SALIENT FEATURES OF THE

2019 AMENDMENTS TO THE

1989 REVISED RULES ON
EVIDENCE
by:
Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
PHILJA Training Seminar for Judges
Online Distance Learning
May 21, 2021, 8:00am-3pm
 Timelines – Rules on Evidence
✔10 RCL 860
Components of Law – a) Substantive b) Procedural

Procedural – pleadings, practice and evidence

Aldeguer vs. Hoskyn [1902] – no vested right,

cf. retrogressive effect [Arts. 4, 2254, NCC]; ex
post facto [Sec. 22, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution]
Bustos vs. Lucero [1948] – procedural;
cf. Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo [2017]
Section 5 (5), Art. 8, 1987 Constitution;
People vs. Moner [2018 FN 29] – a traditional
power of the SC, inclusive of rules of evidence.
 Timelines – Rules on Evidence
1901 – Act # 190 - An Act Providing a Code of Procedure in
Civil Actions and Special Proceedings in the Philippine
Islands, [Code of Civil Procedure] dated 080701, Secs. 273-
347.
1940 – Sections 1 to 100, Rule 123, Rules of Court.
1964 – Rules 128 to 134, Revised Rules of Court, effective
010164, formerly Rule 123 of the Rules of Court
cf. 1 Padilla, Evidence Annotated, 1971, pp. 2-3.
1989 – Bar Matter # 411 dated 031489, effective 070189
2008 – Sub-Committee for Review, reorganized later
2010 – initial draft; the vacuum
2019 – re-organized Committee [Memorandum Order # 03-
2019 dated 011419]
2019 – Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence [AM # 19-08-15-SC dated 10819, effective
050120]
 Provisions of Act # 190 on Evidence
cf.3 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 2nd
Edition, Revised, 1940, pp. 660-679:
Sections 273-376 – Salient Features:
Preponderance of Evidence, uniformity of rules,
judicial notice, personal knowledge and hearsay
with some exceptions, res inter alios acta,
original writing rule, parol evidence,
interpretation, onus, evidence for certain facts,
proof of documents, writings and handwritings,
irremovability of public document, presumptions,
alterations, examination of witnesses,
impeachment, affidavits and depositions and
perpetuation of testimony.
 AXIOMS
Principal Source: 1987 Constitution
✓ cf. Article 3, Secs. 1-3,12-14,17,22.

People vs. Sapla, GR # 244045, June 16, 2020

✓ De la Torre vs. CA [1998]

✓Other sources: Rules 128 – 133,

Rule 134 transposed to Rule 24 [prior to action
or pending appeal]
cf. People vs. Sergio and Lacanilao [100919]; San
Luis vs. Hon. Rojas, [030308]
✓Some Foreign Sources: 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

Wigmore on Evidence
McCormick Handbook on Evidence
Jones on Evidence
Chamberlayne’s/Greenleaf’s Treatise/
Lilly, Principles of Evidence
 SNAPSHOT OF CHANGES
A) minor – re-numbering,
gender inclusivity [Section 14,Article 2, Constitution,
RA 9710],
recognition of technological progression; [RA 8792,
AM # 01-7-01-SC dated 071701, effective 080101, Rules
on Electronic Evidence;]

cf. SC En Banc Reso in AM # 20-12-01-SC dated 120920,

effective 011621 – Proposed Guidelines on the Conduct of
Videoconferencing

B) major – concept of a picture and as documentary

evidence, expansion of privileged communications,
dichotomy of personal knowledge from hearsay,
modification of exceptions to hearsay, residual exception,
Apostille Convention, modes of impeachment, burden of
evidence, oral offer, objection and ruling, factors for an
expert opinion.
 Online Video Conferencing Hearing
AM # 20-12-01-SC,
AC # 29-2021 dated 043021
Gist:
1.Alternative to in-court proceeding [S1, R132]
2.Suspension of proceedings upon invocation of constitutional
rights, i.e. confrontation, save for: compelling state interest,
public policy;
3.All courts except the SC, all actions including small claims;
4.High risk PDL, high value targets;
5.Sound discretion of compelling reasons therefor [item 3 (b)];
6.Official SC platform;
7.Justices/Judges’ session in courtroom or chambers unless with
permission from PJ, EJ, Court Ad to conduct hearing elsewhere
but within territorial jurisdiction;
8.Unless part of record, evidence to be served and filed at least
three (3) calendar days before videoconference;
cf. People vs. Sergio and Lacanilao [2019]; San Luis vs.
Rojas [2008].
05/23/19
 Online Video Conferencing Hearing
Other issuances:
AM # 20-12-01-SC, B. 1. – “…within their territorial
jurisdiction... within the court’s judicial region.”
A.C. # 21-2021 dated April 10, 2021 and A.C. # 22-2021
dated April 14, 2021, - “…regardless of their physical
location...” sans prior permission from the Office of the Court
Ad.
Lumpay vs. Moscoso, GR # L-14723, May 29, 1959, 105 Phil. 968 –
“... jurisdiction... is vested in the court, not in the judges…”
cf. caveat: marriage authority – Art. 6, FC – parties to appear
personally before solemnizing officer, Art. 7, FC – “Any
incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s
jurisdiction; Art. 8, FC – “... Chambers of the judge or in
open court, ... And not elsewhere” except in articulo mortis,
remote places in Art. 29, or upon parties’ sworn written
request.

05/23/19
 Rule 128 – General Provisions
Section 1, Rule 128 – cf. Section 1823, Code of Civil Procedure
of California.

Section 3, Rule 128

Integration of the 1987 Constitution

People vs. Marti [193 SCRA 57;64;66-68 (1991)]; Yrasuegui vs.

Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008;
People vs. Mendoza [1999], People vs. Maqueda [1995]
cf. Pimentel vs. LEB [2019 FN 222, citing Guzman vs. NU]
Waterous Drug Corporation vs. NLRC [280 SCRA 735;747
(1997)].

Rules 101-104, 401-403, FRE.

 Rule 128 – General Provisions

Article 17, GDPR – right to be forgotten

Section 16 (8)(d), RA 10173 [2012];

Google LLC vs. CNIL [2019]

NT1 & NT2 vs. Google LLC [2018]

Google vs. Spain [2014]

Pollo vs. David [2011]

05/23/19
 Rule 128 – Basic Concepts
Assertion vs. Factual Issue vs. Legal Issue
cf. Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC [2019]
Jabalde vs. People [2016]
Ha Datu Tawahig vs. Lapinid [2019] – power over legal issue
Southern Hemisphere vs. ATC [2010]
Factum Probans vs. Factum Probandum
Evidence vs. Proof
Evidence vs. Weight
cf. People vs. Moner [2018 after FN 27] – breach of S21 RA
9165 affects weight rather than admissibility.
Tan, Jr. vs. Hosana [2016] – problem over a void document
Dytianquin vs. Dytianquin [120720, FN37] – unsatisfactory
marriage is not a void marriage.

Tests for admissibility of Evidence: Relevant, Competent,

Material, etc.

05/23/19
 Rule 128 – Basic Concepts
Section 21, RA 9165 – chain of custody rule
RA 10640 - approved 071514 – 3 witness to 2 witness rule
[elected public official, NPS, or media]
Cases:
Time vs. People 031521 [FNs 5-6]– drug itself as corpus
delicti and 4 links for chain of custody.
Mascariola vs. People 100720 [FNs 24,38-39] – chain of
custody for identity of dangerous drug; justifiable ground for
lapse expects factual explanation and can't be presumed.
People vs. Vargas 090720 – Room 319 arrest and witnesses
summoned; preserved integrity of drug.
People vs. Romy Lim [2018] – strict guidelines
People vs. Garcia 100720 [FN 45] [People vs. Leano, 072820
[FNs 58,59], People vs. Sood [2018] – witnesses must be
present during arrest.
People vs. Briones [2016] - indiscriminate firing and
subsequent arrest for shabu.
05/23/19
 Rule 128 – Basic Concepts
Section 21, RA 9165

People vs. Bucotan [120220] – marking, for

segregation, after seizure as starting point in
custodial link at the place of arrest.

cf. People vs. De la Victoria [2018 FNs 46-47,

citing People vs. Dahil at FN 36] – marking
distinct from physical inventory and photograph;
not found in S 21 RA 9165.

People vs. Retada [2019 FN 27] – 2 elected

officials, like councilors, insufficient.

05/23/19
 Rule 128 – Basic Concepts
Section 21, RA 9165: extenuating circumstances or justification for
deviation

a)Time is of the essence:

People vs. Romy Lim – “…time is of the essence and the arrest
and/or seizure is/are not planned, arranged or scheduled in
advance.”

b) The law does not require the impossible:

Dungo vs. People [2015 after FN 93] – the law does not require
the impossible (lex non cognit ad impossibilia) like: “Secrecy and
silence are common characterizations of the dynamics of hazing. To
require the prosecutor to indicate every step of the planned initiation
rite in the information at the inception of the criminal case, when
details of the clandestine hazing are almost nil, would be an arduous
task, if not downright impossible…”;
Biraogo vs. Phil. Truth Commission [2010 after FN 91]: “... physical
and legal impossibility…” of “... the unfeasibility of investigating
almost a century's worth of graft cases…”
05/23/19
 Rule 128 – Basic Concepts
Doctrines:
a) Conditional Admissibility
cf. 3 Wigmore 2468,2470, 1 Wigmore 43 [1904];
Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix [1929]; Sec. 39, Rule 132,
De la Torre vs. CA
cf. Weissenberger and Duane, 59: initial evidence
on swaying automobile in a negligence case
dependent on subsequent evidence of defendant’s
participation in possible tort.
b) Multiple Admissibility
cf. People vs. Yatco [1955]
c) Curative Admissibility – American, English,
Massachusettes; cf. Sec. 17, Rule 132.
cf. Rules 104 (b), 105 FRE
05/23/19
 Rule 129 – What need not be proved
[judicial notice, judicial admission, presumption]
a) Section 1, Rule 129
insertion of National Government
Elbanbuena Case [2018] – S100, RA 10951 [2017]
cf. allow evidence for or against judicial notice?
Section 3, Rule 129
stages of judicial notice, initiative, extent of hearing.
cf. presentation of information or evidence?
FASAP vs. PAL [2018] – forego evidence of audited statements re
financial quagmire in rehabilitation
Herrera vs. Bollos [2002] – rental value
Land Bank vs. Honeycomb Farms [2012] – nature of land
Silkair vs. CIR [2010] – present original
b) Section 4, Rule 129 c) Secs. 2-3, Rule 131
imputed admission not made
cf. Rule 201, FRE.
 Rule 129 – judicial notice
Republic vs. Apex Mining Co., Inc., GR # 220828 10720
FN79 – administrative agency’s power of judicial notice over
facts within its special competence.
Anonymous Complaint vs. Judge Pinlac 092220 FN12:
judicial notice of a Judge’s demise; administrative liability is
personal and extinguished by death; heirs should not be
unduly punished by their payment of fine, forfeiture of death
and survivorship benefits.
Mariano vs. G.V. Florida Transit 091620 FN39: judicial notice
of gross negligence and disregard of public safety by
passenger bus drivers.
Mendoza vs. People 091420 FNs17-19: there can be judicial
notice of child victim’s age in acts of lasciviousness if of
tender age and obvious from physical appearance.
Republic vs. Sundiam 082720 FN19: judicial notice of the
transfer of Clark Air Base to the BCDA due to Proclamation #
163, Series of 1993.
05/23/19
 Rule 129 – judicial notice
Gabrillo, et al. vs. Heirs of De Pastor [2019 FN 18] – no
judicial notice of assessed or fair market value.
Republic vs. Provincial Government of Palawan [2018] –
extent of territorial boundary of LGU.

Suzuki vs.OSG, 090220, FNs54-55: prove foreign judgment or

law as a fact.
cf. Nullada vs. Civil Registrar of Manila [2019] – allege and
prove foreign law.

Republic vs. Manalo [2018] - second paragraph, Article

26, FC construed:
“… a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the
alien spouse...”
Galapon vs. Republic [012220] – irrespective of
conformity of Filipino spouse.
cf. Kondo vs. Civil Registrar General, 030420: liberality in
foreign divorce in a mixed marriage involving a Filipino.
05/23/19
S

Rule 129 – judicial notice

Second paragraph, Section 2, Art. 12, 1987 Constitution - “The
State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters,
territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and
enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.”
cf. Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Volume 3,
August 25, 1986, R.C.C. No. 65:
“MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: I just want to call attention to the fact that the waters within
the economic zone are part of the high seas. The exclusive economic zone refers
to the exploitation of the seabed. The waters above that portion form part of the
high seas and are subject to the general principles of international law.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, we agree with this construction by the
Supreme Court's Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Let that be on record.”

cf. Magallona vs. Ermita, G.R. #187167, 081611, FNs23,26:

“UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of
territory…Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS III,
and are instead governed by the rules on general international law."
 S4, Rule 129 – judicial vs. S27, Rule 130 – extra-judicial admission
No need for personal knowledge, nor verbal precision-
Wigmore, Gilbert, McCormick, Weissenberger and Duane;
“self-harming” or “self-disserving”- Best

Wigmore’s Theory on judicial admission: 29A Am Jur 136 –

waiver; substitute for legal evidence; cf. Heirs of Sps.
Montevilla vs. Sps. Vallena [2019]; Saldana vs. Spouses
Niamatali [2018 FN 15] – incontrovertible

Effects of evidence to fortify or denigrate a judicial

admission
cf. Investment and Underwriting Corporation v.
Comprotonics [1990], Saraum vs. People [2013], People vs.
Tripoli [2017], People vs. Gayon [2019]

Qualified judicial admission - cf. Bitong vs. CA [1998];

cf. Greenleaf – consider entire context; CIR vs. Avon
Products [2018] – consider totality of evidence
05/23/19
 Rule 129 – judicial admission
Regala vs. Manila Hotel Corp.,100520 FN47: “... [p]oints of law,
theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the
lower court x x x need not be considered by a reviewing court, as
they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic
considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule."
Republic vs. Estate of Menzi [2012] – proof contrary to admission
must be ignored, irrespective of objection

Theory of Adoptive Admission

cf. Estrada vs. Desierto [2001] – conduct or inability to refute.
Republic vs. Kenrich [2006] - forms: expression of
concurrence with another, repetition of another’s utterance,
inability to refute an assertion, written conformity with statement
of another

Impermissible Admissions – Section 1, Rule 34, Arts. 48,60,

FC, Arts. 2034,2035, NCC.
05/23/19
 Rule 129 – judicial admission
Forms of admission in general – oral, written, omission.
People vs. Pagal 092920 plea of guilt to a capital offense,
S3 R116, three-fold duties of the Judge; breach.

31 C.J.S. – implied from conduct [4 Martin, page 50]

cf. Logrosa vs. Sps. Azares [2019] – expression of an

intention.
Fact Finding Investigation Bureau OMB vs. Miranda [2019]
– admission by silence.
cf. Section 33, Rule 130.
Negative pregnant – People vs. Adalia [2020]

Declaration against interest – Sec. 40, Rule 130; Nuñez vs.

Moises-Palma [2019 FN 74]
statement in exculpation requires corroboration [29A Am
Jur 166]
05/23/19
 Rule 129 – judicial admission
a) pre-trial: [Sec. 2, Rule 118; Secs. 4,7, Rule 18]

Fule vs. CA [1988];

People vs. Likiran [2014] - waiver
In Re: Justice Badoy, etc. [2003]

b) trial: [Sec. 7, Rule 30; Sec. 5, Rule 10 – conform

to evidence]
People vs. Magayon 091620 FNs58,61: an open
court admission is a judicial admission; extra-judicial
confession and admission on counter-affidavit
admissible.

Collado vs. Hernando [1988] – partial stipulations

People vs. Hernandez [1996]
05/23/19
 Rule 129 – judicial admission
Effect of an Amended Pleading: [Ascano-Cupino vs.
Pacific Redhouse Corp., 082615, FNs57-58; Sec. 8,
Rule 10 – “… may be offered in evidence...”]; cf.
Sec. 27, Rule 130,Secs. 34-35, Rule 132.
Judicial or extra-judicial?
a) Justice Regalado’s view – judicial
b) Jones – extra-judicial

Ching vs. Court of Appeals [2000], Director of Lands vs. CA

[1991] – “…Pleadings that have been amended disappear
from the record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to
be judicial admissions. While they may nonetheless be
utilized against the pleader as extra-judicial admissions, they
must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in
evidence. 21…"
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Real Evidence

Hughes, 178 [1907] – autopsy, or evidence of one’s

senses, as the “strongest possibility...”

Sison vs. People [1995]

People vs. Moreno [2020], People vs. Nuñez [2017]

– totality of circumstances test for a picture; avoid
impermissible suggestion on identification.

People vs. Sapla [2020] – totality of circumstances test on

probable cause re: tip in a drug case – SCOTUS

People vs. Ramos [2020] – drug itself as corpus delicti

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Real Evidence
Chain of Custody for Authentication [grenade]:
✔ People vs. Olarte [031119, FNs 108,113-115]:
a. No specific domestic rule of evidence of
testimonial sponsorhip for authentication, unlike FRE;
b. Historically, chain of custody applied to illicit
drug substances;
c. Such rule of authentication has not yet been
extended to other substances or objects;
d. If unique, readily identifiable, resistant to change,
testimonial evidence will suffice for authentication.
contra: ✔ People vs. Velasco [081919, FNs 14-22]:
chain of custody rule applied.

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 2, Rule 130 – concept of documentary
evidence – documents as evidence consists of
writings, recordings, photographs or any material
containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures,
symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of
written expression offered as proof of their contents.
Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored
images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.
cf. Rule 1001, FRE – to include every written
memorial in any form; Rule 1002, FRE – necessity for
original to prove contents.
Best Evidence Rule a misnomer; Hughes, 231 [1907]
– modern view limited to writings
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Dumont, 198:

Written Evidence is an assertion, expressed in

the permanent and visible characters of language.

It is oral evidence, presented in a different form,

and addressed to a different sense. Language is
nothing but the art of painting words and speaking
to the eye.

Jones, [1908], 636

Documents as public or private;

cf. Section 19, Rule 132.
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule
Secs. 2-3, Rule 130

Macalinao vs. Austria [2005] – authenticate photo

and it will be a faithful representation of the subject.

Problem on photograph of:

a) a document – real, documentary, or testimonial?

i.e. medical record
b) an object – real, documentary, or testimonial?
i.e. stolen art object
Hughes, 230-231 [1907] – inscription on chattel
to identify it.
The purpose?
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule

2020 FRE - Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original

An original writing, recording, or photograph is
required in order to prove its content unless these
rules or a federal state provides otherwise.

Weissenberger and Duane, 717:

Introduction of confiscated substance is not
required to prove nature, identity, or status of the
substance.
[citing Guam vs. Ojeda, 758 F.2d 403 (9th Cir.
1985) – like picture of stolen jewelry, in lieu of item
itself, since Best Evidence Rule does not apply to
other physical evidence]
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule

Heirs of Prodon vs. Heirs of Alvarez, 090213,

FN19: applicable only if the contents or terms of a
writing in issue; external facts are excluded:

“...But the evils of mistransmission of critical facts, fraud,

and misleading inferences arise only when the issue relates to
the terms of the writing. Hence, the Best Evidence Rule
applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue. When
the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts,
such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing,
without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot
be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence may be
admitted even without accounting for the original."

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule

Sections 3, Rule 130 - original document rule –

includes writing, recording, photograph or other
record
Section 3 (b) – adverse party’s control … or the
original cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures.

Section 3 (e) – when the original is not closely-

related to a controlling issue. [collateral facts rule,
or parallel facts; Hughes, 221 [1907]]
cf. Rule 1001 (a)-(d), FRE
cf. Section 31, Rule 132 – alteration
Hughes, 205 [1907] – written instruments.

05/23/19
 Rule 130 Section 3 – Original Document Rule
Heirs of Spouses Montevilla vs. Spouses Vallena 120519, FN36:
prove existence of original prior to secondary evidence.
Estrada vs Desierto [2001] – forego original if contents not bona
fide impugned;
cf. Jones, [1908], 249.

Present original of falsified document?

a) US vs. Gregorio [1910]; cf. CSC vs. Dampilag 061020 FN54:
best evidence is the forged original itself.
b) Borje vs. SB [1983]
c) Pacasum vs. People [2009] – notice to accused to produce
original; Jones’ view
OMB vs. Santidad 120519 after FN44: falsification of public
document is an intentional crime and can not be committed by
reckless imprudence.
Collateral Facts Rule:
De Leon vs. People [2018] – xerox copy of buy bust
money;People vs. Tandoy [1990]
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule

Section 4 – original of a document [overhaul;

intended to strike a balance between original
and accurate copy]
a) An “original” of a document is the
document itself or any counterpart intended to
have the same effect by a person executing or
issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes
the negative or any print therefrom. If data is
stored in a computer or similar device, any
printout or other output readable by sight or
other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately, is an “original.”
cf. Rule 1001 (d), FRE
Section 10, RA 8792
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule

Section 4. Original of a document

b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by

the same impression as the original, or from the
same matrix, or by means of photography,
including enlargements and miniatures, or by
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent
techniques which accurately produce the original.
cf. Rule 1001 (e), FRE
De Vera vs. Aguilar [1993], FN6: account for all
originals before resort to secondary evidence of an
original.
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule
Section 4. Original Document.
c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as
an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as
to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the
circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit
the duplicate in lieu of the original.
cf. Rule 1003, FRE
Lilly, 417-418 FN2 – ... "Given reliability of
modern means of technology... "duplicate"
encompasses photocopies, electronic re-recordings,
chemical reproductions, and other reliable means of
making accurate copies."
Section 2, Rule 4, Rule on Electronic Evidence:
copy akin to original, if an accurate reproduction of
the original.
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule

People vs. XXX, 100720 FNs 46-47: xerox copy of victim’s

birth certificate, as a public record, is admissible to prove
minority:

“Under Rule 130, Section 3, paragraph (d) of the Revised

Rules of Court, the presentation of the original document may
be dispensed with when the same is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. In
People v. Cayabyab, the Court ruled that a photocopy of the
rape victim's birth certificate is admissible to prove her age
because its original is a public record in the custody of the
local civil registrar, a public officer. The trial court and the
Court of Appeals, therefore, did not err in admitting in
evidence the photocopy of complainant's certificate of live birth
to prove her minority.”

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule
RCBC Bankard vs. Oracion, Jr., 061919, FNs45-48: electronic
document as functional equivalent of original:

“… Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, an electronic document

is regarded as the functional equivalent of an original document
under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately. As
defined, "electronic document" refers to information or the
representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes
of written expression, described or however represented, by which a
right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact
may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically;
and it includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or
output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects
the electronic data message or electronic document. The term
"electronic document" may be used interchangeably with "electronic
data message” and the latter refers to information generated, sent,
received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means.”
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule;
Parol Evidence Rule

Section 7 – summaries vis-à-vis Section 3 (c), Rule

130
cf. Rules 1006, FRE;
Republic vs. Mupas [2015] – availability of originals
for inspection.

Section 10 – Parol Evidence Rule; verified pleading

cf. Cruz vs. CA [1990] – receipt

Western Mindanao Lumber vs. Medalle [1977];
Cruz vs. JM Tuason [1977] – exclusive list in Art.
1403 (2) NCC.
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Testimonial Evidence
Wigmore’s components for testimonial assertion,
either judicial or extra-judicial:
cf. 1 Wigmore, 585-587.
a) Observation;
b) Recollection;
c) Communication
People vs. Sota [2017] – age inconsequential
Forum: People vs. Sergio and Lacanilao [2018]; San
Luis vs. Hon. Rojas [2008]
Child Witness – Section 4 (a), Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness [AM # 00-4-07
approved on 112100;
Remote Appearance of high-risk inmates or
with contagious disease per Video Conference
Technology [AM # 19-05-06-SC dated 062519]
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Testimonial Evidence
Section 21, Rule 130, 1989 – deleted insanity or
immaturity vs. Section 21, Rule 130, 2019 power of
perception:

(1) observation, (2) recollection, (3) communication

Dumont’s 2 witnesses – perceiving or deposing

cf. Marcos vs. Heirs of Navarro, Jr., [2013] –

restrictive list of disqualified witnesses.

Section 6, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness

- Child presumed competent to testify
cf. People vs. Golidan [2018]
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 22 – Personal Knowledge; Rule 602, FRE
vs. Section 37, Rule 802, FRE – Hearsay; dichotomy

Rillera vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc., 062320,

FN57: personal knowledge of one’s medical
condition based on doctor’s diagnosis and
prescription of maintenance medicine.

cf. Dumont - Original vs. Inoriginal [derived]

cf. Arriola vs. People [022420 FN 23-24]

cf. People vs. Valdez [2000]

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Section 23 – “… against...”; restricted to adverse

spousal testimony.

cf.Alvarez vs. Ramirez [2005] – strained

relations; arson:
“At this point, it bears emphasis that the State,
being interested in laying the truth before the courts
so that the guilty may be punished and the innocent
exonerated, must have the right to offer the direct
testimony of Esperanza, even against the objection
of the accused, because (as stated by this Court in
Francisco), "it was the latter himself who gave rise
to its necessity."
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Section 24 – expanded privileged communication:

a) attorney - reasonable belief; scope

b) physician, psychotherapist - belief;
[overhaul];
cf. Lim vs. CA [1992]

Chan vs. Chan [2013] – wife’s subpoena prior to

trial of husband’s medical record vis-a-vis Rule 27
for nullity of marriage.

c) minister – belief;any communication

[overhaul]
d) public officer – tenure [Art. 203, RPC]
05/23/19
e) third person
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 24 (b) Exceptions to Attorney-Client Privilege:

a) Furtherance of a crime or fraud;

cf. People vs. Sandiganbayan [1997]
Cleary, McCormick on Evidence, 199 – a
perversion of the privilege; conspiracy
b) Claimants through same deceased client;
c) Breach of duty by lawyer or client – a self-defense
concept;
d) Document attested by the lawyer;
Hughes, 188 [1907] – attest is to affirm execution.
e) Joint Clients

Section 26 – trade secrets

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – other privileges
cf. Marcos vs. Heirs of Navarro, Jr. [2013] –
conciliation in labor disputes;

Almonte vs. Vasquez [1995] – presumptive

privilege, state secrets, military, diplomatic and
similar matters, judicial deliberations.

Section 6, RA 9194 – covered institution in AMLA

cases;

Articles 290-292, Revised Penal Code;

RA 11458 – journalists.

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 28 – compromise negotiations inadmissible;
plea bargaining
Exceptions:
statement of independent fact
cf.L.M. Handicraft vs. CA [1990], Trans-Pacific vs. CA [1994]
a) discoverable evidence or offered for another
purpose
b) proof of bias of a witness;
c) negativing idea of undue delay;
d) proof of obstruction of criminal investigation or
prosecution.
cf. Rules 408-410, FRE
 Rule 130, Section 28 plea bargain
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo 081517 – S23, RA 9165
unconstitutional
cf. Secs. 1 (f),2, R116, item # III,8(d)(i),
RGCTCC.

People vs. Reafor, GR # 247575, 111620 FNs 20,28

S5 to S12, RA 9165: basic requisites for a valid plea
bargaining:
a)Consent of offended party;
b)Consent of the prosecutor;
c)Plea of guilt to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the offense charged; and
d)Court approval.
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Res Inter Alios Acta Concept

Section 30 – Admission by co-partner or agent –

authority is expected for a statement.
cf. Rule 801 (2)(c), FRE.

Section 31 – Admission by conspirator – in

furtherance of the conspiracy; cf. People vs. Enero
[2019 FN 32], Duque vs. OMB [2019 FN 43-44]

Section 32 – Admission by privies – predecessor’s

admission over property, while holding the title,
can affect a successor
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Hearsay Evidence
Section 37 – Hearsay is a statement other than one made
by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered
to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement
is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct
of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an assertion.
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise
provided in these Rules.
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the
trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination
concerning the statement, and the statement is (a)
inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given
under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial,
hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition; (b)
consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to
rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of
recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or (c) one
of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her.
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 37 – Hearsay
visible vs. invisible witness for an assertion
First paragraph – visible witness
cf. Hughes, 1,51 [1907] – “… someone other than the
witness...”
Second paragraph – invisible who became visible
Situations: inconsistent, consistent, identification.
cf. Rules 801-807, FRE
Independently Relevant Statement
Hughes, 53 [1907] “… other than as a testimonial
assertion...”; Arriola vs. People [022420 FN 26]
 Rule 130
Second paragraph, Section 37, Rule 130 as to
pre-trial statements of declarant:

a) Prior inconsistent statement – to impeach, not

truth of assertion;

b) Prior Consistent statement – for rehabilitation;

c) Identification – apparent superiority of

previous from current identification [Lilly, 173-
175, citing US vs. Owens (1988)].

Weissenberger and Duane, 450 – “memory

hinges on recency” [citing 2 McCormick, $251.]
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Hearsay Evidence
Concepts:
Statement – an oral, written, or nonverbal conduct coeval with
an assertion
cf. Rule 801 (a), FRE
Declarant – person who asserts a fact
cf. Rule 801 (b), FRE.

Components:

a) Declarant’s out-of-court statement, and

b) Offered by another as an assertion
cf. Rule 801 (c), FRE.

Dumont, 193,202,204 – two (2) witnesses as narrators:

existence of deposing witness is certain but the original witness
is in doubt.
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Sections 38-50 – Exceptions to Hearsay
Section 38 - People vs. Ivero 110320; People vs. De
Joya [1991].
Section 39 – statement of deceased or insane;
Bentham’s criticism of DMS: “blind and brainless”;
Stephen, 68-69 [1896], citing Article 38, entries made
in party’s book prior to his demise or insanity about
unpaid debt, and executor, administrator or guardian,
testifies about it.
Sanson vs. CA [2003, FN 29] – incompetency refers
to testimonial evidence, hence, documentary evidence
like a check is excluded by the proscription.
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 40 – declaration against interest;
Corroborative evidence in exculpatory statement.

Agpalo, 201, citing Fuentes, Jr. vs. CA, 253 SCRA

430 [1996]; Cequena vs. Folantige [2000]-
availability of declarant precludes admissibility of
declaration unless for impeachment.

cf. Sections 27,33,34, Rule 130, Estrada vs.

Desierto [2001];
cf. Rule 804 (b), (3) (B), FRE.

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 41 – act or declaration of pedigree; adoption,
intimate association;

Alanis III vs. CA, GR # 216425, 111120 FN58: Art. 364

NCC construed – legitimate/legitimated children shall
principally use the surname of the father; it does not mean
exclusively.
cf. People vs. Barasina [1994] – S12, A13 Consti
construed – “... counsel preferably of his own choice.”; S34,
R130; RA 7438.

Section 44 – People vs. XXX [2018] – event speaking

through declarant, borne of spontaneity.

Section 45 – business record; regularity [Hughes, 118,

121 [1907]]; “shop-book rule”; if entrant available, a
memorandum to refresh memory.
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Section 49 – former testimony or deposition –

out of the country or can’t be found therein,
unavailable, or unable to testify.

Section 50 – residual exception

cf. Dallas County vs. Commercial Union

Assurance
preconditions: Trustworthy, Material, Probative,
best interest, notice

cf. Rules 803-807, FRE.

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 52 – opinion of expert witness –
“education..."

Section 54 – Character Evidence –

Weissenberger and Duane - propensity rule or
behavioral inclination.

transposed evidence of good character of witness

from Section 14, Rule 132.

testimony as to reputation, opinion, or specific

conduct

cf. Sec. 6, RA 8505 [1998]; Sec. 30, Rule on

Examination of Child Witness [2000]
Rules 404-405, FRE
 Rule 131 – Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence
and Presumptions
Basic Points:
Issue arises due to factual assertion by proponent and it is
contested by the adverse party;

✔ no onus if no issue [S11, R8] except:

a)S3 (b) (3), R7, S4 (c), R7, S6 (a)(b)(c), R7 – fortify
pleading.
b)S3, R8 – Default;
c)S3, R15 – Motion;
d)S1, S4, R129 – judicial notice, judicial admission;
e)S1, R34 – marital aspects;
f)S3, R46, S1, R65 – certiorari;
g)S7, R70, S6 II, RRSP – no Answer;
cf. Fairland Knitcraft Corporation vs. Po [2016]
h)S14, 2016 SMC;
i) S8, R114, 10 (b), RGCTCC – bail in capital offenses.
05/23/19
 Rule 131 – Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence and
Presumptions
Section 1 – burden of evidence; create or refute a
prima facie case; shift
cf. Frabelle Properties Corporation vs. AC Enterprises, Inc.
110320 [FN 61]
Section 27 (c), R.A. 11479 – onus of applicant to prove a
terrorist and an outlawed organization or association for a
proscription order.
cf. Republic vs. Sereno [2018]; People vs. Quijano [2020] –
animus possidendi of drug

cf. Sec. 3 (3), Rule 7, Sec. 4 (c), Rule 7, Sec. 6 (a),(b),(c),

Rule 7 – fortify factual averments; second paragraph, Section
1, Rule 8, 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure

“If a cause of action or defense relied on is based on law, the

pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him or her shall
be clearly and concisely stated.”
 Rule 131 – Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence
and Presumptions
People vs. Dereco [120220 FN 20] – every element
of offense must be alleged on Info before perdition;
Art. 266-A (1) vs. (2), RPC.

People vs. Solar [2019] - Duties of

Prosecutors/Judges
Essence of Guidelines:
1. Aver offense, aggravating, qualifying or attendant
circumstances with sufficient particularity with ultimate facts;
2. Attach Resolutions to Information; and
3. Furnish the accused with a copy of the Resolution.
4. Defect on Information vulnerable to amendment, quashal,
bill of particulars, or waiver.

05/23/19
 Rule 131 – Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence
and Presumptions

Section 5 – presumption in civil actions and

proceedings
Burden of evidence of going forward with
evidence weightier policy for inconsistent
presumptions; neutral effect

Section 6 – presumption of fact against accused in

criminal cases; establish basic fact beyond
reasonable doubt and with presumed fact follows
basic fact.

Art. 217, RPC; cf. Rules 301-302, FRE.

05/23/19
 Rule 131 - Presumption
Fuertes vs. Senate GR # 208162 010720: no
constitutional override of presumed innocence
from proof of presence during hazing as prima
facie evidence of participation in S14 par. 4,
Hazing Law [RA 8049, as amended by RA 11053].

Hizon vs. CA [1996]:

no constitutional objection; presumed innocence vs.
presumed culpability.
Sec. 33, PD 704 – possession of explosives on a boat;
prima facie inference
Private Hospitals Association vs Medialdea [2018] –
presumed medical malpractice; Sec. 5, RA 10932 –
premised on breach of statutory norm.
Weissenberger and Duane: aversion of applying Rule
301 FRE to criminal cases.
05/23/19
 Rule 131 - Presumption

Effects of Evidence to a Presumption:

a) Thayer’s view: Bursting Bubble Theory

b) Morgan’s view or Pennsylvania Rule

caveat: last par., S17, SC AM # 07-9-12-SC dated

092507 Writ of Amparo – presumption of regularity
in the performance of official can hardly be invoked
by a public official to evade responsibility or liability.
cf. Sanchez vs. Darroca, 101519, FNs 73-75:
extraordinary diligence in performance of duties
expected of public officers in amparo case.

05/23/19
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
Dumont: a) complete and b) accurate
Section 6 – ‘… on any relevant matter...’; English rule;
exceptions: hostile, adverse, accused [S13, R132, S1 (d), R115].

Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony

cf. Kim Liong vs. People [2018];Sps. De la Cruz vs. Papa IV
[2010] – death prior to cross of deponent; striking out;
inadmissible exhibits.

Section 12 – impeachment by final conviction of crime: [1]

penalty in excess of one year, [2] moral turpitude irrespective of
penalty, except: [a] amnesty or [b] annulment of conviction.
cf. Section 13 – impeachment of own witness
 Rule 132 – parameters of cross exam
Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. vs. CA [032996 after FN 25]: prefaced
cross-examination

“… The best that counsels could have done, and which they did, under the
circumstances was to preface the cross-examination with objection...
xxx
"ATTY. CORNAGO: Before we proceed, we would like to make of record
our continuing objection in so far as questions and answers propounded to
Pedro Revilla dated February 27, 1989, in so far as questions would illicit (sic)
answers which would be violative of the best evidence rule in relation to Art.
1403. I refer to questions nos. 8, 13, 16 and 19 of the affidavit of this witness
which is considered as his direct testimony." (T.S.N., June 29, 1990, p. 2)
"ATTY. CORNAGO: May we make of record our continued objection on
the testimony which is violative of the best evidence rule in relation to Art.
1403 as contained in the affidavit particularly questions Nos. 12, 14, 19 and
20 of the affidavit of Alfonso Lim executed on February 24, 1989. . . ." (T.S.N.,
June 28, 1990, p. 8).”
Counsels should not be blamed and, worst, penalized for taking the path
of prudence by choosing to cross-examine the witnesses instead of keeping
mum and letting the inadmissible testimony in "affidavit form" pass without
challenge…"
05/23/19
 Rule 132 – Parameters of cross exam

Article 1403 (2), NCC

cf. Municipality of Hagonoy vs. Dumdum [2010] –
invocation of unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds as a
defense is confirmation of the existence of the contract itself.

Sta. Maria, Jr., 645 [2017] – Article 1403 (2) is an exclusive

list [citing Western Mindanao Lumber Co. vs. Medalla, 79 SCRA
708, Cruz vs. J.M. Tuason, 76 SCRA 543].

Article 1405, NCC – ratification by failure to object to oral

evidence, or acceptance of benefits.
4 Paras, Civil Code, 795, [1994] – cross-examination of the
witness on oral contract a waiver [citing Abrenica vs. Gonda
and De Gracia, 34 Phil. 739].

05/23/19
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence

Secs. 11-14, Rule 132 – Impeachment Modes

contradictory evidence, prior inconsistent
statement, conviction by final judgment of a crime.
People vs. Buduhan [2008] – legally
impermissible to air inconsistencies only on appeal;
Paray, Jr. et al. vs. Chua, et al., [111120] – points
of law not aired below, forfeited on appeal.
People vs. Sambahon [2010] – necessity for
laying of the predicate; cf. XXX vs. People
[111120]
4 Martin 534-535 [58 Am Jur 395], Robinson
376 [1910] – a witness can be impeached by
another via bad character.
05/23/19
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
Section 15 – exclusion of witnesses - sua sponte or on motion,
except: [a] party a natural person, [b] juridical entity’s
apoderado, [c] essential to a party’s cause, [d] person
authorized by statute. cf. Rule 615, FRE

Trial in Isolation: [Sec. 21, Rule 119; Sec. 2, Rule 135]

cf. Garcia vs. Domingo [1973] – chamber trial.
Child Witness:
cf. Genil vs. Rivera [2006]
Extradition : [Sec. 8 (1), PD 1069]

Doctrine of Inordinate Delay:

cf. People vs. SB [2019] – 3 year delay hardly vexatious.
Guerrero vs. CA [1996] – Sec. 16, Art. 3, Constitution –
dispatch beyond trial period.

05/23/19
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
Republic vs. Unabia [021119 FN 18] – public documents as
self-authenticating.

Section 19 (c) – public documents under treaties and

conventions by reciprocity: Apostille Convention, effective
May 14, 2019 – abolished consularization [diplomatic or
consular legalisation] for foreign public documents.

cf. Hague Service Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial

Documents [091120, effective 100120]

Section 24 – proof of official record: value of certificate

as prima facie evidence of due execution and genuineness
of the document, save for a treaty or convention which
abolished such requirement.
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
Sections 34-40 - oral offer, oral objection, oral ruling
removal of written offer, objection, ruling – item 13 (c),
RGCTCC,2nd par., S2, Rule 15,S6, Rule 30 vis-à-vis S38,R132.
Bangayan vs. People [091620 FNs 71-76] - need for formal
offer; RA 7610; 2 kids borne of relationship; best interest.
objection for want of offer
cf. People vs. Java [1993], Catuira vs. CA [1994],
People vs. Moralde [2003] – court’s authority to bar an
immaterial question.
irresponsive answer, anticipatory answer, transcends time limit
for testimony, narrative testimony
Self-serving Doctrine – excludes court-room declaration: Cuison
vs. CA [1993], Hernandez vs. CA [1993]
Narrative testimony: People vs. Calixtro [1991]
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence

Ruling: Section 38, Rule 132

a) Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix Insurance [1930] –

borderline evidence or “...for whatever it is worth."
b) Lorenzo Shipping Corp. vs. NPC [2015] –
admissibility distinct from weight
c) Uniwide Sales vs Titan-Ikeda [2006]; People vs
Ignas [2003] – only for the specified offer.
d) Chamberlayne: reiterate strike out re: conditional
admissibility; De la Torre vs. CA;
e) Echaus vs CA [1990] – Sec. 5 (g), Rule 135 –
inherent judicial power to rectify orders; cf. Sec. 6,
R51, FASAP vs. PAL [2018 FNs 49-52].
05/23/19
 Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
Section 4 – circumstantial evidence
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences
4 Jones 1860 – pertinence of circumstantial evidence to a civil
case; Robinson 683 [1910] – “… equally conclusive with direct
evidence...”
Poe-Llamanzares vs. Comelec [2016] – pieces of circumstantial
evidence:
a)Statistics;
b) Fact of abandonment as an infant in church;
c) Typical Filipino features;
d) Disputable inference that things happened according to ordinary
course of nature and habits of life.
MCC Ind. Sales Corp. vs. Ssangyong Corp. [2007] – perfected
contract of sale from other relevant evidence.
 Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Bangayan vs. People, Vide, Art. 1318 (1), NCC consent in

civil law is distinct from sexual consent in criminal law; in
RA 7610, consent borne of sweetheart theory may be
material to a child between 12 to 18 years of age; Malto
ambiguity clarified; Tulagan and Monroy reiterated.

Special circumstances indicative of consent in

Bangayan:

1) Relationship led to two children;

2) No coercion, intimidation nor influence per given facts;
3) No testimony from the alleged complainant who
executed an Affidavit of Desistance;
4) Parties planned to get married.

05/23/19
 Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Section 5 – weight accorded to expert witness:

factors:
a) Sufficient facts or data;
b) Reliable principles and methods;
c) Application of principles and methods to facts;
d) Other factors helpful to determination;
cf. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, NY vs.
Cuomo 112520 – Free Exercise Clause; COVID-19
restriction.
Daubert vs. Merrel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., - leeway
to judge; non-exhaustive list of factors

cf. Rules 702-706, FRE; Sec. 52, Rule 130.

05/23/19
 Rule 133 – addendum
Art. 9, NCC – Ocampo vs. Enriquez [2017]
Sec. 6, Rule 135 – “… any suitable process or mode
of proceeding may be adopted..."
cf. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. vs. Villarin [2019 FN
53]
Zabal vs. Duterte [2019 after FN 65]
Revilla vs. SB 1st Div [2018 FNs 86-87]
Doctrine of Procedural Void
Go vs. CA [1998]
cf. Wilmon Auto Supply vs. CA [1992], Vda. De Legaspi
vs. Avendano [1977]
Republic vs. Sunvar Realty [2012], Victorias
Milling Co., Inc. vs. CA [2010].
cf. 4th par., S3, R14 caveat : dismissed with prejudice, nullified
proceedings, plaintiff sanctioned for misrepresentation.
05/23/19
 Rule 133 - caveat
1 Moore, A Treatise on Facts or the Weight and
Value of Evidence, 1908, page 62, citing a host of
cases such as Yaggle vs. Allen, 24 N.Y. App. Div. 594;
1 Moore, Vide, page 61 – “… The sea of suspicion has
no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is
without rudder or compass.” [citing Boyd vs.
Glucklich, (C.C.A.), 116 Fed. Rep. 131, per Caldwell,
J.]”; People vs. Cadenas [110518 FN 24]

cf. Lim, Jr. vs. Lintag [120920 FN 12]

Pahkiat, et al. vs. OMB 110320 [FN 53]

 Rule 133 - Equity

Re: Letter of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona… [011221

after FNs 1,40, 42, RA 9946, RA 10154]:

“... Equity is the ink that writes the law and not its
inverse.”
"… Equity is the material that fills in the open spaces
in the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law...”
“... This equity jurisdiction may be invoked despite
applicable relevant laws, if their inflexibility would
inflict injustice in the process. [citing Reyes vs. Lim,
456 Phil. 1 [2003]”
cf. Alanis III vs. CA 111120 FN50: equity utilized in
regard to procedural lapse of law firm.

05/23/19