will not be considered as documentary
writing or record must be produced and may be evidence.
inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he or she
chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it and may Past Recollection Revived
read it in evidence. A witness may also testify from
such a writing or record, though he or she retains no A witness may also testify from such writing or record,
recollection of the particular facts, if he or she is able though he retains no recollection of the particular facts, if
to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly
transaction when made; but such evidence must be stated that transaction when made, but such evidence must
received with caution. (16a) be received with caution.
The old and new provisions are the same except for Since there is complete loss of recollection or memory on
amendment to address gender sensitivity and the deletion the part of the witness, then it is the memorandum itself
of the phrase “So, also”, which did not change the meaning that will serve as evidence. It will now be considered as
of the provision documentary evidence.
Permitting a witness to aid himself during his testimony The memorandum from which the witness may be
with written memoranda s a concession to the frailty of permitted to refresh his memory need not be an original
human memory (BAUTISTA, supra at 118). writing. It is sufficient if it is shown that the witness knows
the copy to be true one, and his memory refreshed thereby
Present Recollection Revived vs. Past Recollection enables him to testify from his own recollection of the facts,
Revived independent of his confidence in the accuracy of the copy.
Present Recollection Past Recollection The provision applies only when it is shown beforehand
Revived Revived that there is a need to refresh the memory of the witness (2
REGALADO, supra at 854-855).
Memory is obscure but There is no recollection
there is still memory. whatsoever. Also, where the witness has testified independently of or
after his testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum

100
of the events in dispute, such memorandum is not
admissible as corroborative evidence. It is self-evident that RULE 132
a witness may not be corroborated by any written
statement prepared wholly by him (Borromeo v. CA.G.R. No.
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
L-31342).
Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
given in evidence, the remainder admissible. — When
part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or Authentication is the process of proving the due execution
record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of and genuineness of the document (FRANCISCO, p. 342)
the same subject may be inquired into by the other,
and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, Due Execution and Genuineness means nothing more
writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, than that the instrument is not spurious, counterfeit, or of
declaration, conversation, writing or record different import on its face from the one executed (RIANO,
necessary to its understanding may also be given in p. 346).
evidence. (17)
A document is defined as a deed, instrument or other duly
authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced
Rule of Completeness or Rule of Indivisibility
or set forth (HERRERA, p. 256).
1. When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing,
or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the
Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of
same subject, at be inquired into by the other; and
their presentation in evidence, documents are either
public or private.
2. When a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing
or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, Public documents are:
conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence. a) The written official acts, or records of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and
The Rule Applies to Confessions tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
Confessions must be considered in their entirety including b) Documents acknowledged before a notary
inculpatory and exculpatory statements; however, portions public except last wills and testaments;
may be rejected if improbable, false or unworthy of credit c) Documents that are considered public
(6 HERRERA, supra at 253-254). documents under treaties and conventions
which are in force between the Philippines and
Sec. 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness. — the country of source; and
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
inspected by the adverse party. private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
When a part of a writing is introduced in evidence by one
litigant, his adversary is entitled to use other parts All other writings are private.
relevant to the issues in the case and has the right to
inspect the writing and to require its production in court. Old Rule New Rule
Documents that are An additional item
considered public was added under public
documents under document. It now includes:
treaties and conventions
which are in force Documents that are
between the Philippines considered public
and the country of documents
source are not expressly under treaties and
conventions

101
mentioned as public which are in force sovereign character of a public document, or the
documents. between the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires
Philippines and the authentication in the manner prescribed under Section 20,
country of Rule 132 of the Rules (Asian Terminals, Inc v. Philam
source. An example of this Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 181163, July 24, 2013).
treaty
is the Apostille Last Will and Testament must undergo an authentication
Convention, process even if they are notarized. No will shall pass either
which became effective in real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the
the probate court (CIVIL CODE, Art. 838).
Philippines on 14 May
2019. Section 20. Proof of Private Documents. — Before any
private document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PUBLIC WRITING AND A proved by any of the following means:
PRIVATE WRITING
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
Public Writing Private Writing written;
As to Authenticity b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature
A public document is A private writing must or handwriting of the maker; or
admissible in evidence, without be proved relative to c) By other evidence showing its due execution
further proof of its genuineness its due execution and and authenticity.
and due execution (Kummer v. genuineness before it
People, G.R. No. 174461, may be received in Any other private document need only be identified as
September 11, 2013. evidence. that which it is claimed to be.
As to Persons Bound
A public instrument is evidence A private writing binds Old Rule New Rule
even against third persons of only the parties who Under the first paragraph of The revised rule
the fact which gave rise to its executed it or their the adopted the same 2
due execution and to the date of privies, insofar as due old rule, there were only 2 ways but added a third
the latter. execution and date of ways manner,
the document are of proving the execution and which broader in
concerned. authenticity of private scope – by other
As to Validity of Certain Transactions documents, i.e., (a) By anyone evidence showing its
Certain transactions must be in who saw the document due execution and
a public document, otherwise executed authenticity.
they will not be given any or written; or (b) By evidence The second paragraph
validity. of is the same
(FRANCISCO, p. 344) the genuineness of the under the old and
signature revised rules.
Importance of knowing whether a document is public or handwriting of the maker.
or private
The nature of documents as either public or private When authentication of a private document is required
determines how the documents may be presented as
evidence in court. Public documents, as enumerated under Where the private document is offered in evidence as
Section 19,33 Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, are self- authentic, there is a need to prove its due execution and
authenticating and require no further authentication to be authenticity. If the document or writing is not offered as
presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private authentic, it only needs to be identified as that which it is
document is any other writing, deed or instrument executed claimed to be (Franco v. People, G.R. No. 191185, February 1,
by a private person without the intervention of a notary or 2016).
other person legally authorized by which some disposition
or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or

102
When authentication of private document is not circumstances of suspicion (St. Peter Memorial Parkk, Inc. v.
required Cleofas, G.R. No. L-47385).
The requirement of authentication of a private document is Conditions of Age: The time is to be reckoned from the date
excused only in four instances, specifically: of the execution to the day when the instrument is offered
a) when the document is an ancient one within the in evidence (FRANCISCO, p. 507).
context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court;
b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an Section 22. How Genuineness of Handwriting Proved. —
actionable document have not been specifically The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
denied under oath by the adverse party; witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the person because he or she has seen the person write, or
document have been admitted; or has seen writing purporting to be his or hers upon
d) when the document is not being offered as genuine. which the witness has acted or been charged, and has
Self-authenticating Documents thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
These are documents that are prima facie evidence of their person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also
own authentication. Examples of these documents are: be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the
court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by
1. Official records under seal, the party against whom the evidence is offered, or
2. Notarized Documents, and proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
3. Certified copies of public records (Heis of Ochoa v.
G&S Transport Corp., G.R. No. 170071, July 16, 2012). Difference between the old Rule and new Rule: The
amendment is only to address gender sensitivity.
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private Under the foregoing rule, the genuineness of a handwriting
document not necessary. — Where a private document may be proved:
is more than thirty years old, is produced from the
custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, 1) by any witness who believes it to be the
and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances handwriting of such person because:
of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need a) he has seen the person write; or
be given. b) he has seen writing purporting to be his upon
which the witness has acted or been charged;
Requirements for Ancient Document Rule:
2) by a comparison, made by the witness or the court,
1. The private document is more than 30 years old; with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the
2. It is produced from the Custody in which it would party, against whom the evidence is offered, or
naturally be found if genuine; proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge
3. It is unblemished by any alterations of (Heirs Of Amado Celestial v. Heirs Of Editha G. Celestial,
circumstances of suspicion. G.R. No. 142691, August 5, 2003).
Conditions of Custody: This is determined by the Sec. 22 of Rule 132 does not require expert testimony to
circumstances of the case. While there may be one place prove the handwriting of a person (RIANO, p. 171).
absolutely and strictly proper, there are various places
which are reasonable and natural; in such cases, the former Courts are not bound to give probative or evidentiary value
is not required. (HERRERA, pp.274-275). to the opinion of handwritten experts, as resort to
handwriting experts is not mandatory (Domingo v.
Documents which affect real property must be recorded Domingo, G.R. No. 150897, April 11, 2005).
with the appropriate Registry of Deeds to bind third parties
(Id. at 275).
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. — Documents
The deed of assignment cannot be presumed genuine and consisting of entries in public records made in the
authentic under Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie
Court. It was not produced from a custody in which it would evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public
naturally be found if genuine and it is blemished by documents are evidence, even against a third person, of

103
the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the records within the purview of Section 19(c) Rule
date of the latter. 132 (Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc, G.R. No. 171701,
February 8, 2012).
Prima Facie Evidence is defined as the evidence which, if
unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a A canonical certificate of marriage is not a public document,
judgement in favor of the issue which it supports (Wa-acon Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be
v. People, G.R. No. 164575, December 6, 2006). proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage
certificate. Hence, even a person’s birth certificate may be
Reasons: recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between
1) Necessity – Practical Impossibility of requiring the his parents (Calimag v. Heirs of Macapaz, G.R. No. 191936,
official’s attendance as a witness to testify to the June 1, 2016).
innumerable transactions occurring in the course
of his duty. “Public records made in the performance of a duty by a
2) Trustworthiness – There is a presumption of public officer” include those specified as public documents
regularity, legality and accuracy. under Section 19(a), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the
acknowledgement, affirmation or oath, or jurat portion of
To contradict the facts in a notarial document and public documents under Section 19(c). Hence, under
presumption of regularity in its favor, the evidence must be Section 23, notarized documents are merely proof of the
clear, convincing and not merely preponderant (AGPALO, fact which gave rise to their execution, and of the date of the
supra at 357). latter but is not prima facie evidence of the facts therein
The phrase "all other public documents" in the second stated. Additionally, under Section 30 of the same Rule, the
sentence of Section 23 means those public documents other acknowledgement in notarized documents is prima facie
than the entries in public records made in the performance evidence of the execution of the instrument or document
of a duty by a public officer. And these include notarial involved (Philippine Trust Company v. CA, G.R. No. 150318,
documents (Siguan v. Lim, G.R. No. 134685, November 19, November 22, 2010).
1999).
All other public documents: Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of
public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
1. Certification as to the income of the deceased Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be
executed by his employer (Heirs of Ochoa v. G&S evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
Transport, G.R. No. 170071, July 16, 2012); attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
2. The chemistry report showing a positive result of record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record
the paraffin test is a public document under Sec is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that
19(a) Rule 132 (Kummer v. People, G.R. No. 174461, such officer has the custody.
September 11, 2013);
3. National Statistics Office (NSO) Certification of If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign
marriage, death and that private respondent has country, which is a contracting party to a treaty or
record of 2 marriages are public documents convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or
pursuant to Art. 410 of the Civil Code (Iwasawa v. considered a public document under such treaty or
Gangan, G.R. No. 204169, September 11, 2013); convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19
4. An improperly notarized deed of sale is NOT a hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the
public document (Dela Rama v. Papa, G.R. No. formed prescribed by such treaty or convention subject
142309, January 30, 2009); to reciprocity granted to public documents originating
5. Acknowledgement defective where the person from the Philippines
appeared before the notary public is not indicated
in the acknowledgement. Hence, the document is For documents originating from a foreign country
not considered a public document (Dycoco v. Orina, which is not a contracting party to a treaty or
G.R. No. 184843, July 30, 2009); and convention referred to in the next preceding sentence,
6. The fact that the Articles of Incorporation, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
Memoranda of Agreement and Purchase embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
Agreements were collected by the PCGG in the consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
course of its investigation of the Marcoses’ alleged service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
ill-gotten wealth do not make the same public

104
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. —
by the seal of his or her office. Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for
the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in
A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original,
equivalent may be presented in evidence without or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being attestation must be under the official seal of the
prima facie evidence of the due execution and attesting officer, if there be any, or if he or she be the
genuineness of the document involved. The certificate clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such
shall not be required when a treaty or convention court.
between a foreign country between a foreign country
and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or Requisites:
has exempted the document itself from this formality.
1) The attestation must state, in substance, that the
The first sentence of the old and revised rules are the same. copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific
If it is a domestic record, it may be evidenced by: part thereof, as the case may be.
2) The attestation must be under the official seal of
1. An official publication thereof; the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the
2. A copy attested by the officer having the legal clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and court.
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has Foreign Documents – competent evidence if duly
the custody. authenticated by an official of the government of the
country in which the documents are located.
A second paragraph was inserted, which refers to and
should be read in connection with the revised Section 19 (c) Foreign Judgements – A written act or record of an official
of Rule 132, on documents that are considered public body or tribunal of a foreign country, thus a public writing.
documents under treaties and conventions which are in Secs. 24 and 25 of Rule 132 must be followed.
force between the Philippines and the country of source.
This presupposes that the Philippines is a contracting party Authentication of Foreign Judicial Records:
to the treaty together with the foreign country concerned.
The treaty shall govern the form of the certificate of its 1) By an exemplification under seal;
equivalent subject to reciprocity granted to public 2) By a copy proved to be a true copy;
documents originating from the Philippines. 3) By the certification of an officer authorized by law;
or
The second sentence of the old rule may be compared with 4) If they are all beyond reach, other testimony of
the third paragraph of the amended rule. This provision inferior nature may be received. (6 HERRERA,
presupposes that the foreign country from where the supra at 294-297)
documents originates is not a part to the treaty with the
Philippines. Under the old rule, there was no distinction. Section 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public
However, the Apostille Convention came into force on 14 record, an official copy of which is admissible in
May 2019, hence the revision. Thus, the old sentence evidence, must not be removed from the office in which
applies to foreign documents originating from countries not it is kept, except upon order of a court where the
party to a treaty with the Philippines. inspection of the record is essential to the just
determination of a pending case.
The last paragraph under the revised rule is a new insertion, General Rule: Any public record, an official copy of which is
and it makes clear that the document that is accompanied admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office
by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented in in which it is kept.
evidence without further proof, the certificate or its
equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution Reasons:
and genuineness of the document involved. However, the 1. To enable others to use the records;
certificate shall not be required when a treaty or convention 2. To prevent the serious risk of loss; and
between a foreign country and the Philippines has 3. To prevent its exposure to wear and tear.
abolished the requirement, or has exempted the document
itself.

105
Exception: Upon order of the court where the inspection of 1972” is adequate proof that no license was issued
the record is essential to the just determination of a pending regarding their marriage (Kho v. Republic, G.R. No. 187642,
case (6 HERRERA, supra at 298). October 23, 2013).
Section 27. Public record of a private document. – An Section 29. How judicial record impeached. – Any
authorized public record of a private document may be judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a)
proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer; (b)
attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an collusion between the parties, or (c) fraud in the party
appropriate certificate that such officer has the offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
custody. In this case, fraud refers to extrinsic fraud, which is a ground
for annulment of judgment.
What is contextually considered as a public document is not
the private writing, but the public record thereof. Their Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the
authenticity and due execution as condition sine qua non for prevailing party in litigation which is committed outside of
their reception in evidence, with the evidentiary weight the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has been
they might otherwise be entitled to, must first be proved prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or
under Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court (Yuchengco v. deception practiced on him by his opponent (Gochan v.
Sadiganbayn, G.R. No. 149802, January 20, 2006). Mancao, G.R. No. 182314, November 13, 2013).
Section 28. Proof of lack of record. – A written statement Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. – Every
signed by an officer having the custody of an official instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified
record or by his deputy that after diligent search no as provided by law, may be presented in evidence
record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in without further proof, the certificate of
the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
above provided, is admissible as evidence that the execution of the instrument or document involved.
records of his office contain no such record of entry. Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. —
The law presumes that a public officer will perform his The party producing a document as genuine which has
official duty by keeping public records safe in his office, and, been altered and appears to have been altered after its
therefore, if a paper which is required by law to be filed or execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
recorded in a public office is not found there, the must account for the alteration. He may show that:
presumption arises that no such document has ever nee in (ACIM)
existence, and, until rebutted, this presumption stands as
proof of such nonexistence (FRANCISCO, supra at 346). (1) The Alteration made by another was without
his concurrence; or
How the absence of a record is proven (2) Was made with the Consent of the parties
Proof of lack of record of a document consists of a written affected by it; or
statement signed by the officer having custody of an official (3) Was otherwise properly or Innocent made; or
record or by his deputy. The written statement must (4) The alteration did not change the Meaning or
contain the following matters: language of the instrument.
1. There has been a diligent search of the record; and
2. That despite the diligent search, no record of entry If he fails to do that, the document shall not be
of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records admissible in evidence.
of the office.
Presumption as to the Author of Alteration
The certification to be issued by the Local Civil Registrar A party producing it or with his privity caused the alteration
must categorically state that the document does not exist in (or is the author of such). The burden is upon the author to
his office or the particular entry could not be found in the show that the same was not made by him or his privies.
register despite diligent search. Such certification shall be
sufficient proof of lack or absence of record as stated in The alteration is material if the terms or language of the
Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court (Sevilla v. altered instrument changed the rights, interests, or
Cardenas, G.R. No. 167684, July 31, 2006). obligations of the parties.
Certification by the Municipal Civil Registrar that “it has no - Effect: Contract is vitiated, even though the
record nor copy of any marriage license ever issued in favor alteration operated to the disadvantage of the
of the parties whose marriage was celebrated on June 1, wrongdoer or to the benefit of the other party.

106
- Why? Because the identity of the document is NO. Documents written in an unofficial language shall not
destroyed. be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a
translation in Filipino or English.
When will an alteration affect the admissibility of a
document?
The trial court took into consideration accused’s
An alteration will affect the admissibility of a document if: extrajudicial confession in Cebuano in convicting him.
(1) The document is being offered as Genuine; On appeal, the accused contends for the first time that
(2) The alteration was made after the Execution of the his confession should not have been received in
document evidence pursuant to S33 R132. Is the accused’s
(3) The alteration is in part Material to the question in contention correct?
dispute.
May an alteration affecting the admissibility of a NO. Accused’s extrajudicial confession in Cebuano should
document be explained by the proponent? have been translated by the official interpreter of the court
or a translation agreed upon by the parties and both the
YES. He may show that the alteration was ACIM. If he fails original and the translation filed. Strictly speaking, the
to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. extrajudicial confession should have not been admitted by
the trial court as evidence. However, considering that the
Section 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference accused did not interpose any objection thereto during trial
between sealed and unsealed private documents and the parties and the judicial personnel appear to be
insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. familiar with Cebuano, the extrajudicial confession was
properly considered by the trial court. (People v. Tomaquin,
Seal is the device for affixing a mark, image or impression G.R. 133188, July 23, 2004)
on all papers officially signed by the notary public (RULES
ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC 2004). Case: People v. Tomaquin, G.R. 133188, July 23, 2004
If the law requires a document to be stamped, it cannot be Doctrine: Appellant's extrajudicial confession was taken
recorded or admitted in evidence in the absence of such. and transcribed entirely in the Cebuano dialect. Rule 132,
(6 HERRERA, p. 308-309) Section 33 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language.—
language. — Documents written in an unofficial
Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted
language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless
as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or
accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino.
Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before
attorneys are directed to have such translation
trial.
prepared before trial.
Official Languages of the Philippines under Art. XIV, Sec. The rule is that when there is presented in evidence an
7 of the 1987 Constitution: exhibit written in any language other than the official
language (Filipino or English), if there is an appeal, that
1. Filipino; exhibit should be translated by the official interpreter of the
2. English, if provided by the law. court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties,
If an affidavit is executed in an unofficial language, the court and both original and translation sent to this court.
has the discretion to deny or give the party the opportunity
to secure a translation of the affidavit. (People v. Tomaquin, In this case, there is no official translation of appellant's
G.R. 133188, July 23, 2004) extrajudicial confession in the Filipino or English language.
If the Court were to strictly follow the rule, then appellant's
Is a document written in Cebuan admissible in extrajudicial confession should not have been admitted by
evidence?
the trial court as evidence for the prosecution.

107
Nevertheless, considering that appellant did not interpose Formal offer of Evidence:
any objection thereto, and the parties and the judicial
authorities or personnel concerned appeared to be familiar General Rule: The court shall consider no evidence which
with or knowledgeable of Cebuano in which the document has not been formally offered, the purpose for which having
been identified.
was written, such extrajudicial confession was
appropriately considered by the trial court as evidence for Exceptions: Evidence not formally offered can be
the prosecution. considered by the court as long as they have been:
1. Properly identified by testimony duly recorded; and
As stated at the outset, the crucial issue in this case is 2. They have themselves been incorporated in the records
whether or not the extrajudicial confession executed by of the case (People v. Libnao, G.R. No. 136860, January 20,
appellant, with the assistance of Atty. Fortunato Parawan, is 2003).
admissible in evidence against him. There is no need at this
point to secure an official translation of the confession to Formal Offer of Evidence Formal Offer of Proof
English.
OFFER AND OBJECTION Refers either to the offer of Is the process by which a
the testimony of a witness proponent of an excluded
Section 34. Offer of evidence - The court shall consider prior to the latter’s evidence tenders the same
no evidence which has not been formally offered. The testimony or the offer of the
purpose for which the evidence is offered must be documentary and object 1. If what has been excluded
specified. evidence after a party has is testimonial evidence, the
presented his testimonial tender is made by stating
Procedure: evidence. for the record the name and
other personal
Loosely, it has been circumstances of the
FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE referred to as formal offer proposed witness and the
of exhibits where object substance of his proposed
and documentary evidence testimony.
are offered.
Objections: Grounds 2. If the evidence excluded
General: Immaterial/Irrelevant is a documentary or of
things the offer of proof is
made by having the same
attached to or made a part
Sustained Overruled of the record
If testimony, the
If testimony, the
witness is (Riano 2016, Evidence, Bar Lecture Series, supra at 363-364)
witness is not
allowed to
allowed to Additional evidence after case is rested
answer.
answer. The Rules of Court does not prohibit a party from
If document/
If document/ requesting the court to allow it to present additional
object, it will be evidence even after it has rested its case (Republic v.
object, it will not
admitted Sandiganbayan[Fourth Division],662 SCRA 152, 184,
be admitted
December 13, 2011).
When formal offer of evidence is not required

(LSS-JAQ-NICOLE)
Remedy of offeror:
Presentation of
Tender of 1. Lost objects previously marked, identified, described in
evidence offered the record, and testified to by witnesses who had been
excluded evidence
subjects of cross-examination in respect to said objects
(Tabuena v. C, G.R. No. L-85423, May 6, 1991)
2. Summary Proceedings

108
3. Documents, affidavits, and depositions used in rendering
Summary judgments under Rule 35; The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must
4. Documents Judicially Admitted or taken judicial notice of; be made at the time the witness is called to testify.
5. Documents whose contents are Admitted by the parties;
6. Documents or affidavits used in deciding Quasi-Judicial The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be
or Administrative Cases; and made after the presentation of a party’s testimonial
7. In Naturalization, Insolvency proceedings, Cadastral, evidence.
Land Registration Cases, Election cases, and Other cases
(NICOLE) where the Rules on Evidence do not apply.
1997 Rules of Court 2019 Revised Rules
Purpose of Offer of Evidence
Formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to
The manner of offering The timing when the offer
rest their findings of facts and their judgement only and
shall be done orally unless shall be made remains the
strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. allowed by the court to be same. However, the new
Its function is:
done in writing. rules require that the
1. To enable the trial judge to know the purpose or manner of offering ALL
purposes for which the proponent is presenting the
evidence must be done
evidence; orally.
2. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to
examine the evidence and object to its
It appears that unlike the
admissibility;
old rule, the court no
3. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate
longer has discretion to
court will not be required to review documents not
allow the formal offer of
previously scrutinized by the trial court (People v.
evidence in writing.
Villanueva, G.R. No. 181829, September 1, 2010).
Dismissal on the basis of a very strict interpretation of

procedural rules without a clear demonstration of the Time to make offer:
injury to a substantive right of the defendant weighed
against 19 years of litigation actively participated in by both 1. Testimonial Evidence - at the time the witness is
parties should not be encouraged. Rules of procedure called to testify.
should not be applied in a very rigid technical case as they 2. Documentary Evidence - after the presentation of a
are devised chiefly to secure and not defeat substantial party’s testimonial evidence and before he rests his
justice (Republic v. Sps. Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, January 11, case.
2016). 3. Object Evidence - after the presentation of a party’s
testimonial evidence and before he rests his case,
Reason why purpose of offer must be specified unless it cannot be submitted to the court, in which
case, at the time it is presented to the court’s
1. To determine whether that piece of evidence should be senses.
admitted or not. Because such evidence may be admissible
for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple Mere identification of documents and the marking thereof
admissibility, or may be admissible for one purpose and not as exhibits does not confer any evidentiary weight on the
for another, otherwise the adverse party cannot interpose documents unless these are formally offered (Heirs of Cruz-
the proper objection. Evidence submitted for one purpose Zamora v. Multiwood Int’l Inc., G.R. No. 146428, January 19,
may not be considered for any other purpose by the judge. 2009).
2. Opposition parties will be deprived of their chance to
examine the document and to object to its admissibility. On Documents which may have been marked as exhibits during
the other hand, the appellate court will have difficulty the hearing but which were not formally offered in evidence
reviewing the documents not previously scrutinized by the cannot be considered as evidence nor can they be given any
court below (BAUTISTA, supra at 154). evidentiary value (Barut v. People, G.R. No. 167454,
September 24, 2014).
Section 35. When to make offer. - All evidence must be Stages in the presentation of documentary evidence:
offered orally.

109
1. Identification - proof that the document being irrelevant or incompetent or both (e.g., parol,
presented is the same one referred to by the hearsay evidence).
witness in his testimony.
2. Marking - all exhibits should be marked to facilitate Purpose of Objections
their identification. It may be done at the pre-trial
or during the trial. 1. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would
3. Authentication - the proof of a document’s due cause harm to a client’s cause. The rules on
execution and genuineness, if the purpose is to evidence are not self-operating and, hence,
show that it is genuine, or proof of its forgery, if the must be invoke by way of an objection;
purpose is to show that the document is a forgery. 2. To protect the record, i.e, to present the issue of
4. Inspection - whenever a writing is shown to a inadmissibility of the offered evidence in a way
witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party. that if the trial court rules erroneously, the
5. Formal offer - after the termination of the error can be relied upon as a ground for future
testimonial evidence, the proponent will then make appeal;
a formal offer and state the purpose for which 3. To protect a witness from being embarrassed
document is presented. by the adverse counsel;
6. Objections - the objection to the introduction or 4. To expose the adversary’s unfair tactics;
presentation of the document shall be made when 5. To give the Trial Court an opportunity to correct
it is formally offered in evidence. its own errors and at the same time warn the
court that a ruling adverse to the objector may
Section 36. Objection - Objection to offer of evidence supply a reason to invoke a higher court’s
must be made orally immediately after the offer is appellate jurisdiction; and
made. 6. To avoid a waiver of the inadmissibility of an
otherwise inadmissible evidence (RIANO, supra
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a at 347).
formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins
to testify. Objection to a question propounded in the Requirements to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence
course of the oral examination of a witness must be
made as soon as the grounds therefore becomes 1. One has to object to the evidence;
reasonably apparent. 2. The objection must be timely made;
3. The grounds for the objection must be specified
The grounds for the objection must be specified. (Specific Objections).
Objection is a formal protest raised in court during a trial Objection must be specific enough to adequately inform the
to disallow a witness testimony or other evidence which court the rule on evidence or of substantive law that
would be in violation of the rules of evidence or other authorizes the exclusion of the evidence (RIANO, supra at
procedural law (ESPEJO, supra at 630). 348).
Classification of Objections The rule, however, does not impose a general or an absolute
ban on general objections. There is no need to specify the
1. General Objection / Broadside Objection – It ground, “if the ground for exclusion should have been
does not go beyond declaring the evidence as obvious to the judge or to counsel” (Floy v. Hibbard, 227
immaterial, incompetent, irrelevant or Iowa 149).
inadmissible. It does not specify the grounds for
objection. There are cases where the incompetency of the evidence is
2. Specific Objection – It states the ground upon so palpable that a mere general objection is deemed
which the objection is made. It states why or sufficient, and where the portion of the evidence objection
how the evidence is irrelevant or incompetent. is deemed sufficient, and where the portion of the evidence
3. Formal Objection – is one directed against the objected is clearly pointed out and its illegality is apparent
alleged defect in the formulation of the question on its face, then the objection must be allowed. (RIANO,
(e.g., ambiguous question). supra at 349).
4. Substantive Objection – objections made and
directed against the very nature of the evidence, Objections must be Timely Made
i.e., it is inadmissible either because it is

110
In order to be timely, the objection must be made at the objection has been made, whether such objection was
earliest opportunity. What the earliest opportunity is sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat
depends upon the manner of evidence offered. the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to
record his or her continuing objection to such class of
1. Objection to offer of evidence - must be made questions.
orally immediately after the offer is made.
2. Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack Continuing Objection is an objection to a series of question
of a formal offer - made as soon as the witness about a related point. It may be made, in the discretion of
begins to testify. the court, to preserve an issue for appeal without
3. Objection to a question propounded in the distracting the factfinder with an objection to every
course of the oral examination of a witness - question. (ESPEJO, supra at 632).
made as soon as the grounds therefor become
reasonably apparent. Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be
given immediately after the objection is made, unless
Note: Under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, the court the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform
no longer has discretion to allow the formal offer of itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall
evidence in writing. always be made during the trial and at such time as will
give the party against whom it is made an opportunity
Waiver to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
Where a party fails to object to evidence when offered, he is
deemed to have waived his objection thereto, and The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection
consequently, the evidence offered may be admitted need not be stated. However, if the objection is based on
(Cabugao V. People, G.R. No. 158033, July 30, 2004) two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection
on one or some of them must specify the ground or
Where a continuing objection had been interposed on grounds relied upon.
prohibited testimony, the objection is deemed waived
where the objecting counsel cross-examined the witness on GENERAL RULE: The ruling of the court must be given
the very matters subject of the prohibition (RIANO, supra at immediately after the objection is made.
354).
EXCEPTION: When the court desires to take a reasonable
Extent of Waiver for Failure to Object time to inform itself on the question presented, but the
A waiver should not be construed as an admission that ruling shall always be made during the trial.
evidence is credible. It involves no admission that the
evidence possesses the weight attributed to it by the When a counsel asks a question and the other objects the
offering party. It does not also mean that the non-objecting court rules on the objection either by sustaining or
party waives the right to present controverting evidence. It overruling the objection (RIANO, supra at 358).
only involves waiver of objection to matters, namely, the
relevance and the competence of the evidence (RIANO, That “the objection will be taken into consideration,” is
supra at 355). prejudicial to the interest of the litigant since it deprives the
party against whom the ruling was made an opportunity to
Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. - meet the situation presented by the ruling. The Court
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of considered the act of the trial court as reversible error
the examination of a witness that the questions being having resulted in serious prejudice to the substantial rights
propounded are of the same class as those to which of the objecting party (Lopez v. Valdez, 32 Phil. 644)
objections has been made, whether such objection was
sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to Words such as “submitted” or “the objections are noted”
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse are, by common reason, not appropriate rulings and neither
party to record his or her continuing objection to such sustains or overrules the objection (RIANO, supra at 357).
questions.
Effect of Ruling on the Objection:
Rule on Continuing Objections
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the 1. When an objection to a question is sustained
examination of a witness that the questions being ● The judge considers the question as
propounded are of the same class as those to which improper and the witness will not be

111
allowed to answer the question. This of answering the question, and such objection is found
means the exclusion of a testimonial to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection
evidence. and order such answer, testimony or narration to be
2. When an objection is overruled stricken off the record.
● This means that for the court, the question
is proper and the witness will be allowed On proper motion, the court may also order the striking
to answer (RIANO, page 368). out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or
otherwise improper.
If the court fails to rule on the objection, the same must be
brought to the attention of the court, failing which the case
1997 Rules of Court 2019 Revised Rules
cannot be reopened for a new trial on that ground (People v.
Singh, et al., 45 Phil.676).
The former Section 39 The revised rules added
GENERAL RULE: The reason for sustaining or overruling an provides for only one three more instances when
objection need not be stated. instance when striking an striking an answer out can
answer out can be done - be made - (1) where a
EXCEPTION: If the objection is based on two or more Should a witness answer the question is not
grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of question before the adverse objectionable, but the
them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. party had the opportunity answer is not responsive,
to voice fully its objection to (2) where a witness
Liberality in admitting evidence the same. testifies without a question
The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objection to being posed or testifies
the form of the question should be avoided. In a case of beyond limits set by the
intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance, in the court, and (3) when the
early stages of the development of the proof, to know with witness does a narration
any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not; and instead of answering the
where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the question.
attorney offering the evidence, the court may, as a rule,
safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the Modes of Excluding Inadmissible Evidence
attorney that the proof offered will be connected later 1. Objection – When the evidence if offered (Section
(People v. Godoy, G.R. No. L-115908-09, December 6, 1995). 36, Rule 132)
2. Motion to strike out or expunge (Section 39, Rule
The trial courts should permit all exhibits presented by the 132)
parties, although not admitted, to be attached to the records
so that, in case of appeal, the appellate court may be able to When can a motion to strike be availed of: (PUI-UC)
examine the same and determine the propriety of their 1. When the answer is premature;
rejection (Oliveros, et al. v. Oliveros, et al., 106 Phil. 369). 2. When the answer is unresponsive;
3. When the answer of the witness is irrelevant,
However, it has been held that where documentary incompetent, or otherwise improper;
evidence was rejected by the trial court and the offeror 4. When the witness becomes unavailable for cross-
did not move that the same be attached to the record, the examination through no fault of the cross-
same cannot be considered by the appellate court (Banez, et examining party; and
al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., L-30351, September 11, 1974), 5. When the testimony was allowed conditionally and
as documents forming no part of proofs before the appellate the condition for its admissibility was not fulfilled
court cannot be considered in disposing of the case (De (RIANO, supra at 351-352).
Castro v. CA, et al., 75 Phil. 824).
When to make a motion to strike
Section 39. Striking out of answer. - Should a witness A counsel is not allowed to gamble upon the possibility of a
answer the question before the adverse party had the favorable answer but must object to the admission of
opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, or evidence as soon as the ground for the objection becomes
where a question is not objectionable, but the answer is apparent (HERRERA, page 337).
not responsive, or where a witness testifies without a
question being posed or testifies beyond limits set by
the court, or when the witness does a narration instead

112
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. - If documents The Supreme Court encourages the admission of borderline
or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, evidence for whatever it is worth or por lo que puedo valer.
the offeror may have the same attached to or made part
of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the It is impossible for a judge, in early stages of the
offeror may state for the record the name and other development of proof, to know with certainty whether the
personal circumstances of the witness and the testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no
substance of the proposed testimony. indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering
the evidence, the court may, as a rule safely accept the
Reasons for tender of excluded evidence: testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof
offered will be connected later (People v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-
1. To allow the court to know the nature of the 9181, November 28,1955).
testimony or documentary evidence and convince
the trial judge to permit the evidence or testimony; May an objection be interposed to the manner of tender
and of excluded evidence?
2. To create and preserve a record for appeal.
The Rules are silent on the issue but there is no cogent
How tender is made reason to disallow the objection.
1. Documentary or Object Evidence: by having the If the document tendered is

document or object attached to or made part of the a) not described or identified;
record. b) its substance stated in vague and general terms;
or
Duties of offering counsel: c) when the purpose for which it is offered is not
a. To produce, describe, identify the object or declared, then the evidence has to be objected to.
document; and
i. If it is documentary evidence, to If the testimony tendered is in the form of a conclusion and
state the contents of the fails to disclose sufficient information to enable the court
document that is sought to be and the other party to determine its admissibility (RIANO,
admitted where the substance of supra at 363).
the same is not apparent on its
face; Note: The ROC does not prohibit a party from requesting
b. To state the purpose for which the object the court to allow it to present additional evidence even
or document sought to be attached is after it has rested its case (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 662
offered, and to ask that it be marked for SCRA 152).
identification and have it attached to the
record. Harmless Error Rule
In our jurisdiction, we follow the harmless error rule, for
2. Testimonial Evidence: by stating for the record dealing with evidence improperly admitted in the trial, we
the name and other personal circumstances of the examine its damaging quality and its impact to the
witness and the substance of the proposed substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and
testimony. insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not overcome
the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the
Two methods of tender: prejudiced party (People v. Teehankee, Jr., G.R. Nos. 111206-
a. Counsel tells the court what the proposed 08, October 6, 1995).
testimony will be; or
b. Question and answer form.
Note: Whichever method is to be used lies in the

discretion of the trial court. The advocate must see
to it that the offer must be specific enough to
contain the facts and circumstances of the matter
sought to be proved by excluded evidence
“Por lo que puedo valer” Principle

113
h. Number of witnesses, but take note that
RULE 133 preponderance that is not necessarily equated with
SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF the number of witnesses and other evidence.
EVIDENCE Preponderance Defined

By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence as
a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other.
Sufficiency of Evidence It refers to the weight credit or value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be
Sufficiency refers to the adequacy of evidence, or such synonymous with the term “greater weight of evidence” or
evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally
“greater weight of the credible evidence.” It is evidence
justify the judicial action demanded or prayed for by the which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief
parties (ESPEJO, Evidence Explained, 2019, p. 660 than that which is offered in opposition thereto (BJDC
[hereinafter Espejo].
Construction v. Nena Lanuzo, G.R. No. 161151, March 24,
2014).
Weight of evidence
This refers to the balance of evidence and in whose favor it Equiponderance of evidence (Equipoise rule)
tilts. This refers to the indication of the greater evidence
The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the
between the parties. This depends on the judicial evaluation parties are evenly balanced ore there is doubt on which side
within the guidelines provided by the rules and
the evidence preponderates. In such case the decision
jurisprudence (ESPEJO, supra at p. 659). should be against the party with the burden of proof
(Marubeni Corp. v. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998, August 10, 2001).
Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values
Quantum of proof required in actions to recover ill-
a. Proof beyond reasonable doubt – It is required gotten wealth
for the conviction of the accused in a criminal case. Preponderance of evidence is required in actions brought to
b. Clear and convincing evidence – This is adduced
recover ill-gotten wealth. The Republic correctly submits
to overcome a prima facie or a disputable that only a preponderance of evidence was needed to prove
presumption.
its demand for reconveyance or recovery of ill-gotten
c. Preponderance of evidence – The degree of proof wealth. … For this purpose, the sheer volume of evidence
required in civil cases.
presented by one party cannot tip the scales in its favor.
d. Substantial Evidence – Required to reach a Quality, not quantity, is the primordial consideration in
conclusion in administrative proceedings or to
evaluating evidence (Republic v. Luz Reyes - Bakunawa, G.R.
establish a fact before administrative or quasi- No. 180418, August 28, 2013).
judicial bodies.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (Rule on partial
SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. credibility)
– In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must (False in one thing, false in everything)
establish his or her case by a preponderance of evidence. In If the testimony of the witness on a material issue is willfully
determining where the preponderance (superior weight) of
false and given with an intention to deceive, court may
evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider disregard all the witness’ testimony.
the following:
 Not a mandatory rule of evidence
a. All the facts and circumstances of the case;
 It deals only with the weight of evidence and not a
b. The witnesses’ manner of testifying;
positive rule of law.
c. Their intelligence;
 The court may accept and reject portions of the
d. Their means and opportunity of knowing the facts
to which they testify; witness’ testimony depending on the inherent
e. The probability or improbability of their credibility of the testimony.
testimony;
f. Their interest or want of interest; SECTION 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal
case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his or her
g. Personal credibility so far as the same may
legitimately appear upon the trial; and guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,

114
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. agreement of the parties,” that is, proof beyond reasonable
Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof doubt (Angelita Cruz Benito v. People, G.R. No. 204644,
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. February 11, 2015).
Definition Equipoise rule

It simply means such proof, to the satisfaction of the court, The "equipoise doctrine" is the rule which states that when
keeping in mind the presumption of innocence, as precludes the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so
every reasonable hypothesis except that which is given to evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls for
support. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish tilting of the scales in favor of the accused (People v. Benjie
probability, even though strong, that the fact charged is Ramilla, G.R. No. 101435, November 8,1993).
more likely to be true than the contrary. It must establish
the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty
– a certainty that convinces and satisfies the conscience Alibi v. Denial
of those who are to act upon it (United States vs. Cristino Alibi is evidence offered by one charged with a crime to
Reyes, G.R. No. L-1374, December 3, 1903). support the statement that at the time of if its commission,
he was at a place so remote or that the crime took place
Rationale for requirement under such circumstances that he could not possibly have
Proof beyond reasonable doubt lies in the fact that in a committed it.
criminal prosecution, the State is arrayed against the
subject; it enters the contest with a prior inculpatory On the other hand, a denial in a pleading or in defense
finding in its hands; with unlimited means of command; denies or traverses an allegation made in the pleading of an
with counsel usually of authority and capacity, who are adverse party or in the direct examination by the
regarded as public officers, as therefore as speaking semi- prosecution and puts the matter so denied in issue, to be
judicially, and with an attitude of tranquil majesty often in resolved upon the trial of the action (Decano, Annotation:
striking contrast to that of defendant engaged in a Denial v. Alibi, 624 SCRA 693, July 9, 2010).
perturbed and distracting struggle for liberty if not for life.
Just like denial, alibi is an inherently weak defense; and
These inequalities of position, the law strives to meet unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the
by the rule that there is to be no conviction where there same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the
is reasonable doubt of guilt (Julius Amanquiton vs. People victim (People v. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002).
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166080, August 14, 2009).
However, alibi assumes significance and strength where the
Basis evidence for the prosecution is also intrinsically weak (People
Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not v. Canlas, G.R. No. 141633, December 14, 2001).
only in the due process clause of the Constitution, but
similarly, in the right of the accused to be “presumed Matters to be proved in a criminal prosecution (corpus
innocent until the contrary is proved.” delicti)
“Undoubtedly, it is the Constitutional presumption of 1. The commission of the crime

innocence that lays such (the task of establishing the guilt 2. The identification of the accused as the perpetrator
of the accused) burden upon the prosecution.” (Nilo of the crime. (What is needed is positive
Macayan v. People, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015) identification made with moral certainty as to the
person of the offender)
Proof beyond reasonable doubt applies not only to the
crime but also to a conspiracy to commit it Credibility of witnesses and admissibility of certain
Proof of conspiracy may be direct or circumstantial. So long tests
as the evidence presented show a “common design or
purpose” to commit the crime, all of the accused shall be  Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed
held equally liable as co-principals even if one or more of from the mouth of a credible witness but must be
them did not participate in all the details in execution of the credible in itself, such that the common experience
crime. and observation of mankind can show it as
probable under the circumstances Idanan v. People,
For this reason, the fact of conspiracy “must be proven on G.R. No. 193313, March 16, 2016).
the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the

115
When it comes to credibility of witnesses, this court Confession

accords the highest respect, even finality, to the A confession is an acknowledgement in express words, by
evaluation by the lower court of the testimonies of the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main fact
the witnesses presented before it (De Leon v. charged, or some essential parts thereof. Owing to is very
People, G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016). definition, there is no such thing as an implied confession. It
is always a direct and positive acknowledgement of guilt
 In rape cases, the lone testimony of the of the (People v. Porio, G.R. No. 117202, February 13, 2002).
offended party, if free from serious and material
contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of Requisites for admissibility (VAWE) :
conviction (People v. Esperanza, G.R. Nos. 139217- 1. The confession must be Voluntary
24, June 27, 2003). 2. The confession must be made with the Assistance
 “Sweetheart theory” is an admission (by the of a competent and independent counsel,
accused) of carnal knowledge of the victim and preferably of the confessant’s choice;
consequently places on the accused the burden of 3. The confession must be in Writing
proving the supposed relationship by substantial 4. The confession must be Express (People v. Rapeza,
evidence (People v. Guillermo, G.R. No. 177138, G.R. No. 169431, April 4, 2007).
January 26, 2010).
Corpus delicti
 Paraffin tests are inconclusive. The absence of It refers to a particular crime and signifies that the specific
burns in a suspect’s hand is not conclusive proof offense had been actually committed by someone.
that he has not fired a gun. In fact, the traces of
nitrates can easily be removed by the simple act of People vs. Ricky Quimzon, G.R. No. 133541, April 14,
washing one’s hand (Abalos v. CA, G.R. No. 125434, 2004
December 22, 1999).
In the case of murder, corpus delicti does not refer to the
 Polygraph test uses electromechanical autopsy report evidencing the nature of the wounds
instrument that simultaneously measures and sustained by the victim nor the testimony of the physician
records certain physiological changes in the human who conducted the autopsy or medical examination. It is
body that are believed to be involuntarily caused made up of two elements:
by an examinee’s conscious attempt to deceive the
questioner. a. that a certain result has been proved, for example,
a man has died
Our courts reject the results of polygraph tests b. that some person is criminally responsible for the
when offered in evidence for the purpose of act.
establishing the guilt or innocence of the
accused…for the reason that polygraph has not yet …While the autopsy report of a medico legal expert in cases
attained scientific acceptance as reliable and of murder or homicide is preferably accepted to show the
accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception extent of the injuries suffered by the victim, it is not the only
(People v. Adoviso, G.R. No. 116196- 97, June 23, competent evidence to prove the injuries and the fact of
1999) death. It may be proved by the testimonies of credible
witnesses. Even a single witness’ uncorroborated
SECTION 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient testimony, if credible, may suffice to prove it and warrant a
ground for conviction. – An extrajudicial confession made conviction therefor.
by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction,
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Rules Governing Extrajudicial Confessions
Effects of Judicial and Extrajudicial Confessions General rule

A judicial confession is sufficient in itself to sustain a The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only
conviction, even in capital offenses. On the other hand, an upon himself and is not admissible against his co-accused.
extrajudicial confession is insufficient in itself to sustain a
conviction. It must be corroborated by evidence of corpus Exceptions
delicti (ESPEJO, supra at 671). 1. Interlocking confessions, i.e., extrajudicial
confessions independently made without collusion

116
which are identical with each other in their in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
material respects and confirmatory of the other improbability of the fact in issue.
(People v. Encipido, G.R. No.70091, December 29,
1986). Nature
2. If the co-accused impliedly adopted said confession In People v. Monje, the Supreme Court characterized
by not questioning its truthfulness (People v. circumstantial evidence as “puzzle pieces which when put
Orenciada, G.R. No. 21562, August 7, 1924). together reveal a convincing picture pointing to the
3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime.”
confessant after being apprised of such confession
(People v. Narciso, G.R. No. L-24484, May 28, 1968). Viability as basis of conviction
4. If the accused are charged as co-conspirators of the A finding of guilt is still possible despite the absence of
crime which was confessed by one of the accused direct evidence. Conviction based on circumstantial
and said confession is used only as corroborative evidence may result if sufficient circumstances, proven and
evidence (People v. Linde, G.R. No.L-10358, January taken together, create an unbroken chain leading to the
28, 1961). reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial all others, was the author of the crime (Almojuela v. People,
evidence to show the probability of participation G.R. No. 183202, June 2, 2014).
by the conspirator (People v. Condomena).
6. Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant Reason for its Admission
(People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-12867, July 31, It is due to necessity, especially in a criminal case. If only
1962). direct evidence is allowed, very few conviction could be
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial had. Besides circumstantial evidence is based on sound
confession is corroborated by other evidence of rational grounds of everyday logic (6 HERRERA, supra at
record (People v. Paz, G.R. Nos. L-15052-53, August 403).
31, 1964).
Guidelines in Convictions based on Circumstantial
SECTION 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Evidence
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: a. Circumstantial evidence should be acted upon with
(a) There is more than one circumstance; caution
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are b. All the essential facts must be consistent with the
proven; hypothesis of guilt
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as c. The facts must exclude every other theory but that
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. of the guilt of the accused
d. The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. the series of events pointing to the commission of a
felony is appreciated not singly but collectively
Definition (People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 157221, March 30, 2007).
Circumstantial evidence may be characterized as that
evidence that proves a fact or series of facts from which the Motive and Circumstantial Evidence
facts in issue may be established by inference. Motive is the move power which impels one to action for a
definite result. It is circumstantial because it does not
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts directly prove guilt. The fact that the accused had motive to
and circumstances from which the existence of the main kill the victim does not necessarily mean he did the killing.
fact may be inferred according to reason and common
experience Motive is generally held to be immaterial because it is not
(People v. Broniola, G.R. No. 211027, June 29, 2015). element of the crime (People v. Babor, G.R. No. 215319,
October 21, 2015).
Review
Rule 128, Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters – Evidence When Evidence of Motive is Relevant or Important
must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief as to its existence or non-existence. Evidence on Generally, motive becomes important when the evidence on
collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends commission of the crime is purely circumstantial or
inconclusive.

117
Specifically, evidence of motive is needed: SECTION 6. Substantial evidence – In cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
1. Where the identity of the assailant is in question; deemed established if it is supported by substantial
2. To determine the voluntariness of the criminal act evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
or the sanity of the accused; reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
3. To determine from which side the unlawful conclusion.
aggression commenced, as where the accused
invoked self-defense; How Satisfied
4. To determine the specific nature of the crime Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of
committed; evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied
5. To determine whether a shooting was intentional when there is a reasonable ground to believe, based on the
or accidental, the fact that the accused had personal evidence submitted, that the respondent is responsible for
motives to shoot the victim being weighty; the misconduct complained of. It need not be overwhelming
6. Where the accused contends in acted in defense of or preponderant… but the evidence must be enough for a
a stranger, since it is essential, for such defense to reasonable mind to support a conclusion (Ombudsman v.
prosper, that the accused was not induced by Amalio Mallari, GR. 183161, December 3, 2014).
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Cardinal Requirements of Due Process in
SECTION 5. Weight to be given of opinion of expert Administrative Cases (HeCS 2 -EAK)
witness, how determined. —
In any case where the opinion of an expert witness is 1. The right to a Hearing which includes the right
received in evidence, the court has a wide latitude of one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof
discretion in determining the weight to be given to such 2. The tribunal must Consider the evidence presented
opinion, and for that purpose may consider the following: 3. The decision must have something to Support itself
4. The evidence is must be Substantial (as defined in
(a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or Sec. 6)
data; 5. The decision must be based on the Evidence
presented in the hearing, or at least contained in
(b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and the records and disclosed to the parties affected
methods; 6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must Act
on its or his own independent consideration of the
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and law and the facts of the controversy, and not simply
methods reliably to the facts of the case; and accept the vies of a subordinate
(d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to 7. The board or body should, in all controversial
make such determination. questions, render its decisions in such manner that
all parties to the proceeding can Know the various
This is a new insertion. It provides that in case of opinion of issues involved, and the reason for the decision
expert witness, the court has a wide latitude of discretion in rendered (Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations
determining the weight of evidence to be given to such G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 1940).
opinion.
Quantum of proof required in Amparo and Habeas Data
Even prior to this amendment, such rule was already proceedings
settled by jurisprudence. If the allegations in the Petition for Writ of Amparo are
proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the
The opinion of an expert witness or expert evidence is privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and
admissible, but such testimony is merely persuasive and are appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.
not binding upon the courts (Orense, Jr. v. Recasas, G.R. No.
199992 (Notice), 19 April 2017). CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
With the incorporation of the foregoing jurisprudential What Must be Proven by Clear and Convincing Evidence
pronouncement, the revised rule also provides for the
factors for the court to consider in determining the weight Survey of Cases
to be given to such opinion. The person claiming moral damages must prove the
existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for

118
the law always presumes good faith (Armando Aliling v. Jose Self-defense, under Article 11, paragraph 1, and accident,
Feliciano, GR. No.185829, April 25, 2012). under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, are
affirmative defenses which the accused is burdened to
In illegal dismissal cases, the employer is burdened to prove prove with clear and convincing evidence (People v. Marcial
just cause for terminating the employment of its employee Malicdem, G.R. No. 184601, November 12, 2012).
with clear and convincing evidence.
Summary
This principle is designed to give flesh and blood to the A party who wishes to defeat a presumption or statutory
guaranty of security of tenure granted by the Constitution bias, as a general rule, can only do so if he establishes facts
to employees under the Labor Code (Duty Free Philippines by clear and convincing evidence.
Services, Inc. V. Manolito Tria, G.R. No. 174809, June 27,
2012). Exception: Presumption of innocence
Due to its doubtful nature, alibi must be supported by clear It has to be by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
and convincing evidence (People v. Lara, G.R. No. 199877,
August 13, 2012). SECTION 7. Power of the court to stop further evidence. –
The court may stop the introduction of further testimony
A defense of denial which is unsupported and upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot
negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. This
cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, power shall be exercised with caution.
straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative
matters (People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, The old and new provisions are the same except that
2010). “should be” was changed to “shall be” and the section
number was changed from 6 to 7.
Police officers are presumed to have acted regularly in the
performance of their official functions in the absence of Requisites:
clear and convincing proof to the contrary or proof that they 1. Court stops the introduction of further
were moved by ill will (People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, testimony;
February 5, 2010).
2. Evidence upon it is already full;
The general rule is that he who alleges fraud or mistake in a
transaction must substantiate his allegation as the 3. Witnesses cannot be reasonably expected to be
presumption is that a person takes ordinary care for his additionally persuasive;
concerns and that private dealings have been entered into
fairly and regularly. One who alleges defect or lack of valid 4. Such power of court is exercised with caution.
consent to a contract by reason of fraud or undue influence The court has the power to stop the introduction of
must establish by full, clear and convincing evidence such testimony which will merely be cumulative.
specific act that vitiated a party’s consent, otherwise, the (Guinea et. al v. Vda. De. Ramonal et. al, G.R. No. L-
latter’s presumed consent to the contract prevails (Fontana 38659, February 20, 1975)
Resort v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 154670, January 30, 2012).
The power granted by the above proviso has the clear
The defense of frame-up must be supported by clear and caveat that this power should be exercised with caution,
convincing evidence because it is in the same category as more so in criminal cases where proof beyond reasonable
alibi (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 109119, August 16, 1994). doubt is required for the conviction of the accused (Go v.
Looyuko, G.R. No. 147923, October 26, 2007).
A party has the right to seek the inhibition or
disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be wholly SECTION 8. Evidence on motion. – When a motion is based
free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling on facts not appearing of the record, the court may hear the
the case. …to disqualify a judge on the ground of bias and matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the
prejudice the movant must prove the same by clear and respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter
convincing evidence (Webb v. People, G.R. No. 127262, July be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.
24, 1997).
Only the section number was changed in this provision.

119
Examples:
1. Motion for Bail (Under Criminal Procedure, the evidence
taken up during the hearing of the motion will form part
automatically of the records of the case);
2. Application for preliminary attachment or injunction;
3. Motion to dismiss founded on certain facts which are not

solely predicated on absence of jurisdiction or failure to
state a cause of action (ESPEJO at p. 679);
4. Motion to Lift an Order of Default (must be supported by

an affidavit of merits stating fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence and a meritorious defense);
5. Motion for Summary Judgment may be proved based on

affidavits.
While the court may hear and rule upon motions solely on
the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits, if the affidavits
contradict each other on matters of fact, the court can have
no basis to make its findings of fact and the prudent course
is to subject the affiants to cross-examination so that the
court can decide whom to believe (Sapida v. De Villanueva,
G.R. No. L-27673, November 24, 1972).

120
(e) "Digital signature" refers to an electronic
signature consisting of a transformation of an
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE electronic document or an electronic data message
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such
that a person having the initial untransformed
August 1, 2001 electronic document and the signer's public key
can accurately determine:
Rule 1 i. whether the transformation was created
COVERAGE using the private key that corresponds to
the signer's public key; and
SECTION 1. Scope. – Unless otherwise provided herein, ii. whether the initial electronic document
these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic document or had been altered after the transformation
electronic data message, as defined in Rule 2 hereof, is was made.
offered or used in evidence. (f) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic
document or electronic data message bearing a
SECTION 2. Cases covered. – These Rules shall apply to all digital signature verified by the public key listed in
civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and a certificate.
administrative cases. (g) "Electronic data message" refers to information
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic,
SECTION 3. Application of other rules on evidence. – In optical or similar means.
all matters not specifically covered by these Rules, the Rules (h) "Electronic document" refers to information or
of Court and pertinent provisions of statutes containing the representation of information, data, figures,
rules on evidence shall apply. symbols or other modes of written expression,
described or however represented, by which a
Rule 2 right is established or an obligation extinguished,
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed,
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
SECTION 1. Definition of terms. – For purposes of these processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It
Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: includes digitally signed documents and any print-
(a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem" means a out or output, readable by sight or other means,
system capable of generating a secure key pair, which accurately reflects the electronic data
consisting of a private key for creating a digital message or electronic document. For purposes of
signature, and a public key for verifying the digital these Rules, the term "electronic document" may
signature. be used interchangeably with "electronic data
(b) "Business records" include records of any message".
business, institution, association, profession, (i) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which
occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or secures and defends sensitive information that
not conducted for profit, or for legitimate or crosses over public channels into a form
illegitimate purposes. decipherable only with a matching electronic key.
(c) "Certificate" means an electronic document (j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive
issued to support a digital signature which mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic
purports to confirm the identity or other form, representing the identity of a person and
significant characteristics of the person who holds attached to or logically associated with the
a particular key pair. electronic data message or electronic document or
(d) "Computer" refers to any single or interconnected any methodology or procedure employed or
device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electro- adopted by a person and executed or adopted by
mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other such person with the intention of authenticating,
means with the same function, can receive, record, signing or approving an electronic data message or
transmit, store, process, correlate, analyze, electronic document. For purposes of these Rules,
project, retrieve and/or produce information, an electronic signature includes digital signatures.
data, text, graphics, figures, voice, video, symbols (k) "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers
or other modes of expression or perform any one to telephone conversations, text messages,
or more of these functions. chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming
video, and other electronic forms of

121
communication the evidence of which is not "Electronic data message" refers to information generated,
recorded or retained. sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar
(l) "Information and communication system" means (Rule 2, Section 1(g)).
refers to a system for generating, sending,
receiving, storing or otherwise processing What are ephemeral electronic communications?
electronic data messages or electronic documents "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone
and includes the computer system or other similar conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
devices by or in which data are recorded or stored audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
and any procedure related to the recording or communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
storage of electronic data messages or electronic retained (Rule 2, Section 1(k)).
documents.
(m) "Key pair" in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers Information defined
to the private key and its mathematically related The rules use the word "information" to define an electronic
public key such that the latter can verify the digital document received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
signature that the former creates. processed, retrieved or produced electronically. This would
(n) "Private key" refers to the key of a key pair used suggest that an electronic document is relevant only in
to create a digital signature. terms of the information contained therein, similar to any
(o) "Public key" refers to the key of a key pair used to other document which is presented in evidence as proof of
verify a digital signature. its contents. However, what differentiates an electronic
document from a paper-based document is the manner by
Section 2. Construction. –These Rules shall be liberally which the information is processed; clearly, the information
construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just, contained in an electronic document is received, recorded,
expeditious, and inexpensive determination of cases. transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically.
The interpretation of these Rules shall also take into
consideration the international origin of Republic Act No. Photocopies are Not Electronic Documents
8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act. A perusal of the information contained in the photocopies
submitted by petitioner will reveal that not all of the
Rule 3 contents therein, such as the signatures of the persons who
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS purportedly signed the documents, may be recorded or
produced electronically. By no stretch of the imagination
SECTION 1. Electronic documents as functional can a person’s signature affixed manually be considered as
equivalent of paper-based documents. — Whenever a rule information electronically received, recorded, transmitted,
of evidence refers to the term writing, document, record, stored, processed, retrieved or produced. Hence, the
instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, argument of petitioner that since these paper printouts
such term shall be deemed to include an electronic were produced through an electronic process, then these
document as defined in these Rules. photocopies are electronic documents as defined in the
Rules on Electronic Evidence is obviously an erroneous, if
What is an electronic document? not preposterous, interpretation of the law. Having thus
"Electronic document" refers to information or the declared that the offered photocopies are not tantamount to
representation of information, data, figures, symbols or electronic documents, it is consequential that the same may
other modes of written expression, described or however not be considered as the functional equivalent of their
represented, by which a right is established or an obligation original as decreed in the law. (NAPOCOR v. Codilla, G.R. No.
extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and 170491, April 4, 2007).
affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes Ephemeral Electronic Communications
digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, Ephemeral electronic communications are now admissible
readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects evidence, subject to certain conditions. It may be proven by
the electronic data message or electronic document. For the testimony of a person who was a party to the
purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic document" communications or has personal knowledge thereof.
may be used interchangeably with "electronic data
message" (Rule 2, Section 1(h)). In the present case, we have no doubt regarding the
probative value of the text messages as evidence in
What are electronic data message? considering the present case. The complainant, who was the

122
recipient of the text messages and who therefore has the correct shade. The receiver is equipped with a stylus or
personal knowledge of these text messages, identified the other device that produces a printed record on paper
respondent as the sender through cellphone number referred to as a facsimile.
09175775982. The respondent herself admitted that her
conversations with the complainant had been thru SMS A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at
messaging and that the cellphone number reflected in the best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original.
complainant’s cellphone from which the text messages Without the original, there is no way of determining on its
originated was hers. She confirmed that it was her face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and
cellphone number during the entrapment operation the authentic and was originally signed by the party and his
Imus Cavite Police conducted. (Bartolome v. Maranan, A.M. counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading.
No. P-11-2979, November 18, 2014).
Ineluctably, the law's definition of "electronic data
Picture Images of the Ballots are Equivalents of the message," which is interchangeable with "electronic
Original Official Ballot document," could not have included facsimile transmissions,
The picture images of the ballots are electronic documents which have an original paper-based copy as sent and a
that are regarded as the equivalents of the original official paper-based facsimile copy as received. These two copies
ballots themselves. In Vinzons-Chato v. House of are distinct from each other, and have different legal
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, the SC held that "the effects.
picture images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by
the PCOS, are likewise ‘official ballots’ that faithfully capture Therefore, the terms "electronic data message" and
in electronic form the votes cast by the voter, as defined by "electronic document," as defined under the Electronic
Section 2(3) of R.A. No. 9369. As such, the printouts thereof Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile
are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot
by the voters and, thus, may be used for purposes of be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the
revision of votes in an electoral protest" (Maliksi v. functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence
COMELEC, G.R. No. 203302, March 12, 2013). Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence (MCC
Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R.
Note: In a Resolution granting Maliksi’s Extremely Urgent No. 170633, October 17, 2007).
Motion for Reconsideration, the SC ruled that although the
picture images are equivalents of the ballots themselves, SECTION 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is
this does not authorize the courts, the COMELEC, and the admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on
Electoral Tribunals to quickly and unilaterally resort to the admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related
printouts of the picture images of the ballots in the laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these
proceedings had before them without notice to the parties. Rules.
Despite the equal probative weight accorded to the official
ballots and the printouts of their picture images, the rules Requisites of Admissibility:
for the revision of ballots adopted for their respective An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:
proceedings still consider the official ballots to be the 1. It complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed
primary or best evidence of the voters’ will. In that regard, by the Rules of Court and related laws; and
the picture images of the ballots are to be used only 2. It is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these
when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or Rules (Rule 3, Sec. 2).
their integrity has been compromised (Maliksi v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 203302, April 11, 2013). SECTION 3. Privileged communication. –The confidential
character of a privileged communication is not lost solely on
Is an original printout of a facsimile transmission an the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document.
electronic data message or electronic document?
No. A facsimile or fax transmission is a process involving the RULE 4
transmission and reproduction of printed and graphic BEST EVIDENCE RULE
matter by scanning an original copy, one elemental area at
a time, and representing the shade or tone of each area by a SECTION 1. Original of an electronic document.—An
specified amount of electric current. The current is electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of
transmitted as a signal over regular telephone lines or via an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a
microwave relay and is used by the receiver to reproduce
an image of the elemental area in the proper position and

123
printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown SECTION 2. Manner of authentication.—Before any
to reflect the data accurately. private electronic document offered as authentic is received
in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the
SECTION 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals.—When following means:
a document is in two or more copies executed at or about (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart person purported to have signed the same;
produced by the same impression as the original, or from (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures
the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court
rerecording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other or by law for authentication of electronic documents
equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the were applied to the document; or
original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability
equivalent of the original. to the satisfaction of the judge.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall Section 3. Proof of electronically notarized document.—
not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: A document electronically notarized in accordance with the
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be
original; or considered as a public document and proved as a notarial
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable document under the Rules of Court.
to admit the copy in lieu of the original.
When copies or duplicates of a document shall be RULE 6

regarded as original: ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
1. It is in two or more copies executed at or about the
same time with identical contents; or SECTION 1. Electronic signature.—An electronic
2. It is a counterpart produced by the same matrix, or by signature or a digital signature authenticated in the manner
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a
accurately reproduces the original. written document.
Such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the Electronic signature refers to any distinctive mark,
equivalent of the original. (REE, Rule 4, Sec. 2) characteristic and/or sound in electronic form representing
the identity of a person and attached to/or logically
Note: Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates associated with the electronic data message or electronic
shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: document or any methodology or procedures employed or
1. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such
original; or person with an intention of authenticating or approving an
2. In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable electronic data message or electronic document (Rule 2,
to admit the copy in lieu of the original (Rule 4, Sec. 2). Section 1[j]).
RULE 5 Digital Signature refers to an electronic signature

AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or
an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public
SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity.—The person cryptosystem such that a person having the initial
seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public
proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the key can accurately determine:
manner provided in this Rule. (a) Whether the transformation was created using the
private key that corresponds to the signer’s public
Evidence must be authenticated key; and
To authenticate the object is to show that the object is the (b) Whether the initial electronic document had been
very thing that is either the subject matter of the lawsuit or altered after the transformation was made (Rule 2,
the very one involved to prove an issue in the case. It is the Section 1[e]).
preliminary step in showing the admissibility of evidence
proving that the objects and documents presented in
evidence are not counterfeit.

124
SECTION 2. Authentication of electronic signatures.—An (c) The integrity of the information and communication
electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the system in which it is recorded or stored, including but
following manner: not limited to the hardware and computer programs or
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized software used as well as programming errors;
to establish a digital signature and verify the same; (d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made
(b) By any other means provided by law; or the entry with the communication and information
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as system;
establishing the genuineness of the electronic (e) The nature and quality of the information which went
signature. into the communication and information system upon
which the electronic data message or electronic
SECTION 3. Disputable presumptions relating to document was based; or
electronic signatures. –Upon the authentication of an (f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting
electronic signature, it shall be presumed that: the accuracy or integrity of the electronic document or
(a) The electronic signature is that of the person to electronic data message.
whom it correlates;
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person SECTION 2. Integrity of an information and
with the intention of authenticating or approving communication system.—In any dispute involving the
the electronic document to which it is related or to integrity of the information and communication system in
indicate such person's consent to the transaction which an electronic document or electronic data message is
embodied therein; and recorded or stored, the court may consider, among others,
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the following factors:
the electronic signature operated without error or (a) Whether the information and communication system
fault. or other similar device was operated in a manner that
did not affect the integrity of the electronic document,
SECTION 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the
signatures.—Upon the authentication of a digital signature, integrity of the information and communication
it shall be presumed, in addition to those mentioned in the system;
immediately preceding section, that: (b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or
(a) The information contained in a certificate is stored by a party to the proceedings with interest
correct; adverse to that of the party using it; or
(b) The digital signature was created during the (c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or
operational period of a certificate; stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by
(c) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or a person who is not a party to the proceedings and who
revocable; did not act under the control of the party using it.
(d) The message associated with a digital signature has
not been altered from the time it was signed; and, RULE 8
(e) A certificate had been issued by the certification BUSINESS RECORDS AS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY
authority indicated therein. RULE
RULE 7 SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule.—A

EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts,
events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by
SECTION 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight.— electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time
In assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic of or from transmission or supply of information by a
document, the following factors may be considered: person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular
(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the
generated, stored or communicated, including but not regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record,
limited to input and output procedures, controls, tests or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means,
and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or
data message or document, in the light of all the other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on
circumstances as well as any relevant agreement; hearsay evidence.
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was
identified; SECTION 2. Overcoming the presumption. –The
presumption provided for in Section 1 of this

125
Rule may be overcome by evidence of the transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown,
untrustworthiness of the source of information or the presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified,
method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission explained or authenticated by the person who made the
or storage thereof. recording or by some other person competent to testify on
Rule 9 the accuracy thereof.
METHOD OF PROOF
SECTION 2. Ephemeral Electronic Communication.—
SECTION 1. Affidavit evidence.—All matters relating to the Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by
admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or
document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or
direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence
authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the may be admitted.
competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained
therein. A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral
electronic communication shall be covered by the
SECTION 2. Cross-examination of deponent.—The affiant immediately preceding section.
shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open
court and may be cross-examined as a matter of right by the If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied
adverse party. in an electronic document, then the provisions of Rule 5
shall apply.
RULE 10
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES Ephemeral Electronic Communication
Telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom
SECTION 1. Electronic testimony.—After summarily sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9, the court may electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is
authorize the presentation of testimonial evidence by not recorded or retained (RULE 2, Sec. 1(k)).
electronic means. Before so authorizing, the court shall
determine the necessity for such presentation and Rule on Text Messages
prescribe terms and conditions as may be necessary under Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic
the circumstance, including the protection of the rights of Evidence, "Ephemeral electronic communications shall be
the parties and witnesses concerned. proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the
same or who has personal knowledge thereof." In this case,
SECTION 2. Transcript of electronic testimony.—When complainant who was the recipient of said messages and
examination of a witness is done electronically, the entire therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their
proceedings, including the questions and answers, shall be contents and import. Respondent herself admitted that the
transcribed by a stenographer, stenotypes or other cellphone number reflected in complainant's cellphone
recorder authorized for the purpose, who shall certify as from which the messages originated was hers.
correct the transcript done by him. The transcript should
reflect the fact that the proceedings, either in whole or in Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had as to the
part, had been electronically recorded. admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest
when she and her counsel signed and attested to the
SECTION 3. Storage of electronic evidence.—The veracity of the text messages between her and
electronic evidence and recording thereof as well as the complainant. It is also well to remember that in
stenographic notes shall form part of the record of the case. administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and
Such transcript and recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence are not strictly applied (Nuez v. Cruz-Apao, A.M.
evidence of such proceedings. No. CA-05-18-P, April 12, 2005).
RULE 11 The respondent's claim that the admission of the text

AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL messages as evidence against him constitutes a violation of
EVIDENCE his right to privacy is unavailing. Text messages have been
classified as ephemeral electronic communication under
SECTION 1. Audio, Video and Similar Evidence.—Audio, Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and
photographic and video evidence of events, acts or shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a

126
party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. Any
question as to the admissibility of such messages is now
moot and academic, as the respondent himself, as well as his
counsel, already admitted that he was the sender of the first
three messages on Atty. Madarang's cell phone (Magtolis v.
Salud, A.M. No. A-05-20-P, September 9, 2005).
the admissibility of such messages is now moot and

academic, as the respondent himself, as well as his counsel,
already admitted that he was the sender of the first three
messages on Atty. Madarang’s cell phone (Vidallon-Magtolis
v. Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20-P, September 9, 2005).
Rule 12
EFFECTIVITY
SECTION 1. Applicability to pending cases.—These Rules

shall apply to cases pending after their effectivity.
SECTION 2. Effectivity.—These Rules shall take effect on

the first day of August 2001 following their publication
before the 20th of July 2001 in two newspapers of general
circulation in the Philippines.

127
mucus, urine, skin tissue and vaginal and rectal cells. Most
RULES ON DNA EVIDENCE importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic
A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the
notable exception of identical twins.
OCTOBER 2, 2007 (People of the Philippines v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224)
Everyone is born with a distinct generic blueprint called

Section 1. Scope DNA. Just like in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing
The Rule shall apply whenever DNA evidence is offered,
“matches” are determined.
used, or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all (People v. Umanito, G.R. No. 172607, April 16, 2009)
1. Criminal actions;
2. Civil Actions; and c. DNA evidence constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles,
3. Special Proceedings results and other genetic information directly generated
from DNA testing of biological samples;
Section 2. Application of other Rules of Evidence.
d. DNA profile is the genetic information derived from DNA
In all matters not specifically covered by this Rule, the Rules testing of a biological sample obtained from a person, which
of Court and other pertinent provisions of law on evidence
biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from
shall apply. that person.
Uses of DNA Evidence e. DNA testing means verified and credible scientific
1. Identification
methods which include the extraction of DNA from
2. Determination of parentage and pedigree; and biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the
3. Criminal investigation and prosecution.
comparison of the information obtained from the DNA
testing of biological samples for other purpose of
Section 3. Definition of Terms determining with reasonable certainty, whether or not the
DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples
a. Biological sample is any organic material originating originates from the same person (direct identification) or if
from a person’s body, even if found in inanimate objects,
the biological samples originate from related persons
that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, (kinship analysis); and
saliva and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones.
f. Probability of Parentage is the numerical estimate for
The death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the
the likelihood of parentage of a putative parent compared
death of the application of DNA testing for as long as there with the probability of a random match of two unrelated
exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA (Estate of
individuals in a given population.
Rogelio G. Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 171713, December 17, 2007).
Based on the foregoing definitions, it is the biological sample
In order for hair samples to be a proper biological sample, that is, technically speaking, the “object evidence” that can
they must contain the root that is connected to the skin. The either be found in a crime scene of extracted from an
cut hair shaft is negative for DNA. In the same manner, nail
individual. The biological sample is the material that will be
samples must contain the subcutaneous cells to be a proper subjected to DNA testing. DNA testing then produces DNA
biological sample (People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, May 9,
profile, the totality of which and other genetic information
2002). constitutes DNA evidence in a case. (ESPEJO, supra at 137)
b. DNA means deoxyribo nucleic acid, which is the chain of Section 4. Application for DNA Testing Order
molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. The
The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio
totality of the individual of an individual’s DNA is unique for or on application of any person who has a legal interest in
the individual except identical twins
the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing upon a showing
that:
DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in
all living organisms. A person’s DNA is the same in each cell
a. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
and it does not change throughout a person’s lifetime; the
DNA in a person’s blood is the same as the DNA found in his
b. The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to
saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of the hair, earwax, the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was

128
previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may does not stay the implementation of the order, unless a
require confirmation for good reasons; higher court issues an injunctive order (ESPEJO, supra at
141).
c. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
Note: The Supreme Court may motu proprio order the
d. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce lower courts to receive DNA evidence (People vs. Umanito,
new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of G.R. No. 172607, April 16,2009).
the case; and
e. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may Section 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing
consider as potentially affecting the accuracy of integrity of
the DNA testing If a person has already been convicted under final and
executory judgment, may he still avail of DNA Testing?
Legal Interest YES. “Post-conviction DNA testing” may be available,
Legal interest would mean material interest or an interest without need of prior court order, to the prosecution or any
in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, person convicted by final and executory judgment provided
as distinguished from a mere curiosity. In such case, one that:
having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the 1. A biological sample exists
jurisdiction of the court to invoke the jurisdiction of the 2. Such sample is relevant to the case, and
court to cause the issuance of a DNA testing order (Sps. Oco 3. The testing would probably result in the reversal or
v. Limbaring, G.R. No. 161298, January 31, 2006). modification of the judgment of conviction (Sec. 6).
Note: This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without Note: The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the
need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily.
including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or
proceeding is commenced.
Section 7. Assessment of Probative Value of DNA
Is a court order always required before undertaking a Evidence
DNA testing?
No. RDE allows a testing without a prior order if done before Guidelines in Assessing the Probative Value of DNA:
a suit or proceeding is commenced at the request of any (CH-CA-CQ)
party, including law enforcement agencies. This also means
that a litigation need not exist prior to DNA testing. Thus, a 1. How the samples are collected;
court order shall be required only if there is a pending 2. How they were handled;
litigation, but not before the litigation (RIANO, supra at 123). 3. The possibility of contamination of the
samples;
4. The procedure followed in analyzing the
Section 5. DNA Testing Order samples;
An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately 5. Whether the proper standards and procedure
executory and shall not be appealable. Any petition for were followed in conducting the tests; and
certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the 6. The qualification of the analyst who conducted
implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues an the test (People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, May
injunctive order. 9, 2002)
The grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed

as an automatic admission into evidence of any component Section 8. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology
of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result In evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is
thereof. reliable, the court shall consider the following:
DNA Testing order is merely interlocutory, for this 1. The falsifiability of the principles or methods
reason, the remedy of appeal is not allowed against it. The used, that is, whether the theory or technique
remedy provided is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 can be and has been tested;
of the Rules of Court but even the availment of this remedy 2. The subjection to peer review and publication
of the principles or methods;

129
3. The general acceptance of the principles or Forensic DNA Analysis (1997), as cited in People
methods by the relevant scientific community; v. Vallejo).
4. The existence and maintenance of standards
and controls to ensure the correctness of data
generated; Section 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing.
5. The existence of an appropriate reference
population database; and Remedy if the results are favorable to the convict
6. The general degree of confidence attributed to The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ
mathematical calculations used in comparing of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the results of the
DNA profiles and the significance and post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict
limitation of statistical calculations used in (Sec. 10).
comparing DNA profiles.
In the case the court, after due hearing finds the petition to
be meritorious, shall reverse or modify the judgment of
Section 9. Evaluation of DNA Test Results conviction and order the release of the convict, unless
1. DNA results that exclude the putative parent from continued detention is justified for a lawful cause (id).
paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity.
2. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals
than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts,
considered as corroborative evidence. which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the
3. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate
or higher there shall be a disputable presumption of orders (id).
paternity.
Thus, in a case, the SC held that a 99.9% or higher Section 11. Confidentiality
probability of paternity does not immediately lead to the DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained
DNA test result being admitted as conclusive evidence. It from DNA testing shall be confidential.
remains to be a disputable presumption of paternity subject
to the standards set in People v. Vallejo (Herrera v. Alba, G.R. Except upon order of the court, a DNA profile and all results
No. 148220, June 15, 2005). or other information obtained from DNA testing shall only
be released to any of the following, under such terms and
Possible Results of DNA Testing: conditions as may be set forth by the court:
1. Person from whom the sample was taken;
1. Rule of Exclusion - The samples are different 2. Lawyers representing parties in the case or
and therefore must have originated from action where the DNA evidence is offered and
different sources (exclusion). This conclusion presented or sought to be offered and
is absolute and requires no further analysis or presented;
discussion; 3. Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal
2. Rule of Inclusion - The samples are similar, action;
and could have originated from the same 4. Duly authorized law enforcement agencies;
source (inclusion). In such a case, the samples and
are found to be similar, the analyst proceeds to 5. Other persons as determined by the court.
determine the statistical significance of the
similarity; or Liability for unlawful disclosure or utilization of any
3. Inconclusive - It is not possible to be sure, DNA profile
based on the results of the test, whether the Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any
samples have similar DNA types information concerning a DNA profile without the proper
(inconclusive). This might occur for a variety of court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court
reasons including degradation, contamination, wherein such DNA evidence was offered, presented or
or failure of some aspect of the protocol. sought to be offered and presented.
Various parts of the analysis might then be
repeated with the same or a different sample, Written verified request
to obtain a more conclusive result (Keith Where the person from whom the biological sample was
Inman & Norah Rudin, An Introduction to taken files a written verified request to the court that

130
allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of the DNA involve his discretion nor require his intelligence (Herrera
profile of the person and all results or other information v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15,2005)
obtained from the DNA testing, he same may be disclosed to
the persons named in the written verified request. No ex-post facto law is involved in DNA testing
The science of DNA typing involves admissibility, relevance
and reliability of the evidence obtained under the Rules of
Section 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence Court. Whereas, an ex-post facto law refers primarily to a
The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its question of law, DNA profiling requires a factual
totality, including all: determination of the probative weight of evidence
1. Biological samples; presented (People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004).
2. DNA profiles and results; or
3. Other genetic information obtained from DNA Totality of other evidence
testing (Sec. 12). For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is
indeed a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory
Note: DNA evidence can be an object, documentary or evidence. A positive DNA match is unnecessary when the
testimonial evidence depending on what is presented in totality of the evidence presented before the court points to
court. It is not exclusively identifiable. no other possible conclusion, i.e., the accused raped the
private offended party – a positive DNA match may
The court may order the appropriate government agency to strengthen the evidence for the prosecution, but an
preserve the DNA evidence as follows: inconclusive DNA test result may not be sufficient to
a) In criminal cases: exculpate the accused, particularly when there is sufficient
i) For not less than the period of time that evidence proving his guilt (People V. Cabigquez, G.R. No.
any person is under trial for an offense; or 185708, September 29,2010).
ii) In case the accused is serving sentence,
until such time as the accused has served Section 13. Applicability to ending cases
his sentence;
b) In all other cases, until such time as the decision in The rule is applicable to cases pending at the time of its
the case where the DNA evidence was introduced effectivity. Exempt from such applicability would be the
has become final and executory. situation covered by Section 6 and 10 of the Rule where
there is already a final and executory judgment of
Physical destruction of a biological sample before the conviction (ESPEJO, supra at 158).
expiration of the periods set forth above may be allowed by
the court, provided that: Section 14. Effectivity
1. A court order to that effect has been secured; or
2. The person from whom the DNA sample was
obtained has consented in writing to the disposal This Rule shall take effect on October 15, 2007, following
of the DNA evidence. publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
Right against self-incrimination not violated

The DNA result is admissible in evidence. It is not a violation
of the accused’s constitutional right against self-
incrimination or his right of privacy and personal integrity.
The right against self-incrimination is only applicable to
testimonial evidence.
The right against self-incrimination is simply against the

legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an
admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence
sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but part of
object evidence (People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, May
19,2004).
Extracting a blood sample and cutting a strand from the hair

of the accused are purely mechanical acts that do not

131
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A Facilitator Guardian ad

litem
Support
person
CHILD WITNESS
The person Is a person Is a person who
A.M. No. 004-07-SC appointed by the appointed by the is chosen by
DECEMBER 15, 2000 court to pose court where the the child to
questions to a case is pending accompany
child. (Sec.4 (c)). for a child who is him to testify at
Applicability of the Rule a victim of, or attend a
General Rule: This Rule shall govern the examination of accused of, or a judicial
child witnesses who are: witness to a proceeding or
Victims of crime; crime to protect deposition to
Accused of crime, and; the best provide
Witnesses to crime, in all criminal or non- interests of the emotional
criminal proceedings involving child witnesses said child. (Sec.4 support for
Exception: Unless otherwise provided. (Sec. 1) (e)) him. (Sec. 4 (f))
Note: The provisions of the Rules of Court on deposition,

conditional examination of witnesses, and evidence Guardian ad litem
shall be applied in a suppletory character. (Sec. 32) Rules in the appointment of a guardian ad litem
The court shall consider the background of the guardian ad
Construction of the Rule litem and his familiarity with the judicial processes, social
This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold the best service programs, and development, giving preference to
interests of the child and to promote maximum the parents of the child, if qualified. (Sec. 5 (a))
accommodation of the child witnesses without prejudice to
the constitutional rights of the accused. (Sec.3) Persons prohibited from being a guardian ad litem
Any person who is a witness in any proceeding involving
Best Interests of the Child the child cannot be appointed as a guardian ad litem. (Sec.
It means the totality of the circumstances and conditions as 5(a))
are most congenial to the survival, protection and
feelings of security of the child and most encouraging to May a lawyer be appointed as a guardian ad litem?
his physical, psychological and emotional development. YES. The guardian ad litem may be a member of the
It also means the least detrimental available alternative for Philippine Bar. If the guardian ad litem is a lawyer, he may
safeguarding the growth and development of the child. object during trial that questions asked of the child are not
(Sec.4(g)) appropriate to his developmental level. (Sec. 5 (c))
Note: Developmental level refers to the specific growth
Child Witness phase in which most individuals are expected to behave and
Any person who at the time of giving testimony is: function in relation to the advancement of their physical,
1. Below the age of eighteen (18) years; and socio-emotional, cognitive, and moral abilities. (Sec. 4 (h))
2. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over
eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as Prohibition to testify
unable to fully take care of himself or protect General Rule: The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any
himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, proceeding concerning any information, statement, or
exploitation or discrimination because of a opinion received from the child in the course of serving as a
physical or mental disability or condition. (Sec. guardian ad litem.
4(a)) Exception: Unless the court finds it necessary to promote
the best interests of the child. (Sec. 5(e))
Child Abuse
It means any physical, psychological, or sexual abuse Right to notice
and criminal neglect as defined in Republic Act. No. 7610 The guardian ad litem shall be notified of all proceedings,
and other related laws. (Sec. 4(b)) but shall not participate in the trial. (Sec.5 (c))
Right to file motions

The guardian ad litem may file motions pursuant to:

132
a) Section 9 - An interpreter whom the child can 7) May remain with the child while the child waits to
understand and who understands the child may be testify;
appointed by the court, motu proprio or upon 8) May interview witnesses; and
motion, to interpret the child. 9) May request additional examinations by medical or
b) Section 10 - The court may, motu proprio or upon mental health professionals if there is a compelling
motion, appoint a facilitator if it determines that need therefore. (Sec. 5 (b))
the child is unable to understand or respond to
questions asked. Facilitator
c) Section 25 - The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian The court may, motu proprio or upon motion, appoint a
ad litem may apply for an order that the testimony facilitator if it determines that the child is unable to
of the child be taken in a room outside the understand or respond to questions asked. (Sec. 10 (a))
courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by
live-link television. Who may be a facilitator?
d) Section 26 - The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian The facilitator may be a:
ad litem may apply for an order that the chair of the 1. Child psychologists;
child or that a screen or other device be placed in 2. Psychiatrist;
the courtroom in such a manner that a child cannot 3. Social Worker;
see the accused while testifying. 4. Guidance Counselor;
e) Section 27 - The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian 5. Teacher;
ad litem may apply for an order that the deposition 6. Religious Leader;
be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be 7. Parent; or
recorded and preserved on videotape. 8. Relative. (Id.)
f) Section 31 (c) - The court may, motu proprio or on
motion of any party, the child, his parents, legal Manner of questioning
guardian, or guardian ad litem, issue additional The counsels for the parties shall pose questions to the child
orders to protect the privacy of the child. (Id.) only through the facilitator. The questions shall either be in
the words used by the counsel or, if the child is not likely to
Presumption of good faith understand the same, in words that are comprehensible to
The guardian ad litem shall be presumed to have acted in the child and which convey the meaning intended by
good faith in compliance with his duties as described in counsel. (Sec.10 (b))
Section 5 (b).
Support persons
Duties of the Guardian ad litem A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a
The guardian ad litem: deposition shall have the right to be accompanied by one or
1) Shall attend all interviews, depositions, hearings, two persons of his own choosing to provide him emotional
and trial proceedings in which a child participates; support.
2) Shall make recommendations to the court
concerning the welfare of the child; The witness as support person/s
If the support person chosen by the child is also a witness,
Note: The guardian ad litem may communicate concerns the court may disapprove the choice if it is sufficiently
regarding the child to the court through an officer of established that the attendance of the support person
the court designated for that purpose. (Sec. 5 (d) during the testimony of the child would pose a substantial
3) Shall have access to all reports, evaluations, and risk of influencing or affecting the content of testimony of
records necessary to effectively advocate for the the child. (Sec. 11 (b))
child, except privileged communications ;
4) Shall marshal and coordinate the delivery of If the support person who is also a witness is allowed by the
resources and special services to the child; court, his testimony shall be presented ahead of the
5) Shall explain, in language understandable to the testimony of the child. (Sec. 11 (c))
child, all legal proceedings, including police
investigations, in which the child is involved; What is the role of the support person/s?
6) Shall assist the child and his family in coping with a) Both support persons shall remain within the view
the emotional effects of crime and subsequent of the child during his testimony;
criminal or non-criminal proceedings in which the b) One of the support persons may accompany the
child is involved; child to the witness stand, provided the support

133
person does not completely obscure the child from 2. The counsel for the parties;
the view of the opposing party, judge, or hearing 3. The guardian ad litem;
officer; 4. One or more support persons for the child; and
c) The court may allow the support person to hold the 5. The defendant, unless the court determines that
hand of the child or take other appropriate steps to competence can be fully evaluated in his absence.
provide emotional support to the child in the (Sec. 6 (c))
course of the proceedings;
d) The court shall instruct the support persons not to Interpreter
prompt, sway, or influence the child during his An interpreter whom the child can understand and who
testimony. understands the child may be appointed by the court, motu
proprio or upon motion , to interpret for the child when:
Presumption of Competency 1. A child does not understand the English or Filipino
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, language;
the court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, 2. Is unable to communicate in said languages due to
motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that his developmental level, fear, shyness, disability;or
substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to: 3. Other similar reason (Sec.9 (b))
(PRC- TD)
1. Perceive; If a witness or member of the family of the child is the only
2. Remember; person who can serve as an interpreter for the child, he shall
3. Communicate; not be disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of the
4. Distinguished truth from falsehood; or child. The interpreter, however, who is also a witness, shall
5. Appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court. testify ahead of the child. (Id.)
Competency Examination
The party seeking a competency examination must present Examination of a Child Witness
proof of necessity of competency examination. The age of The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing
the child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a competency or any proceeding shall be done in an open court.
examination. (Sec. 6 (a))
General Rule: The answers of the witness shall be given
Who has the burden of proof? orally.
To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, Exceptions: Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his the question calls for a different mode of answer, the
competence. (Sec.6 (b)) answers of the witness shall be given orally.
Who shall conduct the examination? The party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad
Examination of a child as to his competence shall be litem of such child witness may however, move the court to
conducted only by the judge. Counsel for the parties, allow him to testify in the manner provided in this Rule.
however, can submit questions to the judge that he may, in (Sec. 8)
his discretion, ask the child. (Sec. 6 (d))
Mode of Questioning
The questions asked at the competency examination shall: The court shall exercise control over the questioning of
1. Be appropriate to the age and developmental level children so as to:
of the child; 1. facilitate the ascertainment of the truth,
2. Not be related to the issues at the trial 2. ensure that questions are stated in a form
3. Focus on the ability of the child to: appropriate to the developmental level of the child,
a. Remember; 3. protect children from harassment or undue
b. Communicate; embarrassment, and
c. Distinguish between truth and falsehood; 4. avoid waste of time. (Sec. 19)
and
d. Appreciate the duty to testify truthfully. The court may allow the child witness to testify in a
narrative form.
Persons allowed at competency examination
Only the following are allowed to attend a competency Leading questions may be allowed in all stages of
examination: examination of a child if the same will further the interests
1. The judge and necessary court personnel; of justice. (Sec. 20)

134
Live-link Television Testimony
Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a The testimony of the child may be taken in a room outside
child. (Sec. 22) the courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-
His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to link television in cases where the child is a witness. (Sec. 25,
support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to as amended by OCA Cir. No. 101-19, July 3, 2019)
the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal
cases. Note: Prior to the amendment expanding the use of live-link
Excluding the Public television and equivalent applicable ICTs, Sec 25 of the rule
was limited only to criminal cases where the child is a victim
The court may order the exclusion from the courtroom of or a witness.
all persons, including members of the press, who do not
have a direct interest in the case. (Sec. 23) The court may motu proprio hear and determine, with
notice to the parties, the need for taking the testimony of
The court may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the the child through live-link television. (Sec 25(b))
courtroom if the evidence to be produced during trial is of
such character as to be offensive to decency or public The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use
morals. (Id.) of live-link television, considering the following factors:
1. The age and level of development of the child;
The court may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the 2. His physical and mental health, including any
public from trial, except court personnel and the counsel of mental or physical disability;
the parties. (Id.) 3. Any physical, emotional, or psychological injury
experienced by him;
In making its order, the court shall consider: 4. The nature of the alleged abuse;
1. the developmental level of the child, 5. Any threats against the child;
2. the nature of the crime, 6. His relationship with the accused or adverse
3. the nature of his testimony regarding the crime, party;
4. his relationship to the accused and to persons 7. His reaction to any prior encounters with the
attending the trial, accused in court or elsewhere;
5. his desires, and 8. His reaction prior to trial when the topic of
6. the interests of his parents or legal guardian. testifying was discussed with him by parents or
professionals;
9. Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the
Devices to Shield Child from Accused child in the days prior to testifying;
Live-link Television Testimony (Sec 25) 10. Testimony of expert or lay witnesses;
Screens, one-way mirrors placed in the courtroom 11. The custodial situation of the child and the
in such a manner that the child cannot see the attitude of the members
accused while testifying. (Sec 26) of his family regarding the events about which he
Videotaped deposition (Sec 27) will testify; and
12. Other relevant factors, such as court
Who may apply? atmosphere and formalities of court procedure.
1. the prosecutor (Sec 25(e))
2. the counsel, or
3. the guardian ad litem [subject to prior The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken
consultation with the prosecutor or counsel] (Sec by live-link television if there is a substantial likelihood that
25(a)) the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the
presence of the accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the
When to file for Application case may be. The trauma must be of a kind which would
impair the completeness or truthfulness of the
General Rule: Application must be made at least five (5) testimony of the child. (Sec 25(f))
days before the trial date.
The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape,
Exception: Unless the court finds on the record that the digital disc, or other similar devices which shall be made
need for such an order was not reasonably foreseeable. (Id.) part of the court record and shall be subject to a
protective order as provided in section 31(b). (Sec 25(h))

135
Screens, one-way mirrors Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Cases

A statement made by a child describing any act or
If the court grants an application to shield the child from the attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible
accused while testifying in the courtroom, the courtroom under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in
shall be arranged to enable the accused to view the child. any criminal or non-criminal proceeding. (Sec 28)
(Sec 26(b))
Rules of Admissibility of Hearsay Statement
Videotaped Deposition
The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a Its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the
child. intention to offer such statement and its particulars to
provide him a fair opportunity to object.
Objections to deposition testimony or evidence, or parts
thereof, and the grounds for the objection shall be stated If the child is available, the court shall, upon
and shall be ruled upon at the time of the taking of the motion of the adverse party, require the child to be
deposition. (Sec 27(c)) present at the presentation of the hearsay
statement for cross-examination by the adverse
Other persons who may be permitted to be present at the party.
proceeding are: When the child is unavailable, the fact of such
1. The prosecutor circumstance must be proved by the proponent.
2. The defense counsel (Sec 28(a))
3. The guardian ad litem
4. The accused, [subject to Sec 27(e), where the Child Witness, Unavailable
court may direct his exclusion if the child is unable The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the
to testify in his physical presence] following situations:
5. Other persons necessary to the welfare and well- (1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack
being of the child of memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to
6. One or both of his support persons, the facilitator severe psychological injury; or
and interpreter, if any; (2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of
7. The court stenographer; and his statement has been unable to procure his
8. Persons necessary to operate the videotape attendance by process or other reasonable means.
equipment. (Sec 28(c))
The rights of the accused during trial, especially the right When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay
to counsel and to confront and cross-examine the child, testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other
shall not be violated during the deposition. (Sec 27(d)) admissible evidence. (Sec 28(d))
The videotaped deposition shall be preserved, The court shall consider the time, content and
stenographically recorded, and be made a part of the circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of
record. The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes reliability, considering the following factors:
shall be subject to a protective order as provided in 1. Whether there is a motive to lie;
section 31(b). (Sec 27(f)(h)) 2. The general character of the declarant child;
3. Whether more than one person heard the
Note: Any videotape or audiotape of a child produced statement;
under the provisions of this Rule or otherwise made part of 4. Whether the statement was spontaneous;
the court record shall be destroyed after five (5) years have 5. The timing of the statement and the relationship
elapsed from the date of entry of judgment. (Sec 31(f)) between the declarant child and witness;
6. Cross-examination could not show the lack of
Additional videotaped deposition knowledge of the declarant child;
After the original videotaping but before or during trial, 7. The possibility of faulty recollection of the
any party may file any motion for additional videotaping on declarant child is remote; and
the ground of newly discovered evidence. The court may 8. The circumstances surrounding the statement
order an additional videotaped deposition to receive the are such that there is no reason to suppose the
newly discovered evidence. (Sec 27(j))

136
declarant child misrepresented the involvement of General Rule: The following evidence is not admissible in
the accused. any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual
(Sec 28(b)) abuse:
1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim
Admissibility of Videotaped and Audiotaped In-depth engaged in other sexual behavior; and
Investigative or Disclosure Interviews in Child Abuse 2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
Cases predisposition of the alleged victim. (Sec 30(a))
The court may admit videotape and audiotape in-depth Exception: Evidence of specific instances of sexual
investigative or disclosure interviews as evidence. (Sec 29) behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other
than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other
Rules of Admissibility physical evidence shall be admissible. (Sec 30(b))
1. The child witness is unable to testify in court in
accordance with Sec 28(c). (Sec 29(a)) Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the
2. The interview was conducted by duly trained members of alleged victim
a multidisciplinary team or representatives of law A party intending to offer such evidence must file a written
enforcement or child protective services in situations motion specifically describing the evidence and stating the
where child abuse is suspected so as to determine whether purpose for which it is offered. (Id.)
child abuse occurred. (Sec 29(b))
3. The party offering the videotape or audiotape must prove When to file the motion
that: General Rule: The motion must be filed at least fifteen (15)
a. the videotape or audiotape discloses the identity days before trial,
of all individuals present and at all times includes with service of such motion on all parties and the guardian
their images and voices; ad litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of the
b. the statement was not made in response to motion.
questioning calculated to lead the child to make a Exception: Unless the court, for good cause, requires a
particular statement or is clearly shown to be the different time for filing or permits filing during trial. (Id.)
statement of the child and not the product of
improper suggestion; Note: Before admitting such evidence, the court must
c. the videotape and audiotape machine or device conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child, his
was capable of recording testimony; guardian ad litem, the parties, and their counsel a right to
d. the person operating the device was competent attend and be heard.
to operate it;
e. the videotape or audiotape is authentic and The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed
correct; and and remain under seal and protected by a protective order
f. it has been duly preserved. (Sec 29(c)) set forth in section 31(b). The child shall not be required to
testify at the hearing in chambers except with his consent.
The individual conducting the interview of the child shall be
available at trial for examination by any party. Protection of Privacy and Safety
Before the videotape or audiotape is offered in evidence, all
parties shall be afforded an opportunity to view or listen to General Rule: Any record regarding a child shall be
it and shall be furnished a copy of a written transcript of the confidential and kept under seal. (Sec 31(a))
proceedings. Exception: Upon written request and order of the court,
a record shall only be released to the following:
Note: The fact that an investigative interview is not 1. Members of the court staff for administrative
videotaped or audiotaped as required by Section 29 shall use;
not by itself constitute a basis to exclude from evidence out- 2. The prosecuting attorney;
of-court statements or testimony of the child. It may, 3. Defense counsel;
however, be considered in determining the reliability of the 4. The guardian ad litem;
statements of the child describing abuse. 5. Agents of investigating law enforcement
agencies; and
Sexual Abuse Shield Rule 6. Other persons as determined by the court. (Id.)
Inadmissible evidence Protective order

137
Any videotape or audiotape of a child that is part of the All the records of the case shall be considered as privileged
court record shall be under a protective order. (Sec 31(b)) and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone
This protective order shall remain in full force and effect for any purpose whatsoever.
until further order of the court.
2. Where a youthful offender has been charged and the
Who may access the Tapes under a protective order? court acquits him, or dismisses the case or commits him
Tapes may be viewed only by: to an institution and subsequently releases him
1. the parties, pursuant to Chapter 3 of P.D. No. 603. (Id.)
2. their counsel,
3. their expert witness, and All the records of his case shall be considered as privileged
4. the guardian ad litem. and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone
except…
Note: The grant of access to the tape, its transcription or
any part thereof to a person is conditioned upon the signing to determine if a defendant may have his sentence
a written affirmation that he has received and read a copy suspended under Article 192 of P.D. No. 603 or
of the protective order; that he submits to the jurisdiction if he may be granted probation under the
of the court with respect to the protective order; and that in provisions of P.D. No. 968 or to enforce his civil
case of violation thereof, he will be subject to the contempt liability, if said liability has been imposed in the
power of the court. criminal action.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt, all copies of the tape Note: "Records" within the meaning of the sub-section shall
and any transcripts thereof shall be returned to the clerk of include those which may be in the files of the National
court for safekeeping unless the period is extended by the Bureau of Investigation and with any police department or
court on motion of a party. government agency which may have been involved in the
case. (Art. 200, P.D. No. 603).
Additional protective orders
The court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, the
child, his parents, legal guardian, or the guardian ad litem,
issue additional orders to protect the privacy of the child.
(Sec 31(c))
Publication of identity contemptuous

Whoever publishes or causes to be published in any format
the name, address, telephone number, school, or other
identifying information of a child who is or is alleged to be
a victim or accused of a crime or a witness thereof, or an
immediate family of the child shall be liable to the contempt
power of the court. (Sec 31(d))
Physical safety of child; exclusion of evidence

General Rule: A child has a right at any court proceeding
not to testify regarding personal identifying information,
including his name, address, telephone number, school, and
other information that could endanger his physical safety or
his family. (Sec 31(e))
Exception: The court may require the child to testify
regarding personal identifying information in the interest of
justice. (Id.)
Records of youthful offender; Considered as Privileged

1. Where a youthful offender has been charged before any
city or provincial prosecutor or before any municipal judge
and the charges have been ordered dropped. (Sec 31(g))

138
2. Identify and authenticate documentary or object
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE evidence in the case
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC Section 1. Scope:
September 04, 2012 As to kinds of cases:
All actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring reception
What is the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR)? of evidence. EXCEPT, small claims cases failing A.M. No. 08-
8-7-SC.
It is a procedural innovation which has the ultimate aim of
decongesting court dockets by replacing the direct As to Courts:
testimony of parties and witnesses in court with sworn
affidavits submitted to the court and furnished the
opposing party not later than 5 days before pre-trial, 1. The MeTC, MTC in Cities, MTC, MCTC and Shari’a
preliminary conference, or scheduled hearing with respect Circuit Courts but shall NOT apply to small claims
to motions and incidents. cases under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC;
Note: The Judicial Affidavit (JA) is not a pleading nor is it a 2. The RTC and Shari’a District Courts;
motion
3. The Sandiganbayan, the CTA, the CA and the Shari’a
How will JAR decongest court dockets? Appellate Courts;
According to a study recognized by the Supreme Court, 4. The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the
direct testimonies take a large chunk of court proceedings. Supreme Court to receive evidence, including the
By replacing direct testimonies with judicial affidavits will Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and
reduce about two-thirds of the time spent in adjudicating
cases. This speeds up the disposition of cases in court. 5. The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose
rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of the
What is wrong with direct testimonies? Supreme Court insofar as their existing rules of
procedure contravene the provisions of the JAR
Justice Abad says that the direct testimony is the bottleneck
(chokepoint) of the system. Court can only hear one witness
Applicability to Criminal Cases
at a time (piece meal trial). A witness’s presentation of his
testimony takes a while. Witnesses often state their 1. Those which the maximum penalty imposable does
testimonies in vernacular which means the same has to be not exceed 6 years;
translated to English as required by existing rules (double
testimony). Add to this the objections, especially the 2. To their civil aspect, regardless of penalty imposed;
unnecessary ones, being raised by the adverse party during and
direct testimony which can be dispensed with the
implementation of JAR. 3. In any case where the accused agrees to use of the
rule.
Effectivity Date: January 01, 2013
Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits
Purpose: in lieu of Direct Testimonies.
To avoid case congestion and delays that plague most courts Period to File:
in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed each year and
the slow and cumbersome adversanal system that the Not later than five (5) days before pre-trial, preliminary
judiciary has in place. conference, or scheduled hearing with respect to motions
and incidents.
Functions of JA:
What to file?
1. Takes the place of direct testimonies; and

139
1. The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall
take the place of such witnesses' direct testimonies; 4. A statement that the witness Answered the
and questions under oath and the witness is Aware that
2. The parties' documentary or object evidence, if any, he may face criminal liability for false testimony or
which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and perjury;
marked as exhibits
5. Signature of the witness over his printed name;
Note: Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant
or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of 6. A Jurat with signature of the notary public who
the respondent or the defendant. administers the oath or an officer who is
authorized by law to administer the same; and
Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original
document or object evidence in his possession, he may, after 7. Attestation by the examining/supervising lawyer.
the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and
authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy b. Judicial affidavit proper: (NQI)
or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy
or reproduction of that original. 1. Numbered questions and answers, showing
personal knowledge of facts that the witness is
The party or witness shall bring the original document or testifying on;
object evidence for comparison during the preliminary
conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or 2. Questions and answers that elicit facts relevant to
pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted the issues; and
This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary 3. Questions and answers that Identify the attached
evidence in place of the original when allowed by existing documentary and object evidence and establish
rules. their authenticity in accordance with the Rules of
Court.
Modes of filing and service to other party:
1. Personal service; and Section 4. Sworn Attestation by examining/ supervising

2. Licensed courier service Lawyer (FCJ).
Note: The JAR does not mention of “service by registered mail 1. That he Faithfully recorded and caused the recording of
and that “Licensed courier service” is not well defined under the questions he asked and the corresponding answers
the JAR. that the witness gave;
Section 3. Contents of judicial affidavit.
2. Neither he nor any person then present Coached the
Language used: witness regarding his answers; and
A judicial affidavit shall be prepared/written in the 3. A Jurat with signature of the notary public who
language known to the witness. If not in English or Filipino, administers the oath or an officer who is authotized by
a translation must be attached. law to administer the same.
Contents of a judicial affidavit: Note: A false attestation will subject the erring lawyer to
disciplinary actions or even disbarment
a. IN GENERAL: (PI-PA-SJA)
Section 5. Subpoena.
1. Personal circumstance of the witness;
If the government employee or official, or the requested
2. Identity of the lawyer who conducted or witness, who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor
supervised the examination of the witness a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial
including the lawyer’s address; affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant
books, documents, or other things under his control
3. The Place where the examination was held; available for copying, authentication, and eventual

140
production in court, the requesting party may avail himself 3. Move to strike out the Particular portion/answer of the
of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces judicial affidavit
tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court.
Note: In no. 3, if granted by the court, the excluded portion
The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the shall be enclosed in brackets with initials of an authorized
witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his court personnel.
deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shall
be understood to be ex parte Example:
Question 21 : Do you know who stole the wallet of Mr.
Resort to subpoena ad testificandum
Juan Dela Cruz?
Answer 21 : Yes
A party may ask the court to issue a subpoena ad
testificandum against an uncooperative witness. An Question 22 : Who?
uncooperative witness is one who unjustifiably refuses to Answer 22 : Pedro Penduko sir.
execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to Question 23 : How did you know?
make relevant books, documents, or other things under his Answer 23 : Because July Reyes told me.
control available for copying, authentication and eventual Question 24 : And who is this July Reyes?
production in court. Answer 24 : My girlfriend sir
Exception: No judicial affidavit may be required against a Remedy of a party whose judicial affidavit or a portion
hostile witness who refuses to execute a judicial affidavit for thereof or an eidence introduced therein is excluded
the other party. This is because a judicial affidavit is not
required in this case since they can be queried with leading Tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132
questions as in cross. In this instance, follow the rules of of the Rules of Court which provides:
discovery on taking witness’s deposition, but this is ex parte
“Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may
affidavit have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the
evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record
The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in the name and other personal circumstances of the witness
place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such and the substance of the proposed testimony” (Sec. 40, Rule
testimony at the start of the presentation of the witness. 132, ROC)
The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial
strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on affidavit.
ground of inadmissibility.
The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the
The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached
shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing to the same.
it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court
personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded The party who presents the witness may also examine him
evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court as on re-direct.
Remedies if inadmissible evidence is introduced In every case, the court shall take active part in examining
through the judicial affidavit by one party. (DSP) the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth
of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for
The other party may: resolving the issues.
1. Move to Disqualify the witness; Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits.
2. Move to Strike out the said witness’s judicial affidavit; Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a
or party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his
documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their

141
chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for The court shall then immediately make its ruling respecting
which he offers the particular exhibit. the exhibit. In ruling, the court may also refer to that
particular evidence by its marking.
After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall
state the legal ground for his objection, if any, to its Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions.
admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling
respecting that exhibit. This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the 1. Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not
judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is exceed six years;
sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their
markings during the offers, the objections, and the rulings, 2. Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial
dispensing with the description of each exhibit. affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or
Offer of testimony by judicial affidavit 3. With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever
the penalties involved are.
Rule: The counsel shall state the purpose of the judicial
affidavit at the start of the presentation of the witness. It The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its
does not say that such purpose must be stated in the judicial witnesses not later than five (5) days before the pre-trial,
affidavit itself. serving copies if the same upon the accused.
Note: In actual practice and for convenience, the purpose The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the
of the judicial affidavit as well as the purpose/s of the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may
evidence introduced therein are stated in the judicial affidavit have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further
itself. judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be
admitted at the trial.
Offer of Evidence (Documentary and Object)
Note: Once the judicial affidavits are received, no further
After presenting the last witness (on either side), counsel judicial affidavits or evidence (object or documentary) may
may ORALLY offer evidence. However, judges, on be admitted at the trial.
discretion, may still allow a written offer of evidence.
If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after
After terminating the testimony of his last witness, counsel receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall
makes the oral offer of evidence through the following: have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as
those of his witnesses to the court within ten (10) days
a. Make an oral offer of evidence; from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on
the public and private prosecutor, including his
b. Piece by piece, in their chronological order stating the documentary and object evidence previously marked as
purpose/s for which he offers the particular exhibit; Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on.
c. Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of Note: These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the
the judicial affidavits that describes and authenticates accused and his witnesses when they appear before the court
them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited to testify.
by their markings during the offer – dispensing with the
description of each exhibit. The filling and service of judicial affidavit in all cases except
criminal cases is more or less simultaneous considering the
Objections to Evidence (Documentary and Object) period of filing and service.
After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall In criminal cases, the prosecution has to file and serve its
state the legal ground for his objection/s to it, if any. The judicial affidavit/s before the accused does, if the latter
piece of evidence in point may be referred to by its choses to.
markings.

142
Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Non-Compliance Effect
Affidavit Rule.
However, the court may
allow the subsequent
Non-Compliance Effect submission of the
Failure to submit the It is deemed as a waiver of compliant replacement
required affidavits and the submission. affidavits before the
exhibits on time. hearing or trial provided:
However, the court may
allow only once the late a. the delay is for a valid
submission of the same reason;
provided:
b. would not unduly
a. the delay is for a valid prejudice the opposing
reason; party; and
b. would not unduly c. that public or private

prejudice the opposing counsel responsible
party; and for their preparation
and submission pays a
c. the defaulting party fine of not less than
pays a fine of not less ₱1,000.00 nor more
than ₱1,000.00 nor than ₱5,000.00 at the
more than ₱5,000.00 discretion of the court
at the discretion of the
court
Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules.
Failure to appear at the The court shall not
scheduled hearing of consider the affidavit of Effect on Rules
the case as required any witness.
The provisions of the Rules of Court and the rules of
Failure of the witness to The court shall not procedure governing investigating officers and bodies
appear at the scheduled consider the affidavit of authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence are
hearing. the absent witness repealed or modified insofar as these are inconsistent with
because of the hearsay the provisions of this Rule.
rule, except when such
absence is due to valid The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies
cause. inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved
Failure of counsel to It is deemed as the waiver If the case has already undergone pre-trial, the Judicial
appear without valid of his client's right to Affidavit Rule is still applicable to the remaining
cause despite notice confront by cross- testimonies. Such remaining testimonies shall be heard via
examination the judicial affidavits. (Ng Meng Tam v, Chinabank, GR No.
witnesses there present. 214054, August 05, 2015)
Did the Continuous Trial Rule Modify the Judicial

Judicial affidavits do not The court shall not admit Affidavit Rule?
conform to the content as evidence the judicial
requirements of Section affidavits. Judicial Affidavit Rule Continues Trial Rule
3 and attestation This rule shall apply to Instead of outright
requirement of Section The judicial affidavits are all criminal actions: Judicial Affidavits,
4. deemed inadmissible. criminal cases in First
Level Courts, the

143
Judicial Affidavit Rule Continues Trial Rule
1. Where the maximum testimonies of the
of the imposable witnesses shall be:
penalty does not
exceed six years; a. Duly subscribed
written statements
2. Where the accused given to law
agrees to the use of enforcers;
judicial affidavits,
irrespective of the b. Affidavits or counter-
penalty involved; or affidavits submitted
to the investigating
3. With respect to the prosecutor during
civil aspect of the preliminary
actions, whatever the investigation;
penalties involved
are. c. If not available, they
shall be in form of
In lieu of direct judicial affidavits.
testimonies, Judicial
Affidavits shall be Note: The same rule
submitted shall apply for Second
Level Courts, the
Sandiganbayan, the CTA,
where the demeanor of
the witness is not
essential in determining
the credibility (such as
forensic chemists,
medico-legal officers,
investigators, auditors,
accountants, engineers,
custodians, expert
witnesses) who will
testify on authenticity,
due execution and
contents of public
documents and reports,
and the criminal cases
are transaction in nature
(such as falsification,
corruption or fraud.)
What are its effects?
Additional arrangements may be needed to be made for the

preparation of judicial affidavits and/or preparation of oral
testimonies, depending on the nature of the crime involved.
Meanwhile, those planning to institute criminal cases will
need to secure the availability of the possible witnesses
early on in the proceedings, and where possible, prepare
the necessary affidavits ahead of time.

144
6. Relocated Witness (RW) — a witness admitted to the
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6981 Program who, for security or safety reasons, is transferred
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A WITNESS from his residence, or place where he usually stays, to
another location, other than a Program's temporary shelter
PROTECTION, SECURITY AND or safehouse, where the level of threat is manageable, as
BENEFIT PROGRAM AND FOR determined by the Implementor, and is provided with
OTHER PURPOSES security protection only while performing witness duties.
7. Outside Temporary Shelter Witness (OTSW) — a witness

Witness admitted to the Program who refused to be placed in a
A witness is an individual who has personal knowledge of temporary shelter or safehouse of the Program, or to be
the commission of a grave felony but has no participation relocated, and who opts to stay or reside in his place of
therein, directly or indirectly (IRR of R.A. No. 6981, Art. I, Sec preference.
1 (a)).
8. Witness under the Custody of Other Government
Kinds of Witnesses Agencies — a witness who is under the protective custody
1. State Witness — an individual who has participated in of other government agencies. (IRR of R.A. No. 6981, Art. I,
the commission of a grave felony and desires to be a witness Sec. 1 (b-i)).
for the State and is qualified under Section 17, Rule 119 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or Section 10 of SECTION 3. Admission into the Program. — Any person
R.A. No. 6981. who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the
commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or
a. A state witness under Section 17, Rule 119 of the about to testify before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure refers to an before any investigating authority, may be admitted into the
individual discharged as an accused by the Court Program provided that (GC-TO):
and admitted into the Program.
b. A state witness under Section 10 of R.A. No. 6981 a) The offense in which his testimony will be used is a Grave
refers to: [a] a respondent who is included in the felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code, or its
criminal complaint, but is excluded from the equivalent under special laws;
criminal information as determined by the
Program; or, [b] an accused admitted to the b) His testimony can be substantially Corroborated in its
Program, but who has not been discharged by the material points;
Court under Section 12 of R.A. No. 6981.
c) He or any member of his family within the second civil
2. Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Body Witness — a witness degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to Threats
admitted to the Program who is about to testify, is to his life or bodily injury or there is a likelihood that he will
testifying, or has testified relative to the commission of a be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed or corrupted to
grave felony before any judicial or quasi-judicial body. prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely, or
evasively, because or on account of his testimony; and
3. Investigative Authority Witness — a witness admitted to
the Program who is about to testify, is testifying, or has d) He is not a law enforcement Officer, even if he would be
testified relative to the commission of a grave felony before testifying against the other law enforcement officers. In
any investigative authority. such a case, only the immediate members of his family may
avail themselves of the protection provided for under this
4. Legislative Investigation Witness — a witness admitted Act.
to the Program who is about to testify, is testifying, or has
testified in any legislative inquiry or investigation in aid of SECTION 4. Witness in Legislative Investigations. — In
legislation. case of legislative investigations in aid of legislation, a
witness, with his express consent, may be admitted into the
5. Temporary Shelter Witness (TSW) — a witness admitted Program upon the recommendation of the legislative
to the Program who, for safety or security reasons, is committee where his testimony is needed when in its
relocated to a Program's temporary shelter or safehouse judgment there is pressing necessity therefor.
and is provided with round-the-clock security protection.

145
The recommendation should be approved by the President harassment disappears or is reduced to a
of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of manageable or tolerable level.
Representatives, as the case may be
b. The Department shall, whenever practicable,
SECTION 5. Memorandum of Agreement with the Person Assist the Witness in obtaining a means of
to be Protected. — Before a person is provided protection livelihood.
under this Act, he shall first execute a memorandum of
agreement which shall set forth his responsibilities c. In no case shall the Witness be removed from or
including (TAP-C2I): demoted in Work because or on account of his
absences due to his attendance before any judicial
a) To Testify before and provide information to all or quasi-judicial body or investigating authority,
appropriate law enforcement officials concerning including legislative investigations in aid of
all appropriate proceedings in connection with or legislation, in going thereto and in coming
arising from the activities involved in the offense therefrom.
charged;
Provided, That his employer is notified through a
b) To Avoid the commission of the crime; certification issued by the Department, within a
period of thirty (30) days from the date when the
c) To take all necessary Precautions to avoid Witness last reported for work:
detection by others of the facts concerning the
protection provided him under this Act; Provided, further, That in the case of prolonged
transfer or permanent relocation, the employer
d) To Comply with legal obligations and civil shall have the option to remove the Witness from
judgments against him; employment after securing clearance from the
Department upon the recommendation of the
e) To Cooperate with respect to all reasonable Department of Labor and Employment.
requests of officers and employees of the
Government who are providing protection under d. To be provided with reasonable travelling
this Act; and expenses and subsistence Allowance for his
attendance in the court, body or authority where
f) To regularly Inform the appropriate program his testimony is required, as well as conferences
official of his current activities and address. and interviews with prosecutors or investigating
officers.
SECTION 6. Breach of the Memorandum of Agreement. —
Substantial breach of the memorandum of agreement shall e. To be provided with free Medical treatment,
be a ground for the termination of the protection provided hospitalization and medicines for any injury or
under this Act. illness incurred or suffered by him because of
witness duty
However, before terminating such protection, the Secretary
of Justice shall send notice to the person involved of the f. If a Witness is killed, because of his participation
termination of the protection provided under this Act, in the Program, his heirs shall be entitled to a
stating therein the reason for such termination. Burial benefit of not less than Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) from the Program exclusive of any
SECTION 7. Confidentiality of Proceedings. — All other similar benefits he may be entitled to under
proceedings involving application for admission into the other existing laws.
Program and the action taken thereon shall be confidential
in nature. No information or documents given or submitted g. In case of death or permanent incapacity, his
in support thereof shall be released except upon written minor or dependent children shall be entitled to
order of the Department or the proper court. free Education, from primary to college level.
SECTION 8. Rights and Benefits. – The witness shall have When the circumstances warrant, the Witness shall be
the following rights and benefits: (SAWA-MBE) entitled to relocation and/or change of personal identity at
a. To have a Secure housing facility until he has the expense of the Program. This right may be extended to
testified or until the threat, intimidation or

146
any member of the family of the Witness within the second a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. (R.A. 6891, Sec. 8 a Grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal
(a)) Code or its equivalent under special laws;
The Witness relocated pursuant to this Act shall be entitled b) there is Absolute necessity for his testimony;
to a financial assistance from the Program for his support
and that of his family in such amount and for such duration c) there is No other direct evidence available for the
as the Department shall determine. (R.A. 6891, Sec. 8 (b)) proper prosecution of the offense committed;
A witness who is relocated to the Program's temporary d) his testimony can be Substantially corroborated
shelter or safehouse shall be deemed to be under witness on its material points;
duty (IRR of R.A. 6891, Art. I, Sec.7)
e) he does not appear to be most Guilty; and
Any Witness who failed to report for work because of
witness duty shall be paid his equivalent salaries or wages f) he has not at any time been convicted of any
corresponding to the number of days of absence occasioned crime involving Moral turpitude.
by the Program. Any fraction of a day shall constitute a full
day salary or wage. This provision shall be applicable to An accused discharged from an information or criminal
both government and private employees. (R.A. 6891, Sec. 8 complaint by the court in order that he may be a State
(c)) Witness pursuant to Section 9 and 10 of Rule 119 of the
Revised Rules of Court may upon his petition be admitted to
Witnesses admitted to the Program may be entitled to the Program if he complies with the other requirements of
the following assistance: this Act. (R.A. 6891, Sec. 10, par. 2)
1. Financial Assistance;
2. Dependent’s Allowance; SECTION 11. Sworn Statement. — Before any person is
3. Medical Assistance; admitted into the Program, he shall execute a sworn
4. Security Protection; statement describing in detail the manner in which the
5. Livelihood Assistance; offense was committed and his participation therein…If the
6. Termination Assistance; Department is satisfied that the requirements of this Act
7. Education Assistance; and its implementing rules are complied with, it may admit
8. Burial Assistance; and such person into the Program and issue the corresponding
9. Change of Identity. (IRR of R.A. 6891, Art. VII, certification. If his application for admission is denied, said
Sec.1-9) sworn statement and any other testimony given in support
of said application shall not be admissible in evidence,
A witness may waive, in writing, any of his benefits under except for impeachment purposes.
R.A. No. 6981. A waiver absolves the Program completely of
whatever responsibility it may have over the witness' safety Witnesses are deemed admitted to the Program upon the
and security. (IRR of R.A. 6891, Art. VIII) issuance of a Certificate of Admission and Coverage by the
Implementor (IRR of R.A. 6891, Art. IV)
SECTION 9. Speedy Hearing or Trial. — In any case where
a Witness admitted into the Program shall testify, the Sworn Statement
judicial or quasi-judicial body, or investigating authority It is a written statement under oath executed by an
shall assure a speedy hearing or trial and shall endeavor to individual seeking admission into the Program, disclosing
finish said proceeding within three (3) months from the in detail his personal knowledge and/or information about
filing of the case. the commission of a grave felony (IRR of R.A. 6891, Art. I, Sec.
5).
SECTION 10. State Witness. — Any person who has
participated in the commission of a crime and desires to be SECTION 12. Effect of Admission of a State Witness into
a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as the Program. — … Admission into the Program shall entitle
determined in this Act and by the Department, shall be such State Witness to immunity from criminal prosecution
admitted into the Program whenever the following for the offense or offenses in which his testimony will be
circumstances are present: (GANS-GM) given or used and all the rights and benefits provided under
Section 8 hereof.

147
SECTION 13. Failure or Refusal of the Witness to Testify. (3) the state prosecutor or investigator, with the prior
— Any Witness registered in the Program who fails or approval of the department, shall file a petition
refuses to testify or to continue to testify without just cause with the appropriate court for such issuance
when lawfully obliged to do so, shall be prosecuted for
contempt. If he testifies falsely or evasively, he shall be Requisites:
liable to prosecution for perjury. If a State Witness fails or 1. Witness is admitted to the Program
refuses to testify, or testifies falsely or evasively, or violates 2. Witness refuses to testify or produce evidence in
any condition accompanying such immunity without just connection to the offense
cause, as determined in a hearing by the proper court, his 3. Such evidence is absolutely necessary for the
immunity shall be removed, and he shall be subject to successful prosecution of the offense
contempt or criminal prosecution. Moreover, the 4. Prosecution files a petition to court for issuance
enjoyment of all rights and benefits under this Act shall be of order to require witness to testify or give
deemed terminated. The Witness may, however, purge evidence
himself of the contumacious acts by testifying at any 5. Court issues the proper order.
appropriate stage of the proceedings.
The court, upon motion of the state prosecutor or
The following are the penalties for failure or refusal of investigator, shall order the arrest and detention of the
witness to testify: witness in any jail contiguous to the place of trial or
1. Contempt of Court; investigation until such time that the witness is willing to
2. Perjury; give such testimony or produce such documentary evidence
3. Revocation of Immunity; (R.A. 6891, Sec. 14, par. 3).
4. Criminal Prosecution; and
5. Termination of all rights and benefits in this Act. SECTION 15. Perjury or Contempt. — No witness shall be
exempt from prosecution for perjury or contempt
If a witness testifies falsely or evasively or fails or refuses to committed while giving testimony or producing evidence
testify, or violates any condition accompanying such under compulsion pursuant to this Act. The penalty next
immunity without just cause, the enjoyment of all rights and higher in degree shall be imposed in case of conviction for
benefits under R.A No. 6981 shall be deemed terminated. perjury. The procedure prescribed under Rule 71 of the
(IRR of R.A. 6891, Art. XV, Sec. 2) Rules of Court shall be followed in contempt proceedings
but the penalty to be imposed shall not be less than one (1)
SECTION 14. Compelled Testimony. — Any witness month but not more than one (1) year imprisonment.
admitted into the protection program:
(1) cannot refuse to testify or give evidence or produce SECTION 16. Credibility of Witness. — In all criminal
books, documents, records or writings necessary cases, the fact of the entitlement of the witness to the
for the prosecution of the offense or offenses for protection and benefits provided for in this Act shall not be
which he has been admitted into the program on admissible in evidence to diminish or affect his credibility.
the ground of the constitutional right against self-
incrimination but shall; SECTION 17. Penalty for Harassment of Witness. — Any
(2) enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution and person who harasses a witness and thereby hinders, delays,
cannot be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for prevents or dissuades a Witness from:
any transaction, matter or thing concerning his
compelled testimony or books, documents, records (a) attending or testifying before any judicial or
and writings produced. quasi-judicial body or investigating authority;
Order requiring witness to testify, give evidence or produce (b) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge
the books, documents, records, and writings shall issue: the commission or possible commission of an
(1) in case of refusal of said witness to testify or give offense, or a violation of conditions or probation,
evidence or produce books, documents, records, or parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
writings, on the ground of the right against self-
incrimination, and (c) seeking the arrest of another person in
(2) the state prosecutor or investigator believes that connection with the offense;
such evidence is absolutely necessary for a
successful prosecution of the offense or offenses (d) causing a criminal prosecution, or a proceeding
charged or under investigation for the revocation of a parole or probation; or

148
(e) performing and enjoying the rights and benefits

under this Act or attempts to do so, shall be fined
not more than Three thousand pesos (P3,000.00)
or suffer imprisonment of not less than six

3G Evidence Reviewer PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3G Evidence Reviewer PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

Aseniero, Daphne Elizabeth

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

Proof v. Evidence B. As to Nature

The rules on Evidence determine the following: 3. Object

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

Example: Copy of contract or testimony of witness as to the Civil Criminal

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

Rules of exception to the Commonly used for 2) Sec. 3, Article III

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

Remedies on Amended pleadings Is the self-serving rule applicable to judicial

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

Admissions in Civil Admissions in Object evidence is also known as:

Even though the object evidence may contain false

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

Ocular inspection or “View” Documents as evidence consists of writings,

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

Section 3. Original Document must be produced; Exceptions: (LC-N²P)

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

Rule on Public Documents Note: No obligation to offer what he asks to be produced

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

What is Parol Evidence?

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

APPLICABILITY: 4. If the subject of the oral negotiation is not so

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: IMPERFECTION

1. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in Imperfection

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

No Authorization Required to be Presented to Testify as When Qualifications and Disqualifications are

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

SECTION 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage.—

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

What is the scope of the prohibition? What is meant by public interest?

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique

Reason: Humanitarian acts or charitable responses should Two Branches

3G Class 2019-2020 Reviewer on Evidence and Trial Technique