CHAPTER 1 RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a ‘ ae Proceeding the truth respecting a matter “Since mathematical or demonstrative certainty is unattainable in any of the affairs of daily life, courts of justice, like individuals, are compelled to be satisfied with that inferior kind of certainty which is called moral, All moral science, of which law is the practical expression, consists intrinsically of inquiry and investigation, which are infinite by nature, but finite by necessity; and in the administration of justice, the exigencies of public and private business require that this limit should be neither recondite nor fanciful, but well defined and according with the maxims and experience of common sense. Therefore, moral probability, or, as it is erroneously termed, moral certainty, is the utmost to which the science of legal evidence aspires.... The region of evidence lies, therefore, exclusively between moral certainty on the one hand, as its most perfect extreme, and moral possibility on the other, as its most imperfect extreme. It does not look for more than the first, and it will not act on less than the last. Its whole object is to produce those convictions which spring spontaneously from the suggestions of the intuition, as embodied in the conclusions of the reasoning or comparative faculty of the mind; and in every case the last conclusion of the speculative intellect rightly suggests and governs the first outward operation of the practical mind...” ler and Griffin, Powell's Principles and Practice of the Law of Evider 5, 4th Edition, pp. 1-2.INSIGHTS ON EVIDENCE. Adversary system Anglo-American evidentiary rules and principles are embedded in the adversarial system of justice. The general theory underlying the adversarial model is that the self-interest of each party to the litigation will produce the evidence and the competing arguments sary for the trier to make a fair and rational decision, The rial system, therefore, is driven by the parties, one or more of whom (the plaintiff or plaintiffs) initiate a lawsuit by filing with the trial court clerk a complaint and a summons.! The basic element of remedial law in this jurisdiction is the adversary system. Under this system, the responsibility of bringing a suit for shaping the issues, and for producing evidence rests almost entirely upon the parties to the controversy; the court takes almost no active part; it does not do its own investigation, it rarely asks questions. Essence of evidence According to Gulson, the word “evidence” has at least three (3) legitimate meanings, as denoting: (1) the science of proof or the fundamental, natural principle which regulate the art of proving: (2) the art of proof or the rules and methods employed in the application of that science to practice; and (3) the physical means or agencies by which that art is carried into effect.‘ Professor Thayer described it as a term of forensic procedure; and imports something put forward in a court of justice.* In its original sense, the term “evidence” is that from which causes the state of being evident or plain. In legal acceptation, evidence includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to “Lilly, Principles of Evidence, 2006, 4th Edition, page 4. ‘Peralta, Jr. and Aquino, Handbook on Summary and Small Claims Procedure and Bouncing Checks Law {with Notes on Ejectment and Katarungang Pambarangay Law], 2009, page 3, citing Cound, Friedental, Miller and Sexton, Civil Procedure, 1989 Ed., page 1. Chamberlayne, A Treatise on the Modern Law of Evidence, 1911, pp. 4-5, 1g Guison, Philosophy of Proof, page 1. 1 Chamberlayne, ibid., page 6, citing Thayer, Prelim, Treat., page 264. Chamberlayne, ibid., pp. 6-7, citing Holland vs. Ingram, 6 Rich. L. (8.C nd other materials.CHAPTER) RULE 128 — GENERAL PROVISIONS ‘vestigation, is eatablighed or dispraved.' A rule of evidence may bv detined a8 a principle principle expressing the mode and manner of proving the faots and cireumstances upon which a party relies to eatabliel a fact in dispute in judicial procedure, It ngaises that “... which tmakoo clear or ascertains the truth ofthe very fast oF point in ss, either on the one side or 01 ro It. "..jgoverns the presentation of facts, Se argument, before a legal tribunal." — Evidence is omething proffered to establish an alleged or disputed rp ee hea Jaw of evidence is dependent on rules of selectivity and exclusion." Factum probans and factum probandum Factum probans is the evidentiary fact which establishes the proposition while factum probandum is the ultimate fact or the proposition to be established.” For example, to prove the Proposition that a murder was committed by John Doe, the Evidentiary Fact may be offered that John Doe left the victim's house shortly after the murder; to prove this in turn, as a Proposition, the Evidentiary Fact may be offered that John Doe's shoes fit the track left near the house by the murderer; and this again, as a Proposition, may be evidenced by the statement of a witness on the stand who has placed the shoe in the tracks. Here, each evidentiary fact in its turn becomes a proposition requiring the marshalling of new evidentiary facts, more or fewer according to its complexity. Any specific matter may be Proposition or Evidentiary Fact, according to the point of view of the moment.’* "1 Greenleaf, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, 1892, 15th Edition, [in three volumes}, page 4 “McKinney, 10 Ruling Case Law, 1916 Ed., page 859, citing Justice Blackstone's Commentaries III, 367. "Kennedy, Trial Evidence, A Synopsis of the Law of Evidence Generally Applicable to Trials, 1906, page 1. "Cui, Evidence: Techniques and Summaries, 1985, 2nd Edition, page 1 “Id. page 4, citing 91 CJS 865-866. *2 Reyalado, Remedial Law Compendium, 2008, 11th Edition, 4th printiv Pp 698-699, citing 1 Wigmore on Evidence, pp. 5-6; Agpalo, Handbook on Evi Ist Edition, page 8, citing Tantuico us. Republic, 204 SCRA 428 (1991 1 more, A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Cor‘ INSIGHTS ON EVIDENCE. Scientifically speaking — a fact is that which exist either in the world of matter or in that of mind."* We may define a fact a. reality of nature, existing or perceptible in the present or the pas and having its seat either in matter or in mind. ‘The fundamental concept of fact is of a thing existing or being It is not limited to what is tangible or in any way the objec nse, Things invisible — mere thoughts, intentions, fancies of the mind — when conceived of as existing or as being true, are conceived of as facts. The question of whether a thing be a fact or not, is the question of whether it is, whether it exists, whether it be true. All inquiries into the truth, the reality, the actuality of things, are inquiries into the fact about them. Nothing is a question of fact which is not a question of existence, the reality, the truth of something — of the rei veritas.\* For a viable pleading,’ it must aver sufficient ultimate facts rather than evidentiary facts.:* Ultimate facts Ultimate facts refer to the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon the existence of which the cause of action rest: does not refer to details of probative matter or particulars of which establish the material elements,"* he term evidence \'1 Chamberlayne, A Treatise on the Modern Law of Evidence, 1911, pp. 59-60, "1 Chamberlayne, ibid., page 60, citing Gulson, Philosophy of Truth, Pp. 33, 49, , Cui, Vide, page 5, citing Chamberlayne, citing ‘Thayer, 81-82; ¢ Chamberlayne, ibid., pp. 60-61. "Section 1, Rule 6, 2019 Rules of Civil Proce “In general—Every al and logical form, a plain, concise and direct cluding the evidence on which the party pleading ‘or his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts, Ifa cause of action or thereof and their applicabi or defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent pro ility to him shall be clearly and concisely stated. ‘Bank of Commerce vs. Heirs of De la Cruz, G.R. No. 21 1519, August 1 te number 15, citing Nacua-Jao vs. China Banking Corporation, G.R. Ni 58, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 56, 64, ci 7 iting Barcelona vs. Court of Ar 130087, September 24, 2003, 412 SCRA 41, 48,CHAPTER 4 RULE ri LE 128 — GENERAL PROVISIONS Bvidentiary facts On the other h ‘ prove or establish cho ulteeecantlary fects are those which tend to Ultimate facts will be tested during trial by evidentiary facts:" “This Court often ultimate and evidentiary faumeen the ie true, a pleading states a cause of action. veracits of the ultimate facts will be established deere “generally through the presentation of evidence that will prove evidentiary facts. In Tantuico, Jr. v. Republic, this Court explained: The rules on pleading speak of two (2) kinds of facts: the first, the “ultimate facts,” and the second, the “evidentiary facts.” In Remitere us. Vda. de Yulo, the term “ultimate facts” was defined and explained as follows: “The term ‘ultimate facts’ as used in Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, means the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of aetion. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. . . ." (Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. 1, 1963 ed., p. 213).” “Ultimate facts are important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the primary right and duty, or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant. The term does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material elements are to be established. It refers to principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the existence of which, the entire cause of action rests.” while the term “evidentiary fact” has been defined in the following tenor: “Those facts which are necessary for determination of the ultimate facts; they are the premises upon which conclusions eae vs f Appec ‘Agpalo, Vide, page 3, citing Far East Marble Phil., Ine. vs. Court of App 25 SCRA 249 [ | 5 ed case s. Pimentel II, G.R. Nos. 235935 and other allied Leonen’s dissent.INSIGHTS ON EVIDENCE Of ultimate facts are based, Womack o. Industrial Comm., 16% c Wd, 401 P2d 761, 764, Facta which furnish evidence of exintony her fact.” Claim, issu Whenever we call a claim into question — tha questions about its truth or falsity — we raise an issue...; an isaye & question of ...whether a im is true or not... when we ga) The issue is the proposition to be maintained or controverter It will be observed, that, by the common law, the issue is fo by the parties themselves through their attorneys, the court nothing to do with the progress of the altercation except to see that it is conducted in the forms of law; and it always consists if a single Proposition precisely and distinctly stated.** The pleadings at common law are composed of the written allegations of the parties, terminating in a single proposition, distinctly affirmed on one side, and denied on the other, called the issue. If it is a proposition of fact, it is to be tried by the jury, upon the evidence adduced. And it is an established tule, which we state as the FIRST RULE, governing in the production of evidence, that the evidence offered must correspond with the allegations, and be confined to the point in issue.” Of the issues thus raised, some are termed general issues; others are special. The general issue is so called, because it is a general and comprehensive denial of the whole declaration, or of the principal part of it. The latter kind of issue usually arises in some later stage of the pleadings, and is so called by way of distinction from the former. The general issue, as will be more distinctly seen its proper place, puts in controversy the material part of the declaration, and obliges the plaintiff to prove it in each particular. Thus, upon the plea of not guilty, in trespass quare clausum fregit, the plaintiff must prove his possession by right as against the defendant, the unlawful entry of the defendant, and the damages done by him, if more than nominal damages are claimed. But if the defendant specially pleads that the plaintiff gave him a license to enter, then no evidence of “Moore and Parker, Critical Thinking, 9th Edition, International Edition. 2009, page 6. "2 Greenleaf, Vide, page 3. ‘2 Greenleaf, Vide, page 4. | Greenleaf, Vide, page 82, citing Best's Principles of Evidence, pp. 225RULE 124—GRNERAL PROVISIONS party’s pleading, the eivil a judgment on the r ‘There is ly no issue if e Complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, is deemed admitted when it is not specifically denied by the adverse party. In Frilou Construction, Inc. vs. Aegis Integrated Structure Corporation,” the significance of a specific refutation of an assertion was underscored: “Indeed, petitioner admitted and failed to specifically deny the material averments in respondent's complaint that "2 Gireenteay, Vide, page 5. "Section 1, Rule 6, 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure — “Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate yudgment.” *5 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., page 1 Asian Construction & Development Corporation va. Sannaedte Co,, Ltd., GR No. 181676, June 11, 2014 — *..An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 and 10, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings.” 13 1 Moran, Vide, page 543, citing Alemany vs. Sweeney, 3 Phil. 114 — “Pails to tender an insue” means that the answer does not sufficiently controvert the material fncts of the adverse party as when it does not either admit or deny those facts, or when it does not specifically deny them in the manner required by these rules. [citing then Section 10, Rule 8, and Section 1, Rule 9} cf. Section I, Rule 34, Section 11, Rule 8, 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure. | Regaiado, Remedial Law Compendium, 2010, 10th Edition, 3rd printing, pax: 403 - “A judgment on the pleadings presupposes that there is no controverted issur whatsoever between the parties.” ; ee J " Peralta, Jr. and Aquino, Vide, pp. 110-111, citing Santiago vs. Guadi, Jr 06 SCRA 590, 596 [1992]; of. Sections 5 and 6, IT. 1991 Revised Rule on Summar *rocedure, as amended; Sections 6.and 7, Rule 70, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure “Section 11, Rule 8, 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure. GR. No. 191088, August 17, 2016, citations omitted.INSIGHETH ON RVIDIENCE ligation under the Purchase of 190,024,006 00, » Rules of Court on Manner og contemplates three (3) modes of admit, and whenever practicable, setting forth the wubst of the matters which he will rely upon to support hin denia) (2) by specifying #0 much of an averment in the complaint a» and material and denying only the remainder, (3) by ng that the defendant is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment complaint, which has the effect of a denial The purpose of requiring the defendant to make a specific denial is to make him disclose the matters alleged in the complaint which he succinetly intends to disprove at the trial r with the matter which he relied upon to support the denial. The parties are compelled to lay their cards on the table. becomes Thus, the disingenuousness of petitioner apparent to this Court. First. Petitioner did not make a specific denial, but a general one to the effect that it no longer has any remaining liability to respondent. Respondent's averment in paragraph 4 of its complaint reads: 4. Payment of the sum of P6,024,306.00 has long been overdue in that [respondent] had long supplied, fabricated, delivered and erected the structural steel requirements of [petitioners] but the latter has paid [respondent] the sum of P4,490,014.32 only thereby leaving an unpaid balance of P1,534,291,68; Petitioner denied this by stating, thus: 3. Similarly, [petitioner] also DENIES paragraphs 4 and 5 for being contrary to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case; However, petitioner did not state “the facts and circumstances surrounding the case,” the matters which it relies on to support its denial of its liability in the amount of P1,534,291.68. Petitioner only asserted that respondent failed to show evidence of its supposed remaining liability. This is not an assertion of the truth and substance of the matter. It is merelyCHAPTER 1 RULE 128 — GENERAL PROVISIONS does not have evidence to prove its Ne Pr ae ee foe A) ectewial avermeute in paragraph 4 of respondent's complai al i : laint; (1) petitioner contracted swith respondent to fabricate aid deliver the former's structural Daren Orders; (3) petitioner has only paid the amount of '4,490,014.32; and (4) thus, Petitioner had an unpaid balance ‘o respondent in the amount of P1,534,291.68. __ Petitioner should have, and could have easily, specifically denied each and every ayerment under the foregoing paragraph as required by Section 10 of Rule & and then asserted the substance of the matter which it relies on to support its denial. Petitioner's last clause about respondent's allegations being ‘contrary to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case’ is hardly anything which petitioner can rely on to support its case. The statement is not evidence for petitioner as defendant. Petitioner's assertion of contrariety of the facts to respondent's position is a conclusion that is made by the court after trial Petitioner is plainly splitting hairs. As a result of its failure to make a specific denial, it was deemed to have admitted all the material averments in para- graph 4. Consequently, the judicial admission of petitioner's remaining liability need not be proved. Second. The generality of the denial betrays the absence of specific facts that can prove payment. If untrue, the falsity of the alleged remaining balance in the amount of P1,534,291.68 is wholly within petitioner's knowledge which it should have delineated in its Answer. Petitioner could have given specifics on why the original contract price of P6,024,306.00 as evidenced by the Purchase Orders was performed only partially, thus prompting petitioner to pay only the amount of P4,490,014.32. Since respondent alleged its complete performance of its obligation under the Purchase Orders, petitioner should have asserted respondent's partial and incomplete performance, specifying the deliveries that were not made. In particular, petitioner ought to have alleged in the Answer itself the structural steel requirements that were not erected such that it rightfully only paid for the lesser amount of P4,490,014.32. Yet itioner did not do go and only insisted that respondent did idence of completion and delivery t haveCHAPTER 1 RULE 128 — GENERAL PROVISIONS does not have evidence to prove its Ne Pr ae ee foe A) ectewial avermeute in paragraph 4 of respondent's complai al i : laint; (1) petitioner contracted swith respondent to fabricate aid deliver the former's structural Daren Orders; (3) petitioner has only paid the amount of '4,490,014.32; and (4) thus, Petitioner had an unpaid balance ‘o respondent in the amount of P1,534,291.68. __ Petitioner should have, and could have easily, specifically denied each and every ayerment under the foregoing paragraph as required by Section 10 of Rule & and then asserted the substance of the matter which it relies on to support its denial. Petitioner's last clause about respondent's allegations being ‘contrary to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case’ is hardly anything which petitioner can rely on to support its case. The statement is not evidence for petitioner as defendant. Petitioner's assertion of contrariety of the facts to respondent's position is a conclusion that is made by the court after trial Petitioner is plainly splitting hairs. As a result of its failure to make a specific denial, it was deemed to have admitted all the material averments in para- graph 4. Consequently, the judicial admission of petitioner's remaining liability need not be proved. Second. The generality of the denial betrays the absence of specific facts that can prove payment. If untrue, the falsity of the alleged remaining balance in the amount of P1,534,291.68 is wholly within petitioner's knowledge which it should have delineated in its Answer. Petitioner could have given specifics on why the original contract price of P6,024,306.00 as evidenced by the Purchase Orders was performed only partially, thus prompting petitioner to pay only the amount of P4,490,014.32. Since respondent alleged its complete performance of its obligation under the Purchase Orders, petitioner should have asserted respondent's partial and incomplete performance, specifying the deliveries that were not made. In particular, petitioner ought to have alleged in the Answer itself the structural steel requirements that were not erected such that it rightfully only paid for the lesser amount of P4,490,014.32. Yet itioner did not do go and only insisted that respondent did idence of completion and delivery t havefurther note that petitioner did vin the third mode of specific denial, 1 or information sufficient to form a belief ‘or falsity of respondent's averments because the | = information on the jasue at hand was clearly known ‘Petitioner simply avoided a direct answer to the ‘1 ‘respondent. We fail to read or see an Affirmative Defense in the ing: 5. While [petitioner] does not deny having engaged servi of [respondent] for the supply and. delivery of steel requirements, such delivery had been paid in the amount of Php4,490,014.32 as of March 2005; 6. [Respondent] failed to show evidence that indeed [petitioner] still owes the balance of P1,534,291.68 as alleged in the Complaint; 7. No demand whatsoever was made against herein [petitioner] for the alleged balance complained of. Section 5 (b), Rule 5 of the Rules of Court reads: (b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance. As previously discussed, petitioner did not set forth a new matter in its Answer because respondent's Complaint already _ categorically stated in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Com at petitioner had only paid for the amount of P4,490,014.; indebtedness of P6,024,306.00. Simply petitioner e the allegations as regards the balance.”CHAPTER RULE 128 — ORNERAL MROVISIONE - iasion from a party, Stjove the benefit tm Prenuarpnsenrt” ld the foundation for, or aon ee oe de Neri, the question of burden of proof thereto, were tackled by the Supreme ake ines ee oe “In ordinary civil eases, the plaintiff burden proving the material legate of the moka which = denied by the defendant, and the defendant hax the burden of proving the material allegations in his case where he sets up 4 new matter. All facts in issue and relevant facts must, as general rule, be proven by evidence except the following: ()_ Allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issues. (2) Facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided they have been sufficiently alleged. (3) Those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between the parties; as well as those admitted by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case. (4) Facts which are the subject of judicial notice. (5) Facts which are legally presumed. (6) Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the opposite party.” In a criminal case, the plea” of the accused" signals joinder of issues and it would be jurisprudentially impermissible for an accused to interpose a counterclaim for damages, primarily on account of Section 4, Rule 129; Section 2(a), Rule 131; Article 1431, New Civil Code. Sections 2and 3, Rule 131. %G,R, No. 139588, March 4, 2004, citing at footnote number 35, Francisco, Revised Rules of Court, Vol. VII, Part Il, 1997 Ed., pp. 8-9. Gubat, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure Annotated, 2015 Ed., pp. 265- 259 —“.. To be precise, arraignment partakes the nature of an answer, as in civil cases, through which the issues of the case are joined and the trial court acquires jurisdiction to decide over the issues. Without such jurisdiction, any judgment rendered by the trial court would be null and void. It is for this evident reason that prior arraignment of the accused is indispensable in a trial in absentia.” 4 “Section 1, Rule 116, 2000 Rules on Criminal Provedure; ef. Id 8, Resolution dated April 25, 2017, effective September 1, 2017, in A.M. No, 19-06-10-SC, Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases.INSIGHTS ON EVIDENCE the absence of any specific rule therefor in a criminal proceeding pursuant to Cabaero, et at. vs. Hon. Cantos, et at 5 judication of compulsory counterclaims and/or wolitsc'etaltee tF ploadings logically includes the applicat\ of other rules which, by their very nature, apply only to civi actions, The following matters may be invoked in connection with the filing of an answer with a counterclaim: the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document which are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath; affirmative defenses like res judicata, prescription and statute of frauds which are deemed waived by failure to interpose them as affirmative defenses in an answer; and the failure of a defendant to file an answer seasonably may result in his default in the civil aspect but not in the criminal. As a consequence of these matters, the entry of plea during arraignment will no longer signal joinder of issues in a criminal action.’ In synthesis, the need to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact arises when a fact is in issue and the truth is ascertained by evidence, in any of its forms or a combination thereof.” Argument from evidence Simply put, an argument is the piercing together of elemental facts for a suggested conclusion while evidence connotes the process of presenting assumed facts." The legitimate quality of Argumentation is the invocation, by counsel, of ordinary rules of logic and rhetoric in the combination of assumed facts.** An argument is an effort to establish belief by a course of reasoning. The object of evidence is to establish the truth by the use of perceptive and reasoning faculties.** In critical thinking, an argument gives a reason for thinking that a claim is true, while a claim that is offered as a reason for “\G.R, No, 102942, April 18, 1997, citation omitted, underscored for emphasis “Cui, ibid., pp. 5-6, “Peralta, Jr, Vide, page 8, citing 1 Wigmore, A Treatise on the System Bvidence in Trials at Common Law, 1904,page "1 Wigmore, Vide, page 3. “Black's Law Dictionary, 1968, Revised 4th Edition, page 137. ‘Baguio Country Club Corporation vs. NLRC, GR. No. L-65624, Novem) iting Martin, Rules of Court, Vol. § on Evidence, page 2, citing Cho ial Evidence and Thayer on Prelim. Treat.RULE. CHAPTER #128 — GENERAL Provisions : velieving another claim 4 ig aE en a premise i: Pre a promise 2 SUDpoNed ta give et {hs claim for which i conclusion of the Suspicion and conjecture ee tify an inference of a is wil no shore, and the court habit of any courts of oe or compass... It is not the right to mere conjectures and oe ee ‘up in matters of i J may be the natural instinct ofthe mind to conclude that the iqui glasses set before customers at a bar was intoxicating, but. in the absence of any descripti . cription of it ee might well be a matter of pure cone color or otherwise, it Sea of suspici Subject to the subsi aciael pevstpon 8 State 2 ak ue ae eo Rules on Evidence, [s]ettled is the rule that a court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures or guesswork, but must depend upon competent proof and on the basis of the best evidence obtainable under the circumstances. We emphasize that litigations cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, deductions, or even presumptions, with no basis in evidence, for the truth must haye to be determined by the hard rules of admissibility and proof. Question of fact from a question of law To be certain that he is acting in conformity with the law, the judge has, on every occasion, two (2) points to consider; the one is a question of fact, the other a question of law. The first consists in foore and Parker, Vide, page 10. “81 Moore, A Treatise on Pacts or the Weight and Value of Evidence, 1908, page 61, citing People us. Van Zile, 143 N.Y. 372, 373, 38 N.E. 390, per Andrews, Cd See also Scott vs. Crerar, 11 Ont. 541,551. 41 Moore, Vide, page 62, citing Boyd vs. Glucklich, (C.C-A.) 116 Fed. Rep. 131 per Caldwell, J. . %1 Moore, Vide, page 62, citing ‘The Ship Henry Ewbank, 1 Sumn, (U.S.) 400, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,876, per Mr. Justice Story. 21 Moore, Vide, page 62, citing People vs. 1 ‘Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Commissioner 35876, June 19, 2017, December 5, 2016. Owens, 148 N.Y. 648,651,43 N of CustomINSIGHTS ON EVIDENCE .suring himself that a given fact existed in a given place, at x giy time; the second consists in assuring himself, that the kaw hi down a rule of such or such a nature, applicable to this individual he question of law is decided by the text of the law, or whe, ‘sno written law, by previous decisions.” The question of fa is decided by evidence, All depends on facts." There is a question of law” when a doubt or a difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and the question does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is q question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts, as when the query necessarily solicits calibration of the whole evidence considering mostly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and probabilities of the situation. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct or not, is a question of law. Conclusion of fact and conclusion of law Aconclusion of fact is an inference drawn from the subordinate or evidentiary facts.’’ For instance, the oral declaration of a daughter of appellant in rape that: “..she saw her father and AAA in the act of sexual intercourse deserves scant consideration as she was not present at the time of the commencement of the said act. She could not, therefore, be in a position to state with certainty that there was no struggle on the part of AAA. Hence, her testimony regarding such matter is a mere conelusion of fact.”®* , “ef. Article 8, New Civil Code; cf. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Vergara, G. No. 216871, December 6, 2017, citing Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals « jomar Binay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015, “Dumont, A Treatise on Judicial Evidence, Extracted from the Manuscript cremy Bentham, ESQ,, 1825, page 9. SHerare Realty Corporation us. The Provinei a . ial Treasurer of Batangas, e! R. No. 210736, September 5, 2018 —“... the issue of the legality or validity of ent is a question of law..” citing Nationa? Power Ol rnment of Navotas, etal, 747 Phil. 744, 756 [2014], Sarandon vs. Mun a Adlawar. vs. People, G.R. No. 197645, April 18, 2018, citations omitt “Blac k’s Law Dictionary, Vide, Page 362. ‘People us. Bayot, G.R. No. 200030, April 18, 2012,onarre RULE, GENER 148 — GENERAL Provisions A conclusion of law m process of Hatitral ipeachgeete S PEORGIMMo nos wrvived at by an stated, but by the a ; 6 from pleaded. wolintion ofthe arti At OF combination of fact Artificial ruton of law to the facts In Mercene vs. GSI80 i concept of a conclusion of iw cae re oe A conclusion of law is a k iiade de ares legal inference on a question of law made a It of a factual showing where no further evidence is required. The allegation of prescription in Mercene's complaint is a mere conclusion of law. In Abad v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, the Court ruled that the characterization of a contract as void or voidable is a conclusion of law, to wit: A pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from mere conclusions of fact, or conclusions of law. General allegations that a contract is valid or legal, or is just, fair and reasonable, are mere conclusions of law. Likewise, allegations that a contract is void, voidable, invalid, illegal, ultra vires, or against public policy, without stating facts showing its invalidity, are mere conclusions of law. In the same vein, labelling an obligation to have prescribed without specifying the circumstances behind it is a mere conclusion of law. As would be discussed further, the fact that GSIS had not instituted any action within ten (10) years after the loan had been contracted is insufficient to hold that prescription had set in. Thus, even if GSIS' denial would not be considered as a specific denial, only the fact that GSIS. had not commenced any action, would be deemed admitted at the most, This is true considering that the circumstances to establish prescription against GSIS have not been alleged with particularity.” Black's Law Dictionary, Vide, page 362, F , ©G.R. No, 192971, January 10, 2018, citations omitted.INSIGHTS ON EVIDENCE, Allegation, evidence, and proof n is the assertion, declaration, oF statement of , or in a pleading, setting out whe ion, md tea) of the 2030 Federal Rules of F a “statement” means a person's oral assertion, Written assertion or non-verbal conduct, if the person intended it ins en asccrin Allegation is not evidence,” nor proof and the cou! Not rely on An alk party to an ac Ae, to prove.” Ui speculation." d fact, the form of evidence To prove or disprove & conteste : 0 f ian direct or indirect, nay, circumstantial evident in the production of evidence is, that it js e issue be proved. In the application de between allegations of matter of may either be ¢ second rule which governs i sufficient, if the substance of th of this rule, a distinction is ma 8 matics substance, and allegations of matter of essential description. The former may be substantially proved; but the latter must be proved with a degree of strictness, extending in some cases even to literal precision. No allegation, descriptive of the identity of that which is legally essential to the claim or charge, can ever be rejected. Black's Law Dietionary, page 99. BP Oil and Chemicals International Philippines, Inc. vs. Total Distribution & Logistic Systems, Inc., G.R. No. 214406, February 6, 2017 —“It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it because a mere allegation is not evidence” “People vs. Fajardo, G.R. Nos. 105954-55, September 28, 1999; PNB vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 116181, January 6, 1997, 266 SCRA 136, 139 —“... Mere allegations are not equivalent to proof.” “Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, GR. No. 196876, June 19, 2017 — “Resultantly, no scintilla of proof was ever offered in evidence by respondent Commissioner of Customs to substantiate the claim that Pilipinas Shell acted in a fraudulent manner. At best, the allegation of fraud on the part of Pilipinas Shell is mere conjecture and purely speculative. Settled is the rule that a court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures or guesswork, but must depend upon competent proof and on the basis of the best evidence obtainable unde the circumstances. We emphasize that litigations cannot be properly resolved b; suppositions, deductions, or even presumptions, with no basis in evidence, { truth must have to be determined by the hard rules of admissibility and proof.” ‘ “Peralta, Jr., Perspectives of Evidence, 2005 Ed., page 3, citing 10 Ruling moe nee c es in its effect may be such as direct! mothe Ce . probative effect may be indirect by the establish crelreumerseeaan hich the fact in issue may be inferred; or in a word it may bs Drow oat Vide, Page 1, citing People vs. Pamintuan, G.R. No. | “1 Greenleaf, Vide, page 96, iting Stark, Evidence, 373 and other aryRULE CHAPTER | V#K-~ GENERAL Provisions betwoen allegation and proof, And th that evidence bridges the gap and proof, aa well aa verdad simply as follows: Proof te the nou pitele of proot, may be both stated perfection of evidence, ul sufficient evidence,” \t is the ‘The true question, there arya it is possible that the ‘ate Be) of ne is not poueie is su/ficient probability of its truth; that is, itil nd facts ne shown by competent and satisfactory evidence, ‘Thin cetabiioned by competent and satisfactory evidence are said ane te In its most extended signification, t supposed to be true, and then considered as Bai caess ae the existence or nonexistence of some other fact. Thus, every proof comprehends at least two (2) distinet facts, The one may be called the principal fact, the existence or nonexistence of which is to be proved; the other, the proving fact, which is employed to prove the verity or falsehood of the principal fact.” As a general proposition, before factum probans can lead to factum probandum, the evidence must be properly presented, formally offered’ by the proponent, admitted,” and thereafter assessed” by the evaluator. Sanctioned by the rules® ‘A “pule of evidence” is the “...mode and manner of proving the competent facts and circumstances on which a party relies to ©'Peralta, Jr., Vide, page 3, citing 1 Jones on Evidence, page 5, citing Oliveros State, 120 Ga 237, 47 SE 627; 2 Regalado, Vide, page 698. Cui, Vide, page 1. = © Francisco, Basic Evidence, 2017, 3rd Edition, page 2. 11 Greenleaf. Vide, page 4. “\Dumont, Vide, page 8. : ; i‘ ? sate 34, Rule 132, 2019 Bevet Hil Be Be dior sien = The court shall consider no evidence whic ot bee 3 purpose for which the evidence is offered must be ne Section 98, Rule 132, 2019 Revised Rules on Evitence- ‘Sections 1-7, Rude 133, Vide. People ve, Moner, GR. No. 202208, March 8, 2018,INSIGHTS ON EVIDENCE judici edure. Thi ae fact | ite in judicial proce hi eee mr the truth, not to suppress it rules of evidence is to ge an be vulnerable to change oy Although rules of evidence © br ghe pow jon by the proper authority vestes modificat cence is of all teachers the most ependable, experience is also a continuing process, ae recast ovtidence at one time thought necessary it follows tviainment of truth should yield to the experience of {othe aetmg generation whenever that, experience has clearly demonstrated the fallacy or unwisdom of the old rule “And since experi it is not legally viable to create a rule of evidence by sheer stipulation of the parties: “It is essential to the securing of uniformity in the administration of justice, and for obvious reasons, that the controlling rules of evidence be prescribed by the public, acting through their legislatures and courts. Accordingly, it is elementary that individuals and parties litigant cannot, by private contract, stipulate rules of evidence that shall be binding on the courts.”” While the parties are at liberty to waive a rule of evidence, no valid waiver can extend to a rule of evidence anchored on public policy. For instance, the waiver of the privilege against disclosure of state secrets is void.” No vested right of property in rules of evidence The general rule is that there i "i i ee re is no vested right of property in “Peralta, Jr., Vide, ‘tin, b Tey » page 5, ae US, CA. Mo, 185 F.24 184, citing 31 C.J.S., page 818, citing Woodward vs. Peralta, Jr, Vide, page 6, citi a , Jt» Vide, page 6, citing 1 i United ee 290 US 971, 781 Ba 360,548 Ghai ea oe : veralta, Jr., Vide, page 6, citi tos : Proms Co vs Dau, 129 Kan 79, oF 430,60 493 ene cae Peralta, Jr, Vide, page 5, citi : e 1 Philip Bie Gg T Fanci i * Philippines, Evidence, Part L page 16, Gere ep of Cana . Rowland, Eq GR. No. 1164, Se, : , September 17, “ee . 544, March 27, 1907 Gb = ib ay 2 Phil. 500, ideguer vs. Hoskyn, vs. Case, GR. No, &CharT RULE 125 tA CENERAL PROVIsioNs rruth In Jaw, there are three (8) conce cruth": Agreement of thought and reaitg ano hat constitutes consistency of thought with itgelpa > °Y¢?tal verification; and As the primordial undertaki described as either subetanegs ee pig Pan Reh the truth was formal legal truth, or facts according to the fret cones to of whether it corresponds with the truth or mare ne remote Again, in critical thinkin, 1B, the co: has a long and contentious history, A een nature of truth that makes sense — is either ti claim — that is, one Tue or false i normal, sense way. Truth and falsity are propertieaofchinn eS Matter of fact A matter of fact refers to a matter, the existence of which is determined by the sense, or by reasoning based upon the evidence.” To the imperative task of sifting fact from an assertion, the Supreme Court intoned in Philippine Span Asia Carriers Corporation us. Pelayo® in this manner: “There is no objective proof demonstrating how the interview in Cebu actually proceeded. Other than respondent's bare allegation, there is nothing to support the claim that her interviewers were hostile, distrusting, and censorious, or that the interview was a mere pretext to pin her down. Respondent's recollection is riddled with impressions, unsupported by independently verifiable facts. These impressions are subjective products of nuanced perception, personal interpretation, and ingrained belief that cannot be appreciated as evidencing ‘the truth respecting a matter of fact.” \Black’s Law Dictionary, page 1685, citing Memphis Telephone Co. vs Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co, C.CyA. Tenn., 231 F. 835,842. "Summers, Robert S,, Formal Legal Truth and Substantive Truth in Judici Fact-Finding. ‘Their Justified Divergence in Some Particular Cases {1998], Corn: Law Faculty Publications, Paper 1186; - ‘Last accessed on June 24, 2020. “Moore and Parker, Vide, page 16- F E 4 Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, Revised a eae w Notes and Comments, 1989, page 6, citing The Chamberlayne Trias Dvisencs “G.R. No, 212008, February 28, 2018, citations omitted.INSIGHTS ON EVIDENCE Respondent's subsequent hospitalization does not prove harassment or coercion to make an admission either. The mere fact of its occurrence is not an attestation that respondent's interview proceeded in the manner that she claimed it did. While it proves that she was stressed, it does not prove that she was stressed specifically because she was cornered into admitting wrongdoing. Human nature dictates that involvement in investigations for wrongdoing, even if one is not the identified suspect, wil] entail discomfort and difficulty, Indeed, stress is merely the ‘response to physical or psychological demands on a person,’ Even positive stimuli can become stressors, Stress, challenge, and adversity are the natural state of things when a problematic incident is revealed and begs to be addressed. They do not mean that an employer is bent on inflicting suffering on an employee, Different individuals react to stress differently ‘and some people react to stress by getting sick.’ Stress is as much @ matter of psychological perception as it is of physiological reaction. Respondent's confinement at a hospital proves that, indeed, she was stressed at such a degree that it manifested physically. It may also be correlated with the stressors that respondent previously encountered. Among these stressors was her interview. One can then reasonably say that respondent's interview may have been difficult for her, However, any analysis of causation and correlation can only go as far as this. The evidence does not lead to an inescapable conclusion that respondent's confinement was solely and exclusively because of how respondent claims her interviewers incriminated her, The discomfort of having to come to the investigation's venue, the strain of recalling and testifying on matters that transpired months prior, the frustration that she was being dragged into the wrongdoing of other employees — if indeed she was completely innocent — or the trepidation that a reckoning was forthcoming — if indeed she was guilty — and many other worries doubtlessly weighed on respondent. Yet, these are normal burdens cast upon her plainly on account of having to cooperate in the investigation. They themselves do not translate to petitioner's malice. Respondent's physical response may have been acute, but this, by itself, can only speak of her temperament and physiology. It would be fallacious to view this physical response as proof of what her interviewers actually told her or did to her. Indeed, it was possible that respondent was harassed. But bility is not proof. Judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings mand proof. Respondent's narrative is rich with melodran rtones of how she suffered a nervous breakdownRULE 128 — GENERAL PROVISIONS ig short of prudent, verifiable would be @ miscarr Proof. In the absenc suogatieas OF justice to beats a oS What is certain in petitioner's Davao nae co wore several anomalion investigate these a1 2. Tt also vr i to be involved in the investigation” made sense for respondent Matter of law It refers to a matter, the truth or falsity of which is determined by establishing the rules of la : a For example, while imposition of feet, based upon them, is a matter of law under Section ne 10, Rule 67, recovery thereof can be impeded by other equally acknowledged principles eae such as res judicata or immutability of a previous judgment.” fartin, tepublic vs. H le. page 6, citing The Chamberlayne Trial Evidence, pp. 82-83. sncalteaublic us Heiraof Gotengce, GR. No. 226955, January 24,2018 —"What is applicable in the present caso is our ruling in Urtula v, Republic (Urtula), where the art stood faithfully with the doctrine of res judicata and immutability of judgments In Urtula, the civil action for collection of legal interest subsequently fited by the defendant was dismissed because the Court, in its judgment in the expropriation case previously promulgated ordering the government to pay Urtula just compensation, failed to award legal interest. According to the Court, the civil action for collection of Jogal interest was already barred by rea judicata pursuant to Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which directs the defendant in an expropriation case to present all objections and defences; otherwise, they are deemed waived. Clearly, Gotengeo, in the same manner as Urtula, is already barred by res judicata to claim legal interest for failure to timely raise his objection thereto. Borrowing the words of the Court in Urtula, *[ajs the issue of interest could have been raised in the former case but was not raised, res judicata blocks the recovery of interest in the present case. It is settled that a former judgment constitutes a bar, as between the parties, not only as to matters expressly adjudged, but all matters that could have been adjudged at the time. It follows that interest upon the unrecoverable interest, which plaintiff also seeks, cannot, likewise, be granted.” ; To affirm the ruling of the appellate court would violate the doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment and would concede to the evils the doctrine seeks to prevent, namely: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which indeed, to rule otherwise would trivialize the time Court has reiterated the maxim that rules of procedure cannot be ignored due to its indispensability for ns Paeteration ‘of justice. While rules procedure t better serve the ends of justice, the Court, however ake ee ee to this tenet is applied only to the most pers ns and the most deserving.” feitations omuUnderSection 1, Rule 128, evidence is the means of ascertaining fatter of fact” not of a “matter of law." the truth of a Sources of evidence Norms of evidence were derived from: (1) the Constitution (2) substantive law, and (3) procedural law. () 1987 Constitution Constitutional Law is the study of the maintenance of the proper balance between authority as represented by the three (3) inherent powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the Bil] of Rights.” A Constitution, according to Cooley, is “that body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised.” Within the 1987 Constitution, rules of evidence were mostly reflected in Article 3 on the Bill of Rights, inclusive of the rule. making power of the Supreme Court in Section 5(5), Article 8 on the Judicial Department. Governmental interference as precondition to application oy invocation of the Bill of Rights Concerning the protection accorded by Article 3 of the Fundamental Law, it must be underscored that the Bill of Rights can only be invoked if there is governmental interference, consistent with Yrasuegut us. Philippine Airlines, Ini “To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the equal protection clause guaranty of the Constitution, However, in the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court, in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the source of our equal protection guarantee, is consistent in saying that the equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. Private actions, 4 Martin, Vide, page 5, citing The Chamberlayne Trial Evidence, pas’ “Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1987 Edition, page 1. "Cruz, Vide, page 3, citing Const. Limitations, 4. R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008, citing People vs. Marti, GR N ¥ 18, 1991, 193 SCRA 57, 65 and other materials,RULE 128 — GENERAL PROVISIONS e RO matter how egregious, cannot violate the " a ae : the equal protection “On the other hand, the case at bar assumes a peculiar charactor sineo the evidence sought to be excluded was p authorities. Under the circumstances, can validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable Searches and seizure has been violated? Stated otherwise, may * ‘88 Act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant’ ‘Constitutional rights, be invoked against the State? We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. As this Court held in Villanueva vu. Querubin (48 SCRA 345 (1972) “lL. This constitutional right (against unreasonable search and seizure) refers to the immunity of one’s person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government, included in which is his residence, his papers, and other possessions, XXX the factual considerations of the case at bar readily foreclose the proposition that NBI agents conducted an illegal search and seizure of the prohibited merchandise. Records of the case clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency, who made search/inspection of the packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Posts... Xxx That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. “Peralta, Jr., Vide, pp. 8-9, citing 193 SCRA 57, 64, 68-68 (1991), cited at Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the 2003 Edition, page 222, citing Waterous Drug Corporation 747 [1997] Philippines: A Commentary un NLRC, 280 SCRA TSS,ene ne eee ee . eens liborties guaranteed by the fund of the t always be subject to protection. But protection ‘ainst whom? Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship spooch the Bill of Rights answers the query whieh he himself posed, as follow: ‘First, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties is the essence of constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Bernas; Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, 1986; Italics supplied) The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies asa restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. ‘Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. Ifthe search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to Pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or at the initiative of the Proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures can not be extended to acts committed by private individuals so government.” A conclusion, similar with Yrasuegui vs, Philippine Airlines, Ine. and People us, Marti, was reached in People vs. Maqueda: “However, the extra-judicial adi missions of Prosecutor Zarate and to Ray Dean Sa] Be aula to lvosa stand on a different Peralta, Jr, Vide, pp. 8-10, citing G-R. No. 112983, March 29, 1995, 2 Phil. 646, ;(CHAPTER 1 RULE 128 — GENERAL PROVISIONS connection with Maqueda’s plea to be utilized ax a state witness; nnd as (0 the othor admission, it was given to a private person ‘Tho provisions of the Bill of Rights are primarily limitations on government, declaring the rights that exist without governmental grant, that may not be taken away by government and that government has a duty to protect, or restrictions on the power of government found not in the particular specific types ion prohibited, but in the general principle that keeps n the public mind the doctrine that governmental power is not unlimited, They are the fundamental safeguards against aggressions of arbitrary power, or state tyranny and abuse of y. In laying down the principles of government and ‘ntal liberties of the people, the Constitution did not. the relationships between individuals.” Right to privacy ‘and 8," Article II of the 1987 Constitution, on carches, seizures, arrests or other forms of physical nt on one’s liberty, and privacy of communication and correspondence, also serve as basis for invocation by an individual of the right to p 'Y as against State intrusion. Unreasonable search The essence of privacy is the right to be left alone.” The constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches and seizures but only of “unreasonable” searches and seizures. For search or seizure to become unreasonable, there must be in the first place a search or seizure in the constitutional sense. The Supreme Court in Valmonte vs. de Villa said that there is as yet no cause for (¢ right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. F %(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires therwise as prescribed by law. s s ) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall »e inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. ; r Social Justice Society [SIS] vs. DDB and PDEA, G.R. No. 157870 and oth November 3, 2008, citing Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 tA 141, 169; citing Morfe vs. Mutue, GR. No. L-20387, January 31, 1968, ( effecINSIGHTS ON EVIDENCE inapection of the vehicle is limit ks cannot be regarded as vi earches and se reh, waid routine individual's right ajainst unreasonable Administrative search From what was implied to the problem of drug testing in Socia, Justice Society [SJS} vs. DDB and PDEA,” an administrative senrs\, appeared to be beyond the context of an “unreasonable” invasion o¢ privacy “As the warrantless clause of Sec. 2, Art III of the ion is couched and as has been held, reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion. And whether a search at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is judged by the balancing of the government- mandated intrusion on the individual's privacy interest against the promotion of some compelling state interest. In the criminal context, reasonableness requires showing of probable cause to be personally determined by a judge. Given that the drug- testing policy for employees and students for that matter under RA 9165 is in the nature of administrative search needing what was referred to in Vernonia as swift and informal disciplinary procedures, the probable-cause standard is not required or even practicable. Be that as it may, the review should focus on the reasonableness of the challenged administrative search in question.” Concerning Republic Act No. 10667" or the Philippine Com- petition Act, the Supreme Court issued the Rule on Administra- tive Search and Inspection under the Philippine Competition Act, for the inspection of business premises and other offices, land and vehicles used by an entity through an ex parte application for an inspection order by the Philippine Competition Commission before the Special Commercial Court, “Bernas, Vide, page 16, ci ting 185 SCRA 665, 669 [1990}. “Vide, citations omitted. “Approved on July 21, 2016, “A.M, No. 19-08.08-SC dated September 10, 2019, effective November 16.CHAPTER 1 RULE 128 — GENERAL PROVISIONS Unwarranted inquiry Republic vs. Manalo Article 26 of the Family Goda by divorce to a Filipino even though by the Filipino. It was also obsery motive of a Filipino in marrying challenge under the concept of the trued the second paragraph of the divorce decree was procured ed that an attempt to pry on the an alien may face constitutional right to privacy: tis not for Us to prejudge the motive behind a Filipino’ t pino’s © marry an alien national. In one case, it was said: Motives for entering into a marriage are varied and complex. The State does not and cannot dictate on the Kind of life that a couple chooses to lead, Any attempt to regulate their lifestyle would go into the realm of their right to privacy and would raise serious constitutional questions. The right to marital privacy allows married couples to structure their marriages in almost any way they see fit, to live together or live apart, to have children or no children, to love one another or not, and so on. Thus, marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or otherwise, such as convenience, companionship, money, status, and title, provided that they comply with all the legal requisites, are equally valid, Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is not the only valid cause for marriage. Other considerations, not precluded by law, may validly support a marriage.” decision t Search of government office computer In Pollo vs. Chairperson David, et al.,!* Justice Villarama, Jr. discussed parameters of the “right to be left alone’ to a situation where the office computer, assigned to a government worker, was subjected to a search by the supervisor. When the data obtained from the government property yielded evidence of “moonlighting preparatory to the administrative charge and the employee's dismissal from the service, a challenge was later posed by Pollo nuNGee a8 ‘1G R. No, 221029, April 24, 2018, citi 13]; ef Republic vs. Manalo was also reiterated in 1015, July 23, 2018. ed *G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011. _ : ar Cite, Constitutional Law, 1987 Edition, pp. 128-129, citing Sector 1987 Constitution. Republic vs. Albios, 719 Phil. 6: ae Sakai us. Republic, G.R