Notes in Evidence

based from Evidence by Riano , Bedan Red Notes 2017 and Atty. Junboy Amora

Disclaimer:
I am not the original author of the principles, theories, problems and illustrations presented in
this notes, but only responsible for consolidating it. I am encouraging the user or reader of this humble
notes to correct and replace, if they find inconsistencies. Furthermore, this notes is not for sale. Gi gama
nako ni para nako ug sa mga members sa PADAYON FUTURE LAWYERS of BIT – IC.

The rules of evidence fall under practice and procedure in all courts.

Note: The problem illustrated below is from Atty. Junboy Amoras’ notes.

Problem 1.
A group of concerned Filipino citizens wanted to adopt the jury system practiced in the USA. A
bill was sponsored by a representative in the Lower House. A committee conference was conducted and
the bill was brought to the plenary. The bill passed the three readings and was enacted to law. Is the law
valid?

Answer:
No. The jury system is not within the jurisdiction of the legislature, but within the jurisdiction of
the judiciary. Sec. 5 (5), Art. VIII, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The Supreme Court exercises the
following powers: (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts; the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar; and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts the same grade,
and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. Hence, the Jury
system falls under procedure in all courts.

Problem 2.
Plea bargaining is prohibited in RA 9615, Sec. 23. Is it valid?

Answer:
No. Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. Sec. 5 (5), Art. VIII, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
The Supreme Court exercises the following powers: (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts; the admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar; and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts
the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the exclusive domain of the
Judiciary, hence, it is not valid.
RULE 128
GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. EVIDENCE DEFINED. Evidence is the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court of ascertaining
in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

Four Component Elements:

1. Evidence as a means of ascertainment – includes not only the procedure or manner of
ascertainment, but also the evidentiary fact from which the truth respecting a matter of may be
ascertained.
2. Sanctioned by these rules – not excluded but must be allowed by the Rules of Court of law.
3. In a Judicial Proceeding – contemplates an action or proceeding filed in a court of law and not a
mere dispute between two contending parties.
4. The truth respecting a matter of fact – refers to an issue of fact and is both:
a. Substantive – determines the facts to be established; and
b. Procedural – governs or regulates the manner of proving said facts

Purpose of Evidence: To ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding. We
emphasize that litigations cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, deductions, or even
presumptions, with no basis in evidence, for the truth must have to be determined by the hard rules of
admissibility and proof. Lagon vs Hooven Comalco Industries, Inc., 349 SCRA 363.
Reason: There is a presumption that the court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a case,
thus, it is incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue through the presentation of admissible
evidence.
Truth as the purpose of evidence: While the purpose of evidence is to know the truth, the truth
referred to in the definition is not necessarily the actual truth, but one aptly referred to as the judicial or
legal truth.
Illustration:
While it may be the actual truth that it was Angelie who shot Himaya, if the available
evidence presented and admitted in court points to Joseph as the culprit, then the judicial and
legal truth is that it was Joseph who shot Himaya and not Angelie.

General Rule: All facts in issue and relevant facts must be proven by evidence.

Exceptions to the General Rule:

1. Facts that are subject of Judicial notice;

Judicial notice of a fact as used in this rule means a court’s declaration of the existence of a fact
normally decided by the trier of fact, without requiring proof of that fact.

Facts that may be judicially noticed are: (a) facts of such common knowledge within the
community where the court sits that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute; (b) facts
that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned; and (c) certain facts contained in undisputed records of a
court, such as prior orders or kindred documents, which would not otherwise be inadmissible. A
court may take judicial notice of a fact, whether requested or not.
2. Facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided they have been
sufficiently alleged;
3. Facts which are legally presumed;
4. Those who are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between parties as well as those
admitted by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case;
5. Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the opposite party; and
6. Allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issue.

Factum Probans vs. Factum Probandum

All litigations, whether civil or criminal, involve the relationship between these two concepts.

Factum Probans defined: refers to the evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum will be proved.
Examples: written contract, promissory note to prove the existence of a debt.

Illustration:

If P claims to have been injured by the negligence of D who denies having been negligent, the
negligence of D and the causal connection between such negligence, and the injuries of P taken as a
whole, constitute the factum probandum of the suit. The evidence offered by P, whether it be object,
documentary or testimonial, constitute the materials to prove the liability of D. The totality of the
evidence to prove the liability refers to the factum probans.

Factum Probandum defined : refers to the ultimate fact to be proven or the proposition to be
established.

Note:
 The factum probandum in a certain case may be affected by the judicial admissions of a party.
For instance, if the defendant in a suit based on a culpa aquiliana theory admits his negligence
in his answer to the complaint, there is no more need to prove negligence. Hence, negligence
ceases to be a factum probandum in the case.
 In practical terms, the factum probandum in a civil case refers to the elements of a cause of
action from the point of view of the plaintiff and the elements of the defense from the
standpoint of the defendant. Example: Suit for collection of money. Factum probandum of the
plaintiff will be: (1) existence of the debt ; (2) the maturity of the debt; (3) the demand made by
the plaintiff upon the defendant to pay; and (3) the failure to pay despite the demand. From the
 side of the defendant, the fact of payment of the obligation or the prescription of the debt or
the elements of any defense he may interpose would constitute the factum probandum.
 In a criminal case, the factum probandum includes all matters that the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify a conviction. Thus, in a prosecution for robbery, the
prosecution has the burden to prove the following matters beyond reasonable doubt: (1)that
there be personal property belonging to another; (2) that there is unlawful taking of that
property; (3) that the taking is with intent to gain; and (4) that there is violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon thing.

Factum Probandum Factum Probans

Ultimate facts. Intermediate or evidentiary facts.
The fact or proposition to be established. The fact by which the factum probandum is to be
established.
Hypothetical. Existent.

Classification of Evidence
Direct Evidence
Evidence which proves the fact in dispute without
the aid of any inference or presumption. (People
vs. Fronda, GR No 130602, March 15 2000)
Illustration:
Kim saw Ian attack Joseph with a chi min choi
sword. The testimony of Kim is a direct evidence
against Ian for the crime of homicide.
Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference drawn from the evidence
established. (People vs. Matito, GR No 144405,
February 24,2004)
As to probative value, the Court considers
circumstantial evidence as being of a nature
identical to direct evidence because no greater
degree of certainty is required when the evidence
is circumstantial than when it is direct. (People
vs. Olivia, GR No 106826 January 18, 2004)

Illustration:
Angelie testified that she saw Ramil holding a
knife while running from the place where Himaya
was found lying in her own blood; that Ramil’s
hands are full of blood; and days after the
incident, Ramil fled from the Philippines. When
these facts are taken together, they will show
that Ramil is the one who killed Himaya.
As to the degree of its value in establishing distinguished facts
Prima facie Evidence (on its face) Conclusive Evidence
That which standing alone unexplained or un- Evidence which is incontrovertible or one which
contradicted, is sufficient to maintain the the law does not allow to be contradicted. (Lillian
proposition affirmed. By itself, it is sufficient to Realty Co. vs Erdum, 120 N.Y. S. 249)
establish the factum probandum if no evidence
to the contrary appears. Note: Those which are enumerated under Rule
131, Sec, 2 are conclusive presumptions.
Note: Those which are enumerated under Rule
131, Sec. 3 are prima facie presumptions. Illustration:
In an action to recover money pain in a
Illustration: settlement of an account in stock transactions,
Entries in the course of business made by a plaintiff is bound by his own testimony that the
person in his full capacity or in the performance transactions were gambling transactions so as to
of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of preclude recovery by him. (Atwater vs. A.G.
business or duty are prima facie evidence of the Edwards Brokerage Co., 147 Mo. A. 436, 126 S.W.
facts stated therein. 822)
As to the similarity of character or nature of additional evidence
Corroborative Evidence Cumulative Evidence
Additional evidence of a different kind and Additional evidence of the same kind and
character from that already given, tending to character as that already given and tends to
prove the same point. (US vs. Manabat, GR No L- prove the same proposition. (Wyne vs. Newman,
16717, December 22, 1921) 75 Va., 811, 817 as cited in 5 MORAN, Comments
on the Rules of Court, (1980), p. 3)
Illustration:
The testimonies of the witnesses that the victims Illustration:
 died of gunshot wounds may be corroborated by The testimony of Joseph who shot Limar is
the death certificates of the victims. cumulative to the testimony of Ian as to who he
has seen at the place where the crime is
committed.

As to its weight and acceptability

Primary or Best Evidence Secondary or Substitutionary Evidence
Evidence which affords the greatest certainty of Evidence which is inferior to primary evidence
the fact in question. and admissible only in the absence of the latter.

Note: In an action on a written contract, the best Note: A photocopy of the written contract on
evidence of its contents is the original
instrument.
Object Evidence
Evidence directly addressed to
the senses of the court and is
capable of being exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the
court. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 1)
Illustration:
A knife that is alleged in killing
Angelie was produced in court.
The knife is the object of the
evidence/
Admissible Evidence
One that is relevant and
competent. (ROC, Rule 128, Sec. or disprove a fact in issue as
3)
1. Relevant Evidence –
evidence which has a relation to
the fact in issues as to induce
belief in its existence or non-
existence. (ROC, Rule 128, Sec.
4)
which the action arises is a secondary evidence of
its contents.
As to its Nature
Documentary Evidence
It consists of writings or any
material containing letters,
words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of
written expressions offered as
proof of their contents. (ROC,
Rule 130, Sec. 2)
Illustration:
The promissory note written by
Sol to Ian was produced in
evidence to prove that the
amount stated thereon is
already due and demandable.
As to quality Material Evidence
Evidence which tends to prove
determined by the rules of
substantive law and pleadings.
Testimonial Evidence
Evidence which consists of the
narration or deposition by one
who has observed or has
personal knowledge of that to
which he is testifying. It is
furnished by the testimony of
man which may be oral or
written.
Credible Evidence
It is not only admissible
evidence but also believable
and used in the court in
deciding cases.

2. Competent Evidence –
evidence not excluded by the
rules in a particular case.

Other Classifications of Evidence:

1. Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal Evidence

Rebuttal Evidence is that kind, which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts
given in evidence by the adverse part. It is evidence in denial of some affirmative case or fact
which the adverse party has attempted to prove.
Sur-rebuttal Evidence is a reply to a rebuttal evidence.
2. Positive and negative evidence
Evidence is positive when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur; while evidence is
negative when the witness states that he did not see or he did not know the occurrence of a
fact.

Note: Generally, the testimony of those who swear negatively that they did not see or hear is
NOT to be accorded with great weight as testimony of equally recorded credible persons having
the same opportunities of seeing and observing that a thing was or was not done.

Illustration:
 Joseph testified that he saw Ian set fire of the house of Kim on a specific date and time, this
testimony is a positive evidence. And, accordingly the testimony of Himaya that she was on the
occasion at the place where the house of Kim was burned and did not see Ian set fire on the said
house is a negative evidence.
3. Expert Evidence – It is the testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular subject or
department of human activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other person.
4. Substantial Evidence - is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient
to support a conclusion (Tolentino v. CA, GR No. 56265, May 20, 1987).

Rules of Evidence have been classified into:

1. Rules of Probative Policy; and
2. Rules of Extrinsic Policy.

A. Rules of Probative Policy

1. Exclusionary Rules – exclude certain kinds of evidence on grounds partly of relevancy and partly
of policy. (i.e. character evidence is generally not admissible unless the character is the issue)
2. Preferential Issues – require one kind of evidence in preference to another (see Best Evidence
Rule).
3. Analytical Rules – subject certain kinds of evidence to rigid scrutiny as to expose its possible
weaknesses and shortcomings. (i.e. the rules requires that an opportunity must be given to
cross-examine the witness, without this opportunity, the testimony is hearsay and generally
excluded)
4. Prophylactic Rules – apply beforehand to prevent risks or falsify or mistake. (i.e. it is required
that a witness take an oath or affirmation before testifying)
5. Quantitative Rules – require certain kinds of evidence to be produced in specific quantity. These
rules require them to be associated with other evidence when presented. (i.e. an other evidence
when presented; extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti)

B. Rules of Extrinsic Policy

These rules seek to exclude useful evidence for the sake of upholding other principles considered
more paramount and are either absolute or conditional.

Under the total exclusionary rule, illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in any proceedings.

Absence of vested rights in the rules of evidence

General rule: No vested rights in the rules of evidence.

Admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence is determined in accordance with the law in force at the
time the evidence is presented. Evidence otherwise inadmissible under the law at the time the action
accrued, may be received in evidence provided that it is admissible under the law in force at the time
it is presented. The rules are subject to change by the Supreme Court (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, 1987
Philippine Constitution) subject to the constitutional limitation on the enactment of ex post facto
laws. (Sec. 22, Art. III, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

Exception: In criminal cases, if the alteration of the rules of evidence would, for instance, permit the
reception of a lesser quantum of evidence than what the law required at the time of the commission
of the offense in order to convict, then the retroactive application of such amendatory law would be
unconstitutional for being ex post facto. (Simon vs. Chan, GR No 157547, February 23, 2011)

Liberal Construction of the Rules on Evidence: Like all other provisions of the Rules of Court, the
rules of evidence must be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just,
speedy and inexpensive speedy disposition of every action and proceeding (ROC, Rule 1, Sec. 5).
However, to justify the relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfilment
of the requirements have always been required. (Barcenas vs. Tomas, GR No 150321, March 31,
2006)

Waiver of the Rules of Evidence

General Rule: Rules of evidence that are merely for protection of the parties may be waived either
during trial or in a contact.

A contract of insurance requiring the testimony of the eyewitness as the only evidence admissible
concerning the death of the insured is valid. (Keeler vs. Iss. Co. 95 Mo. App 627, 69 S.W. 612)
 Failure to object the offered evidence makes it admissible. (Advance Paper Corp. vs. ARMA Traders
Corp., GR No 176897, December 11, 2013)

Exception: If the rule waived by the parties has been established by law on grounds of public policy,
the waiver is void. Accordingly, the waiver of the privilege against disclosure of secrets is void.

Atty. Junboys’ notes:

Distinguish Factum Probans from Factum Probandum

Factum probans is the means of proving the facts sought to be established; while factum probandum is
the facts sought to be established.

Example of factum probans (evidence):

1. Testimony of Juan that he personally saw Pedro stabbed Tomas with a kitchen knife on his chest
around 3:00PM on January 22, 2013 in Barangay Itum, Duero, Bohol; and he was only 5 meters
away from the scene of the crime.
2. Kitchen knife presented by the prosecution.
3. Autopsy Report issued by the attending physician.
4. Death Certificate issued by the municipal health officer that Tomas died on January 22, 2013 at
the Jagna District Hospital due to a deep laceration in his heart and loss of blood.
5. Police Report

The factum probans or evidences are the following: Testimony, kitchen knife, autopsy report, death
certificate and the police report.

After presenting the factum probans, we can arrive at the factum probandum.

What is the factum probandum? On January 22, 2013 around 3:00 in the afternoon in Barangay Itum,
Duero, Bohol, Pedro stabbed Tomas with a kitchen knife causing the death of Tomas. Hence, Pedro is
guilty of the crime of homicide. – This is the fact sought to be established or the proof.

SECTION 2. Scope -.—The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or these rules.

Atty. Junboys’ notes:

Read the Child Witness Rule (A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC)

Section 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. - A statement made by a child describing any act or
attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in
evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:
(a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its proponent shall make known to the
adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair
opportunity to object. If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party,
require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-
examination by the adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance
must be proved by the proponent.
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time,
content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall consider
the following factors:
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie;
(2) The general character of the declarant child;
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement;
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and
witness;
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child;
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote; and
(8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to
suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:
(1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be
exposed to severe psychological injury; or
 (2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to
procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means.
(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if
corroborated by other admissible evidence.

Hearsay evidence is one which is offered to show that the witness heard the event from other person.
Illustration: Tomas testified in court and stated: “Pedro told me that he saw Juan stabbed Jose.” The
testimony of Tomas is inadmissible because it is hearsay. However, if it is Pedro who will testify, it is
admissible.

However, the testimony of a child witness falling under the hearsay rule is admissible. Stated differently,
if a child witness gives a hearsay testimony in court, the same is not considered inadmissible. Thus when
a child witness testifies in the court that Amalia told him that Delfin raped her, this is admissible in
evidence. The court shall appreciate the hearsay testimony of a child witness. (Sec. 28, A.M. No. 00-4-
07-SC)

Scope of the Rules of Evidence

The rules of evidence in the Rules of Court are guided by the principle of uniformity. As a
general policy, the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in trials and hearings except as
otherwise provided by law or these rules such as those enumerated in Sec. 4, Rule 1.
Sec. 4 of Rule 1 provides the non-applicability. These are:
(a) election cases;
(b) land registration;
(c) cadastral;
(d) naturalization;
(e) insolvency proceedings; and
(f) other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient.

Applicability of the Rules on Evidence

1. In civil cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, where the parties are required to
submit position papers attaching thereto affidavits of witnesses, thus obviating the application
of the Rules on Testimonial Evidence, the rest or Rules on Evidence still apply. Therefore, any
document or object evidence presented by the parties in their respective position papers must
still conform to the Rules on Evidence.
2. In criminal cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, while the affidavits of the
parties and their witnesses constitute their direct testimony, they may still be subject cross
examination, redirect or re-cross examination. The Rules on Evidence still apply on any
document or object evidence presented.
3. Small claims cases – The small claims process is designed to function quickly and informally.
There are no lawyers, no formal pleadings and no strict legal rules of evidence. Orbe vs.
Gumarang, A.M. MTJ-11-11792, September 26, 2011.
4. Administrative cases – The rules on evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before
administrative bodies. Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and
procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Samalio vs CA, GR 140079, March 31, 2005.

Remember:
 While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound
by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases, this procedural rule
should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules,
such as the requirement of at least substantial evidence to support its findings (Miro vs
Vda de Eredos, GR Nos 172532 & 172544-45, November 20, 2013) and the basic rule
that mere allegation is not evidence (Marcelo vs. Bungbung, GR No. 175201, April 23,
2008). The evidence presented must have at least a modicum of admissibility for it to
have probative value (Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs. Dumapis, GR. No.
163210, August 13, 2008).
 Quasi-judicial bodies are given the authority to make rules of procedure. However, they
have no power to make their own rules concerning quantum of evidence. Such power is
vested in the Supreme Court. (Sec. 5, Art. VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution)

Evidence in Civil Cases Distinguished from Evidence in Criminal Cases

 1. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by a preponderance of
evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 133, Rules of Court). In criminal cases, the guilt of the accused has to be
proven beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 2, Rule 13, Rules of Court).
2. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court). In criminal cases, except those
involving quasi – offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an
offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of
guilt (Sec 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

Distinction between Evidence and other Concepts

Evidence Proof
It is the medium or means by which a fact is It is the effect or result of evidence. It is the
proved or disproved. probative effect of evidence and is the conviction
or persuasion of the mind resulting from the
consideration of evidence
Evidence Testimony
It is only a part of evidence. It is a kind of
evidence presented in trial by witnesses verbally.
Evidence Argument
The invocation of counsel of ordinary rules of
logic and rhetoric in the combination of assumed
facts to enable the tribunal to draw the desired
inference.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything)

The doctrine means that if the testimony of the witnesses on a material issue is wilfully false and
given with the intention to deceive , the jury may disregard all of the witness’ testimony. The maxim
falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern
jurisprudence (People v. Batin, G.R. No. 177223, November22, 2007). It is not a positive rule of law and is
not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. Before this maxim can be applied, the witness must be shown to
have wilfully falsified the truth on one or more material points. The principle presupposes the existence
of a positive testimony on a material point contrary to subsequent declarations in the testimony
(Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Chiong, G.R. No. 155550, January 31, 2008). The maxim falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus does not lay down a categorical test of credibility. While the witnesses may differ in their
recollections of an incident, it does not necessarily follow from their disagreements that all of them
should be disbelieved as liars and their testimonies completely discarded as worthless. People v.
Manalansan (189 SCRA 619). It should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroborated by
other evidence, particularly where the false portions could be innocent mistakes. To completely
disregard all the testimony of a witness on this ground, his testimony must have been false as to a
material point, and the witness must have a conscious and deliberate intention to falsify a material
point. People v. Pacapac (248 SCRA 77).

Alibi; Frame-up; Self-defense

1. As a defense, it is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive identification by

truthful witnesses.
2. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else
when the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it was physically impossible
for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission. By physical impossibility we refer to the distance and the facility of access
between the situs criminis and the place where he says he was when the crime was
committed (People v. Nueva, G.R. No. 173248, November 3, 2008).
3. While the defense of alibi is by nature a weak one, it assumes significance and strength
where the evidence for the prosecution is also intrinsically weak (People v. Canlas, 372 SCRA
401).
4. Like alibi, the defense of frame up is viewed with disfavor as it can easily be concocted and
is commonly used as a defense in most prosecutions arising from the violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act (People v. Lee Hoi Ming, 412 SCRA 550; People v. Barita, 325 SCRA 22 ).The
legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. For this claim to
prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper
manner (People v.Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008).
Bar 1994

Alyas Bongo was accused of raping Winnie Fundador (“Winnie”). Only Winnie testified on how
the crime was perpetrated. On the other hand, the defense presented Alyas Bongo’s wife, son, and
daughter to testify that Alyas Bongo was with them when the alleged crime took place. The prosecution
interposed timely objection to the testimonies on the ground of obvious bias due to the witness close
relationship with the accused.
If you were the judge:
(1) X X X
(2) Will the fact that the version of the defense is corroborated by three witnesses suffice to
acquit Alyas Bongo?

Suggested answer:
(1) xxx
(2) The corroboration of the version of the defense by three witnesses is not sufficient for
acquittal. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses due to its being capable of easy fabrication. It
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime. For an
alibi to prevail, the defense must establish by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was
physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else. In the face of positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witness, such alibi crumbles like a sand fortress
(People v. Vargas, G.R. No. 122765, October 13, 2003; People v. Adam, 413 SCRA 293).

Delay and Initial Reluctance in Reporting a Crime

1. Delayed reporting by witnesses of what they know about a crime does not render their
testimonies false or incredible, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of
most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case.
2. Suggested jurisprudence for delay and initial reluctance in reporting a crime. (Palihug ko
dungag if naa mo mas bago na jurisprudence. Dili need basahon na sila tanan, kay pare-pareho ra).
a. People v. Navarro, 297 SCRA 331
b. People v. Manalad, 387 SCRA 263
c. People v. Maglente, G.R. No. 179712, June 27, 2008; People v. Mahinay, G.R. No.
179190, January 20,2009
d. People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 177136, June 30, 2008
e. People v. Montesa, G.R. No. 181899, November27, 2008
f. Ingal v. People (G.R. No. 173282, March 4, 2008)
g. People v. Sanidad (402 SCRA 381)
h. People v. Ortoa (G.R. No. 176266, August 8, 2007)
i. People v. Satioquia (414 SCRA 60)

Positive and Negative Defenses

1. In Philippine jurisprudence, a positive testimony normally enjoys more weight than a

negative testimony. In short, a testimony that a fact exists enjoys more weight than a
testimony that asserts that the same fact does not exist. A denial evidence is merely a
negative evidence.
2. Positive evidence is, as a general rule, more credible than negative evidence. However, the
reason for this rule is that the witness who testifies to a negative may have forgotten what
actually occurred, while it is impossible to remember what never existed (Gomez v. Gomez-
Samson, G.R. No. 156284, February 6, 2007).

Evidence in Civil Cases Evidence in Criminal Cases

Quantum of Proof
The party having burden of proof must establish The prosecution must prove guilt beyond
his case by a preponderance of evidence. (ROC, reasonable doubt. (ROC, Rule 133, Sec. 2)
Rule 133, Sec.1)
Offer of compromise
An offer of compromise is not an admission of General rule: An offer of compromise by the
 liability and is not admissible in evidence against
the offeror (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 27)
accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
Exceptions:
1. Criminal cases involving quasi- offenses.
2. Criminal cases allowed by law to be
compromised

General Denial
General denial is not allowed. (ROC, Rule 8, Sec General denial is allowed.
10)
Withdrawal of Plea or Admission
Judicial admission withdrawn becomes A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
extrajudicial admission. unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser
offense is not admissible in evidence against the
accused who made the plea or offer.(ROC, Rule
130, Sec. 27)
Presumption of Innocence
Generally, there exists no presumption in favour The accused enjoys the presumption of
of either party, except in cases specifically innocence.
provided by law.
If there is an Equiponderance of Evidence
The party who has the burden of proof loses. Accused is acquitted.
Presence of Circumstantial Evidence
Not applicable. Applicable only in criminal cases. (ROC, Rule 133,
Sec. 4)
Privilege Communication (Doctor-Patient)
Applicable only in civil cases. (ROC, Rule 133, Not applicable.
Sec.24)
Compulsion of a Witness
A party or defendant may be compelled to be a The accused cannot be compelled to be a
witness provided written interrogatories (ROC, witness.
Rule 25, Sec. 6) and request for admission (ROC,
Rule 26, Sec. 5) have been served upon him.
Cross-examination in Summary Procedure
Not applicable. Applicable (Revised Rule on Summary Procedure,
Sec. 15)

SEC. 3. Admissibility of evidence.—Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules.

Atty. Junboys’ Notes

Three major classifications of Evidence:

1. Object (real) evidence;

2. Documentary evidence; and
3. Testimonial evidence.

Example:
1. Object or real evidence – kitchen knife used in stabbing a victim.
2. Documentary evidence – death certificate issued by the health officer, birth certificate of a rape
victim.
3. Testimonial evidence – testimony of John in open court that he saw Peter stabbed Tommy with
a knife on May 1, 2017 around 3:00 in the afternoon in front of the barangay hall in Pamilacan,
Baclayon, Bohol.

Relevant, material and competent evidence.

Relevant evidence is one having any value in reason tending to prove any matter provable in an action.
It is related to the subject.

Material evidence is one directed to prove a fact in issues as determined by the rules of substantive
law and pleadings.
Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by the Rules, a statute or the Consitution.

Problem:
A criminal case was filed by X Corp. against Y for selling the car which the latter bought
from the former in installment basis and constituting the said car in a chattel mortgage.

Q1: Receipts of monthly payments: are they relevant or material? Answer: Relevant and
competent. They only show that there was an installment purchase. They do not prove that the
car was sold to a third person.

Q2. Chattel mortgage contract. Answer: Relevant and material. It shows that the car was under
chattel mortgage, thus the buyer cannot sell the car to anybody without consent from the seller.

Q3. How about the deed of sale between the mortgagor and third person? Answer; Relevant
and material. It shows that Art. 316 of the RPC has been violated.

Requisites for Admissibility of Evidence

The evidence must be:
1. Relevant – such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence; and
2. Competent – not excluded by the rules on evidence, the law and the Constitution.

Relevancy is an affair or logic, human experience and common sense, while competence is illustrated by
law. To be admissible, the evidence must be both relevant and competent.

A. Two Axioms of Admissibility by Wigmore

1. Axiom of Relevancy - none but facts having rational probative value are admissible.
It merely prescribes that whatever is presented as evidence shall be presented on the
hypothesis that it is calculated according to the prevailing standards of reasoning to effect
rational persuasion.

2. Axiom of Competency – all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some
specific rule forbids their admission.
The rules of exclusion are rules of exception to the general admissibility of all that is rational and
probative.

Illustrations of the Requisites for Admissibility

 In a prosecution for homicide, the witness swears that the accused killed the victim because his
ever truthful boyhood friend told him so. The testimony, although relevant, is not admissible
because the witness was not testifying based on his personal knowledge of the event. The
testimony is hearsay and this type of evidence is, as a rule, excluded by the rules (Sec. 36, Rule
130, Rules of Court). In short, the testimony offered is relevant but incompetent.
 In a civil case for collection of a sum of money, the testimony of an eyewitness to the
transaction between the creditor and the debtor is competent evidence because the witness
would be testifying on the basis of his personal knowledge. However, if the subject of the
testimony includes the alleged frequent bouts of dizziness of the debtor, that portion of the
testimony is made inadmissible by the fact that the matters testified to are irrelevant to the
issue of whether or not a debt exists. In this case the testimony becomes irrelevant.
 A defense witness testifies having actually seen the alleged victim fire a gun at the accused
without the latter's provocation. The testimony of the eyewitness is competent and the matters
testified to are relevant to the plea of self-defense. The testimony is thus, admissible. It is not
only relevant but competent as well.
 Upon a timely objection, oral evidence will be excluded to prove a contract of a sale of a parcel
of land which does not conform to the statute of frauds (Art. 1403[2], Civil Code of the
Philippines). Even if the evidence is relevant to the issue of existence or non-existence of the
contract, it is inadmissible because it is excluded by law hence, incompetent.
 Documents obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees although containing relevant
matters are inadmissible because they are illegally obtained as when evidence is illegally seized
(Sec. 3[2], Art. Ill, Constitution of the Philippines).

Bar 1981
 Sulianlu is indebted to Banko d’ CR. When the obligation falls due, he fails to pay and the
bank sues for collection. As part of the evidence of the bank, the accountant of Sulianlu is placed
on the stand and in the course of his examination he is asked if he, in turn, is also indebted to
the bank.
The lawyer of Sulianlu interposes two objections to the question:
(a) that it is impertinent; (b) x x x
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objections.

Suggested answer:
(a) The objection of Sulianlu that the question is impertinent or irrelevant should be
sustained. The issue in the case is the indebtedness of the defendant to the bank and
not the indebtedness of the accountant of Sulianlu to Banko d’ CR.
Note:
 Inadmissible Evidence Under the Anti-Wiretapping Law (R.A. No. 4200)
 Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications Under the
Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)

Types of Admissibility

1. Multiple admissibility of Evidence – where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or
more purposes, such evidence may be admitted for any or all the purpose for which it is offered
provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility.

Illustration:
A confession of an accused may not be competent as against his co-accused being
hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy being
established by other evidence; nonetheless, the confession of the accused may be admitted as
evidence of his own guilt. (People vs Yatco, GR No L-1981, November 28, 1955).

2. Conditional Admissibility of Evidence – where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to
be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently
proved, such evidence may be received on the condition that the other facts will be proved
thereafter, otherwise, the evidence given will be stricken out from the record.

Note: The offering counsel may be required by the court, as a condition precedent (1) to state
the supposed connecting facts; and (2) to promise to evidence them later. If the promise thus
made is not fulfilled, the court may strike out the evidence thus conditionally admitted, if the
motion is made by the opposite party.

The application of this doctrine is subject to the qualification that there should be no bad faith
on the part of the proponent.

3. Curative Admissibility of Evidence (fighting fire with fire) – Where improper evidence was
admitted over the objection of the opposing party, he should be permitted to contradict it with
similar improper evidence. This is evidence introduced to cure, contradict or neutralize
improper evidence presented by the other party.

Illustration
A sues B for the latter’s alleged refusal to pay for merchandise supplied by A. B denies
having received the merchandise. In the course of the trial, A introduces evidence showing that B
swindled C on a similar transaction before. This should not have been admitted. B now offers to
explain that he entered into a fair transaction with C. In fairness to B, this should be admitted.

Admissibility Weight (Probative Value)

As to question resolved
It refers to the question of whether or not the It refers to the question of whether or not the
evidence is to be considered at all evidence proves an issue.
As to characteristic of evidence to which it pertains
It pertains to its relevance and competence. It pertains to its tendency to convince and
persuade.
 It depends on logic and law. It depends on the guidelines provided in Rule 133
and doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court.

B. Rules of Exclusion vs. Exclusionary Rules

1. Rules of Exclusion – in the system of evidence, they are rules of exception to a general
admissibility of all that is rational or probative. (i.e. The contents photocopied document may be
relevant but may be inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule)
2. Exclusionary Rules – these are commonly used for evidence excluded by the Constitution. In its
simplest form, these rules are applied to cases where the challenged evidence is quite clearly
direct or primary in its relationship to the prior arrest or search.
The following are rules that exclude certain type of evidence:

a. Best Evidence Rule – when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document. (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 3)
b. Parol Evidence Rule – when the terms of the agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties
and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 16)
c. Hearsay Evidence Rule – a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge; that is which are derived of his own perception. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec.
36)
d. Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases – in civil cases, an offer of compromise is not admission
of any liability and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 27)
e. Disqualification of Witness by Reason of Mental Incapacity or Immaturity. (ROC, Rule 130,
Sec. 21)
f. Disqualification of Reason of Death or Insanity of Adverse Party. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 23)
g. Disqualification by Reason of Marriage. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec.22)
h. Disqualification by Reason of Privileged Communications. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 24)

SEC. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters.—Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact
in issue.

Relevancy
The evidence is relevant when it is related to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or
nonexistence. (ROC, Rule 128, Sec. 4)

The court will admit only evidence which is relevant to the fact in issue. (ROC, Rule 128, Sec. 3)

Test of Relevancy
1. Experience and the Rule of Logic. Whatever naturally and logically tends to establish a fact in
issue is relevant and that which fails to qualify in this respect is not relevant.

2. The Rational or Logic Relevancy Test. In determining a dispute concerning the relevancy of
proffered evidence, the question to be resolved is whether there is logical or rational connection
between the fact which is sought to be proved and a matter of fact which has been made an
issue in the case.

Evidence on collateral matters shall NOT be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (ROC, Rule 128, Sec. 4) (i.e. conduct of
defendant which is inconsistent of his innocence)

Collateral matters refer to matters other than the fact in issue. These are matters outside the
controversy, or are not directly connected with the principal matter or issue in dispute, as indicated in
the pleadings of the parties.

Facts in issue vs. Fact relevant to the issue

Facts in issue are those which the plaintiff must prove in order to establish his claim and those facts
which the defendant must prove in order to establish a defense set up by him, but only when the fact
alleged by one party is not admitted by the other party.
Facts relevant to the issue are those facts which render probable the existence or non-existence of a
fact in issue, or some other relevant fact.

Example of Direct Evidence:

a. Testimony of Juan that he personally saw Pedro stabbed Tomas with a kitchen knife;
b. Death certificate issued by the municipal health officer;

Example of Circumstantial Evidence:

In a case for adultery, the act of carnal knowledge between the man (not the husband) and the
married woman cannot be proven directly, unless, the two allowed another person watch them
making sexual intercourse. Thus, circumstantial evidence can be resorted to as when the two
had been cohabiting with each other as husband and wife in a rented apartment; or when the
man buys a car covered by a chattel mortgage and the woman is the co-maker; or they were
seen checking in a motel.

People vs. Liberato Pentecostes, G.R. No. 226158, November 8, 2017.

Facts:

1) Liberato was present at the residence of the victim on March 24, 2005 when Vivian was
reported to be missing;
2) Liberato left the residence of Vivian after the drinking spree at about 3:00 in the afternoon;
3) Antonio and Jason both saw Liberato carrying Vivian on his back at around 3:30 or 4:30 in
the afternoon at the corn plantation;
4) On the following morning, March 25, 2005, the lifeless body of Vivian was found in the corn
plantation;
5) Antonio and Jason both testified that Liberato, while carrying Vivian on his back, proceeded
to the direction of the stream, according to Antonio, and the creek, according to Jason;
6) The cause of death of Vivian is asphyxia by submersion (drowning);
7) Liberato fled while being investigated by the police.

Thus, the Supreme Court convicted Liberato using circumstantial evidence.

Example of cumulative evidence:

1. Testimony of Juan that Pedro stabbed Tomas;

2. Testimony of Oscar, the store owner, who saw Pedro stabbed Tomas;
3. Testimony of Jason, a bystander, who saw Pedro stabbed Tomas.

Example of Corroborative evidence:

1. Testimony of Juan that Pedro stabbed Tomas;

2. Kitchen knife used by Pedro in stabbing Tomas;
3. Death certificate issued by the health officer.

Example of prima facie evidence: Juan has paid his loan to Pedro by showing a receipt. However, it can
be contradicted by showing that the receipt was forged.

Example of conclusive evidence: Pedro’s possession of the land as a tenant cannot ripen into
ownership. This is also an example of estoppel.

Article 1431 Civil Code: Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon
the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
(Marques et al. vs. FEBTC, et al., G.R. No. 171379, January 10, 2011)

Example of Res Gestae: Adriano was waiting for a bus at the waiting shed when suddenly, Rogelio who
was running fast, passed by the waiting shed, with bloody hands and uttered these words: “Putang ina
ka Simeon! Nayari rin kita, gago ka!” This is admissible in evidence as part of the res gestae Adriano, the
witness was startled and can show that it was Rogelio who killed Simeon, even though Adriano did not
see the actual killing.
Example of Dying Declaration: Jose was the attendant of Arturo who was hospitalized due to a stab
wound. Conscious of his impending death, Arturo told Jose that it was Herbert who stabbed him on
December 1, 2016 around 6:30 in the evening at the back of the church. Jose may have not seen
personally the actual stabbing but his testimony is admissible as part of the dying declaration of Arturo.

Example of Declaration Against Interest: Antonio who was interviewed by the police and some media
men, admitted that he instructed Leila to sell shabu to Caloy who was an inmate of the National
Penitentiary at Muntinglupa City. The opposite of declaration against interest is a self-serving
declaration.

RULE 129

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Matters that needed to be proved:

1. Facts which are subject to judicial notice. (ROC, Rule 129, Sec. 1-3)
2. Facts which are admitted. (ROC, Rule 129, Sec. 4)
3. Matters which are not specifically denied in the answer. (ROC, Rule 8, Sec. 10)
4. Facts which are legally presumed. (ROC, Rule 131, Sec. 2-3)
5. Those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between the parties. (ROC, Rule 30,
Sec. 6)

Judicial Notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act upon without
proof because they already know them. (People vs. Tundag, GR Nos 135695-96, October 12, 2000)

The purpose of judicial notice is expediency and convenience. There is no need of presenting evidence
during the trial. (i.e. a Boholano judge may take judicial notice on the fact that the municipality of Carlos
P. Garcia ;Pitogo, is separated from the mainland of Bohol)

Applicability of Judicial Notice. The application of judicial notice is not confined to courts of record.
Certain boards and special tribunals which are not strictly courts, but which partake of their nature and
the findings of which partake the nature of judgements may take judicial notice of certain matters. (Lim
vs. Collector of Customs, GR No L-11759, March 19, 1917)

Effects of Judicial Notice upon burden of proving a fact. Judicial notice relieves the parties from the
necessity of introducing evidence to prove the fact noticed.

Note: Stipulations and admissions of the parties or their counsels cannot prevail over the operation of
the doctrine of judicial notice, and such stipulations and admissions are all subject to the operation of
the doctrine of judicial notice. (Allen vs. State. (Ariz) 130 p. 1114)

Material Requisites:
1. The matter must be one of common and general knowledge.
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain.
3. It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

Kinds of Judicial Notice:

1. Mandatory
2. Discretionary.

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.—A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms
of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of
the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of
the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure
of time, and the geographical divisions.

Comment: Gi bungkag ra ang whole provision into elements.

SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. —A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of
public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.
Illsutration: (No. 1 from Atty. Junboy)

1. Hence, a judge who is from Loboc or Bilar may take judicial notice that the road at Tina-i sa
Manok from Loboc to Bilar is ascending. Thus, an allegation that X was driving recklessly cannot
be appreciated by the court if X was travelling from Loboc to Bilar. How can a driver drive fast
when the road at the Tina-i sa Manok is ascending?

2. The courts may take judicial notice of the existence and location within the territory over which
they exercise jurisdiction of great rivers and lakes and their relation to provincial boundaries.
(Banato vss. Dabbay, GR No 12264, September 23, 1918)

3. The court may also take judicial notice that the scene of rape is not always necessarily isolated
or secluded, for lust is no respecter of time or place. The Court has likewise taken judicial notice
of the Filipina’s inbred modesty and shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts which
blemish her honor and virtue. (People vs. Tundag, GR Nos 135695-96, October 12, 2000)

SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary.—During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on
request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon.

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request
of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such
matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.

Judicial Notice could be taken of the travel time from San Pedro, Laguna to Pasig City because it is of
experience nowadays that it is hard for a commuter to reach that destination. The Supreme Court found
no error in the trial courts finding that it was impossible for somebody to be at the scene of the crime.
(S/Sgt. Elmer Vergara vs. People, GR No. 128720, Jan. 23, 2002)

While the courts of justice are required to take judicial notice of the laws, it is not mandatory with
regards to ordinances.

Municipal Trial Courts may take judicial notice of municipal ordinances but regional trial courts may take
such judicial notice only under the following circumstances:

a) when required to do so by statute, example, in Manila as required by the City Charter; (City of Manila
vs Garcia L-26053 Feb. 21, 1967)

b) in a case on appeal before them wherein the inferior court took judicial notice of such ordinance. (US
vs Hernandez, 31 Phil. 342)

Courts may take judicial notice of administrative regulations. (Chattamal vs. Collector of Customs,
42Phil.916)

Courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions of the appellate courts but not of the
decisions of the coordinate trial courts, nor even of a decision or the facts involved in another case tried
by the same court itself, unless, the parties introduce the same in evidence or where the court, as a
matter of convenience, may decide to do so. (T’boli Agro-Industrial Dev. Inc. vs. Solilapsi, Adm. Case No.
4766, Dec. 27, 2002)

The question as to what laws of a foreign state is one of fact and not of law. Hence, it has to be proven
like any other fact. (Enriquez Vda. De Catalan vs. Catan-Lee [2012], In Re: Estate of Johnson, 39Phil.156)

Foreign laws must be proven by the one who alleges it and our courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved. (Continental Micronesia, Inc. vs.
Basso, G.R. Nos. 178382-83, September 23, 2015)

The Doctrine of Presumed-identity Approach or The Doctrine of Processual Presumption

If the foreign law cannot be proved, it is presumed that it is the same as that of the Philippines. (ATCI
Overseas Corp. Vs. Echin, G.R. No. 178551, Oct. 11, 2010)
SEC. 4. Judicial admissions.—An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial Admissions

As to how made
An admission, verbal or written, made by a party Those made out of court, or in a judicial
in the course of the proceedings in the same proceeding other than the one in consideration.
case.
As to how admitted in evidence
It does not require proof. Should be formally offered in evidence otherwise
it will not be considered.
As a rule, it is conclusive upon the party making. They are generally disputable when elements of
estoppel are present.

General Rule: A judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof.

Exceptions:
1. When it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake.
2. When it is shown that no such admission was in fact made. (ROC, Rule 129, Sec. 4)

The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such an
admission. For instance, if a party invokes an admission by an adverse party, but cites admission out
of context, then the one making the admission may show that he made no such admission, or that
his admission was taken out of context. This may be interpreted as to mean not in the sense in
which the admission is made to appear. (Atillo III vs. CA, GR No 119053, January 23, 1997)

Requisites of Judicial Admission:

1. The same must be made by a party to the case.
Note: Extrajudicial admission are not covered.
2. The admission must be made in the course of the proceedings of the same case.
3. There is no particular form for an admission, it may be written or verbal.

What need to be proved:

1. Admissions made in the course of the proceedings

It is settled that judicial admissions may be made:
a. In the pleadings of the parties;
b. In the course of the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or
c. In other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case.

All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced
in writing and signed by the accused and cunsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the
accused.

A party’s testimony in open court may override admission he made in his answer.

Failure to answer the complaint is not an implied admission of the allegations thereof.

Not all allegations or admissions in pleadings in civil cases may be considered as judicial
admission because the Rules in Civil Procedure allow a litigant to make hypothetical admissions
in his pleadings, such as:
a. When a defendant sets up affirmative defences in his answer.
 b. When a defendant files a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction.

2. Admissions in Amended Pleadings

Once a pleading is amended, it loses its status as a pleading and ceases to be a judicial
admission. What constitute admissions are those stated in the amended pleadings.

An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in

superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader, and claims or defences
alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. (ROC, Rule
10 Sec. 8) Such admissions are considered as extrajudicial admissions in civil cases. The original
pleading must be proved by the party who relies thereon by formally offering it in evidence.

3. Rules in Dismissed Pleadings

Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are merely extrajudicial admissions.

4. Rules on Pleadings not filed

a. If signed by the party, the admission contained in the pleading is considered as an
extrajudicial admission.
b. If signed by the attorney, it is not admissible. An attorney has authority to make statements
on behalf of his client only in open court or in a pleading actually filed.

5. Admission by counsel
General Rule: Admissions made by counsel are binding upon his client.

Exception: In cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due
process of law, or when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or
property or where the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered
by reason of the lawyer’s gross or palpable mistake or negligence.

6. Implied Admission of Actionable Documents

When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the
corresponding pleading, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them and sets forth what he
claims to be the facts, but the requirements of an oath does not apply when the adverse does
not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection
of the original document. (ROCE, Rule 8, Sec. 8)

7. Other cases of Judicial Admissions:

a. When there is failure to specifically deny the allegations in the other party’s pleading; or
b. Negative pregnant - it is denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the
pleading in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an
admission of the averments It was directed at. (i.e Ian denied that he is the father of Sol’s
son, but in the birth certificate it was written that he is the father)

Specific Denial
By specific denial is meant that the defendant must specify each material allegation of the fact of truth
of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon
which he relies to support his denial, otherwise the denial becomes a general denial. which amounts to
an admission of the allegations in the complaint and justifies a summary judgement.

Remedy if a party who gave a Judicial Admission:

1. In case of a written judicial admission: Motion to withdraw the pleadings, motion or other
written instrument containing such admission;
2. In case of oral judicial admission: Counsel in open court may move for the exclusion of such
admission.