Day 5 Evidence

Copyright 2021 by Maria Filomena D. Singh (Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, Manila, Philippines). All rights reserved.
Not for commercial use.

HON. MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH
Revised Rules on Evidence
2019 Amendments to the
(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeals

Copyright 2021 by Maria Filomena D. Singh (Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, Manila, Philippines). All rights reserved. Not for commercial use.
Overview of Amendments
• Acknowledged technological advances, and incorporated
developments in law, jurisprudence and international
conventions.
• New/Deleted/Renumbered provisions
• Amendments for gender inclusivity
GENERAL PROVISIONS
RULE 128
Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence
Old Provision Revised Provision

Evidence is admissible when it is Evidence is admissible when relevant
relevant to the issue and is not excluded to the issue and not excluded by the
by law or these rules. (3a) Constitution, the law or these Rules. (3a)
• Relevant Evidence
Relevant evidence is any class of evidence which has 'rational probative

value' to the issue in controversy.
Logic and human experience teach us that OCULAR INSPECTION (NOT
the Certificate of Registration, development permit, license to sell, building
permit, and Condominium Certificate of Title) is the best evidence to prove the
existence or non-existence of condominium units. (OCA v. Judge Lerma, A.M.
No. RTJ-07-2076, October 18, 2010)
• Competent Evidence
Competent evidence is evidence that is not excluded by the

Constitution, the law or the rules.
Marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant evidence. Testimony
of one of the parties to the marriage, or one of the witnesses to the marriage,
or the solemnizing officer, are admissible to prove the fact of marriage. xxx the
best documentary evidence of a marriage is the marriage contract itself. (Uy v.
Spouses Lacsamana, G. R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015)
Admissibility of Evidence is NOT Weight of Evidence
Relevant + Competent = Admissible
(Rule 133)
“The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of
evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.” (Mancol,
Jr. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 204289, November 22, 2017, citing Dela Liana v. Biong,
G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013)
"Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at
all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue."
(Id., citing Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Dumapis, et al., G.R. No. 163210, August 13, 2008)
"Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on
judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.” (Id., citing De Guzman v.
Tumolva, G.R. No. 188072, October 19, 2011)
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
RULE 129
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory

A court shall take judicial notice, without the A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms territorial extent of states, their political history, forms
of government and symbols of nationality, the law of of government and symbols of nationality, the law of
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals, the political constitution and history of and their seals, the political constitution and history of
the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, executive and judicial departments of the National
the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
geographical divisions. (1a) measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)
The phrase “national government of the Philippines” clarifies that the official acts referred to in the
provision are those of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the national government
of the Philippines.
(SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)
A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case, of
facts established in prior proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its own
records of another case between the same parties, of the files of related cases in the
same court, and of public records on file in the same court. Since a copy of the tax
declaration, which is a public record, was attached to the complaint, the same
document is already considered as on file with the court, thus, the court can now take
judicial notice of such. (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 205966, March
2, 2016)
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing mandatory

During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu
on request of a party, may announce its intention to proprio, or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the
take judicial notice of any matter and allow the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.
parties to be heard thereon.
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of
the proper court, on its own initiative or on request any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such
of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (3a)
allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter
is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)
The classification of the land is obviously essential to the valuation of the

subject property, which is the very issue in the present case. The parties should
thus have been given the opportunity to present evidence on the nature of the
property before the lower court took judicial notice of the commercial nature of a
portion of the subject landholdings. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb
Farms, Inc., G.R. No. 166259, November 12, 2012)
• Inclusion of the word “pre-trial” – The court may properly indicate to the parties its intention, or
the parties may request the court, to take judicial notice of a particular matter during pre-trial.
• Use of the word “motion” – The word “motion” is more apt or accurate than “request.”
• Use of the phrase “on the propriety of taking” – The phrase was added to provide clarification on
the purpose of the hearing, i.e., whether the matter involved is a proper subject of a discretionary
judicial notice.
Section 4. Judicial admissions

An admission, verbal or written, made An admission, oral or written, made by a
by a party in the course of the proceedings party in the course of the proceedings in
in the same case does not require proof. the same casem does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only The admission may be contradicted only
by showing that it was made through by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission palpable mistake or that the imputed
was made. (2a) admission was not, in fact, made. (4a)
• Use of the word “oral” – The term “verbal,” as used in the old provision, refers to
the use of words, which can either be oral or written. Thus, the word “oral” is the
more apt term to be used together with the word “written.”
• Use of the phrase “the imputed…was not, in fact, made” – From the Sub-
Committee’s version “that the imputed admission was not made or intended,” the
Rules Committee opted to be more objective, noting that “intended” is a condition
of the mind.
“A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings, (b) during the trial, either
by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial
proceeding. It is well-settled that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the
admitter who is the party himself and binds the person who makes the same, and absent
any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, as in this case, no amount of
rationalization can offset it. Also, in Republic of the Philippines v. De Guzman, citing Alfelor v.
Halasan, this Court held that ‘a party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge
that fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed
with. A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy.’”
(Tan v. People, G.R. No. 218902, October 17, 2016)
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
RULE 130
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
Section 1. Object as evidence
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When as object is relevant to
the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.(1)
Physical evidence ranks higher in hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. When physical evidence runs
counter to witness' testimony, the primacy of the physical evidence must be upheld. In criminal cases xxx
in which the accused stand to lose their liberty if found guilty, the Court has [to] rely principally upon
physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. (PO1 Ocampo v. People, G.R. No. 194129, June 15, 2015)
A person's appearance, as evidence of age (for example, of infancy, or of being under the age of
consent to intercourse), is admissible as object evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the
court. (People v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March 2003)
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2. Documentary evidence

Documents as evidence consist of writing Documents as evidence consist of
or any material containing letters, words, writings, recordings, photographs or any
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of material containing letters, words, sounds,
written expression offered as proof of their numbers, figures, symbols, or their
contents. (n) 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. (n)
• Expanded definition of documentary evidence
• Taken from the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and Rule 1001 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence
(URE)
• The purpose of expanding the definition is to embrace in the broadest possible terms every memorial
that preserves written and spoken language, including recorded sounds
• The inclusion of “photographs include still pictures, stored images, x-ray films, videotapes, and motion
pictures” should be construed as merely exemplary, and NOT exclusive (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern
Evidence, Section 10.2 [1995])
• Photographs as documentary evidence

In Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, 16 November 1995; College Assurance Plan v. Belfrant Development, G.R.
No. 155604, 22 November 2007; People v. Zeta, G.R. No. 178541, 27 May 2008, the Supreme Court allowed
the use of photographs as documentary evidence because they are relevant to the issue and are verified. The
verification need not be made by the photographer himself; it can be made by any other competent witness
who can testify as to its exactness and accuracy.
• Use of the word “videos” instead of “videotapes” – “Videos” is the more modern term
• Use of the word “drawings” – In Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd. (808 F.2d 1316 [9th Cir. 1987]), the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “drawings” were “writings” within the meaning of the best evidence
rule, specifically, Rule 1001, FRE.
1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE
Old Title Revised Title

Best Evidence Rule Original Document Rule
The “Best Evidence Rule” (BER) is a misnomer because it misleadingly suggests that the doctrine applies to all types
of evidence. BER only applies to documents or writings. As such, there is no requirement that parties introduce the best
available evidence bearing on other matters that they seek to prove in court.
The doctrine simply requires that the original be produced when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document
and excludes secondary evidence except where the original is shown to be unavailable or secondary evidence is otherwise
allowed by the rule or statute.
The “Original Document Rule” is thus the more accurate or apt label for the doctrine.
Best Evidence Rule
•With respect to documentary evidence, the best evidence rule applies only when the content of such
document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was
actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best
evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. (Republic v. Spouses Gimenez, G.R.
No. 174673, January 11, 2016; Scunac Corporation v. Sylianteng, G.R. No. 205879, April 23, 2014)
Best Evidence Rule
•The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact contents of a writing are
brought before the court xxx. The rule further acts as an insurance against fraud. Verily, if a party is in
the possession of the best evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its
place, the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes that
its production would expose and defeat. Lastly, the rule protects against misleading inferences resulting
from the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings.
(Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez, G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013)
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of When the subject of inquiry is the contents of
a document, no evidence shall be admissible other a document, writing, recording, photograph or
than the original document itself, except in the other record, no evidence is admissible other than
following cases: the original document itself, except in the
following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court, without bad (a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or
faith on the part of the offeror; cannot be produced in court, without bad faith
on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the (b) When the original is in the custody or under the
control of the party against whom the evidence is control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice; reasonable notice, or the original cannot be
obtained by judicial processes or procedure;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents which cannot be examined in court (b) When the original consists of numerous accounts
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be or other documents which cannot be examined in
established from them is only the general result of the court without great loss of time and the fact sought
whole; and to be established from them is only the general
result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the (d) When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office. (2a) public office.
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a

controlling issue. (3a)
• The additional exception “or the original cannot be obtained by judicial process or procedure” -
• In Philippine National Bank v. Olalia (No. L-8189, 23 March 1956; 98 Phil. 1002, unreported), the Supreme
Court ruled that when the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, as when it is in a foreign
country, secondary evidence is admissible. See also Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China v. Tuliarmo, 51
O.G.5211.
• The additional exception “[w]hen the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue” -
• Known in the US as an exception for “collateral matter,” this amendment is intended to prevent an
overly rigid or technical application of the original document rule. It allows for trial efficiency where the
original is so tangential that its production would add little or nothing to the reliability of the fact-finding
process. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 10.2 [1995])
Section 4. Original of document

(a) The original of the document is one the contents of (a) An “original” of a document is the document itself
which are the subject of inquiry. or any counterpart intended to have the same effect
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed by a person executing or issuing it. An “original” of
at our about the same time, with identical contents, a photograph includes the negative or any print
all such copies are equally regarded as originals. therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of device, any printout or other output readable by
business, one being copied from another at or near sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
the time of the transaction, all the entries are accurately is an “original.”
likewise equally regarded as originals. (3a) (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 reproduce the
original.
(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. (4a)
• The amendment in Section 4 (a) does not modify the meaning of the existing rule that
“[t]he original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of
inquiry.”
• Even as amended, the term “original” does not necessarily mean the first writing,
recording or photograph that was made, but rather refers to the writing, recording, or
photograph that is in issue in the litigation.
• The inclusion of any output from a computer adopts Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence (REE)
• The definition of “duplicate” follows Section 2, Rule 4 of the REE, which was adopted
from the FRE.
• The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate best evidence objections to copies

made in clearly reliable ways, except where the objecting party can offer a good reason
to support the production of the original as indicated by the new Section 4 (c).
• The new Section 4 (c) is based on Section 2, Rule 4 of the REE.

Kinds of Original Documents:

a) Documents where its contents are the subject of inquiry – still retained
When what is being questioned is the authenticity and due execution of a deed of sale and there is no real issue
as to its contents, the best evidence rule is inapplicable. (Skunac Corporation v. Sylianteng, G.R. No. 205879, April 23,
2014)
b) Duplicate original – still retained

When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a
contract upon the outside sheet, xxx, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus
reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all sheets are regarded as
duplicate originals. (Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. v. Traveler Kids, Inc., G.R. No. 200065, Sept. 14, 2014)
c) Entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of the transaction, all entries are regarded as
originals – still retained (under the new Section 7)
A VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of goods or services to the buyer,
while a VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the payment of goods or services
received from the seller. A VAT invoice and a VAT receipt should not be confused
and made to refer to one and the same thing. (Northern Mindanao Power Corporation v.
CIR, G.R. No. 185115, February 18, 2015)
Section 5. When original of document is unavailable

When the original document has been lost or When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence
and the cause of its unavailability without bad and the cause of its unavailability without bad
faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, faith on his or her part, may prove its contents by
or by a recital of its contents in some authentic a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the authentic document, or by the testimony of
order stated. (4a) witnesses in the order stated. (5a)
Section 5. When original of document is unavailable
The offeror must prove:
a) existence or due execution of the original;

b) loss/destruction of original or reason for non-production;
c) absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror;
Order of proof is: existence, execution, loss, and contents. (MCMP Construction Corp. v. Monark
Equipment Corp., G.R. No. 201001, November 10, 2014)
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control

If the document is in the custody or under the If the document is in the custody or under the
control of the adverse party, he must have control of the adverse party, he or she must have
reasonable notice to produce it. If after such reasonable notice to produce it. If after such
notice and after satisfactory proof of its notice and after satisfactory proof of its
existence, he fails to produce the document, existence, he or she fails to produce the
secondary evidence may be presented as in the document, secondary evidence may be presented
case of its loss (5a) as in the case of its loss (5a)
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control
The offeror must prove:
a) the original exists;

b) document is under the custody or control of adverse party
c) adverse party given reasonable notice to produce original
d) adverse party failed to produce original despite notice. (EDSA Shangri-la Hotel and
Resort v. BF Corp., G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008)
Section 7. Summaries
New Provision
When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous accounts are
voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought
to be established is only the general result of the whole, the contents of such evidence may
be presented in the form of a chart, summary or calculation.
The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party
at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court. (n)
Section 7. Summaries
• This new provision is substantially taken from Rule 1006 of the FRE, although the
requirement that the records must be voluminous under Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the
Revised Rules on n Evidence was retained.
• As early as 1977, the Supreme Court, in Compaña Maritima v. Allied Free Workers’ Union, 167
Phil. 381, already held that the originals must be made available to the adverse party.
RENUMBERED PROVISIONS

SECTION 7. Evidence admissible when original Now Section 8.
document is a public record. – When the original of
a document is in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved
by a certified copy issued by the public officer in
custody thereof. (2a)
SECTION 8. Party who calls for document not Now Section 9.

bound to offer it. – A party who calls for the
production of a document and inspects the same is not
obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)
3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Section 10. Evidence of written agreements
Old Provision: Section 9 Revised Provision: Section 10
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced When the terms of an agreement have been reduced
to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties
their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
other than the contents of the written agreement. terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, However, a party may present evidence to modify,
explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if
he puts in issue in his pleading: he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in
the written agreement; the written agreement;

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express (b) The failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or (c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors in interest after the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement. execution of the written agreement.
The term “agreement” includes wills. (9a) The term “agreement” includes wills. (9a)
Parol Evidence:
Oral testimony, of person who has an interest in the outcome of the case, in lieu of documentary
evidence may be admitted as evidence, provided:
a) the existence of any of the following has been put in issue in a party's pleading or has not been objected to by
the adverse party:
1. intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the agreement;
2. failure of agreement to express true intent of the parties;
3. validity of agreement;
4. existence of other terms agreed to after execution of the agreement.
b) it serves as the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting party. (Spouses Paras v. Kimwa Construction and
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 171601, April 8, 2015)
Parol Evidence:
•The issue of admitting parol evidence is a matter that is proper to the trial, not the appellate, stage of a case.
(Sps. Abella v. Sps. Abella, G.R. No. 195166, July 8, 2015)
•This rule is animated by a perceived wisdom in deferring to the contracting parties’ articulated intent. In
choosing to reduce their agreement into writing, they are deemed to have done so meticulously and carefully,
employing specific — frequently, even technical — language as are appropriate to their context. From an
evidentiary standpoint, this is also because "oral testimony . . . coming from a party who has an interest in the
outcome of the case, depending exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary
evidence. Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a uniform
language.” (Spouses Paras v. Kimwa Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 171601, April 8, 2015)
4. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
SECTION 10. Interpretation of a writing Now Section 11.
according to its legal meaning. – The language of a
writing is to be interpreted according to the legal
meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the
parties intended otherwise. (8)
SECTION 11. Instrument construed so as to give Now Section 12.
effect to all provisions. – In the construction of an
instrument, where there are several provisions or
particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be
adopted as will give effect to all. (9)
RENUMBERED PROVISION

SECTION 12. Interpretation according to Now Section 13.
intention; general and particular provisions. –
In the construction of an instrument, the
intention of the parties is to be pursued; and
when a particular provision are inconsistent, the
latter is paramount to the former. So a particular
intent will control a general one that is
inconsistent with it. (10)

SECTION 13. Interpretation according to SECTION 14. Interpretation according to
circumstances. – For the proper construction of circumstances. – For the proper construction of
an instrument, the circumstances under which it an instrument, the circumstances under which it
was made, including the situation of the subject was made, including the situation of the subject
thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so
that the judge may be placed in the position of that the judge may be placed in the position of
those whose language he is to interpret. (11) those whose language he or she is to interpret.
(13a)

SECTION 14. Peculiar specification of terms. – Now Section 15.
The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used
in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is
admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or
otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and
understood in the particular instance, in which case the
agreement must be construed accordingly. (12)
SECTION 15. Written words control printed. – Now Section 16.
When an instrument consists partly of written words
and partly of a printed form, and the two are
inconsistent, the former controls the latter. (13)

SECTION 16. Experts and interpreters to be Now Section 17.
used in explaining certain writings. – When
the characters in which an instrument is written
are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is
not understood by the court, the evidence of
persons skilled in deciphering the characters the
characters, or who understand the language, is
admissible to declare the characters or the
meaning of the language. (14)

SECTION 17. Of two constructions, which SECTION 18. Of two constructions, which
preferred. – When the terms of an agreement have preferred. – When the terms of an agreement have
been intended in a different sense by the different been intended in a different sense by the different
parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either
party in which he supposed the other understood it, party in which he or she supposed the other
and when different constructions of a provision are understood it, and when different constructions of a
otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be
the most favorable to the party in whose favor the taken which is the most favorable to the party in
provision was made. (15) whose favor the provision was made. (17)

SECTION 18. Construction in favor of Now Section 19.
natural right. – When an instrument is equally
susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of
natural rght and the other against it, the former is
to be adopted. (16)
SECTION 19. Interpretation according to Now Section 20.

usage. – An instrument may be construed
according to usage, in order to determine its true
character.
B. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES

SECTION 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. Now Section 21.
– All persons who can perceive, and perceiving,
can make known their perception to others, may
be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the

outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime,
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a
ground for disqualification. (18a)
DELETED PROVISION
SECTION 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. – The

following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such
that they are incapable or intelligently making known their perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the
facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (19a)
DELETED PROVISION
Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility if the testimony is coherent. A
mentally retarded may be a credible witness. The acceptance of her testimony depends on
the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court. (People
v. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, Jan. 30, 2013)
That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for disqualification. The
dismissiveness with which the testimonies of child witnesses were treated in the past has long
been erased. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC),
every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. (People v. Esugon, G.R. No. 195244, 22
June 2015)

SECTION 36. Testimony generally SECTION 22. Testimony confined to personal
confined to personal knowledge; hearsay knowledge. – A witness can testify only to those
excluded. – A witness can testify only to facts which he or she knows of his or her peresonal
those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception. (36a)
own perception, except as otherwise provided
in these rules. (30a)
LACK OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE
OLD CONCEPT OF HEARSAY

- testimony that is not based on one’s personal knowledge, nor derived from one’s own perception
NEW CONCEPT AS LACK OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE

- a witness can testify only as to facts of his or her personal knowledge or derived from his or her
own perception
INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT

- statement relating what another individual told the declarant
- admissible proof based on firsthand knowledge of what the other individual told the declarant:
not hearsay
- Inadmissible as proof of the truth of the statement of the other individual to the declarant
LACK OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the competency and
credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce. However, while the
testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person given for the purpose of
establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the
purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or the
tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant
is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be
shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is not secondary but
primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to
the existence of such a fact. This is known as the doctrine of independently relevant statements.
(Espineli v. People, G.R. No. 179535, June 9, 2014, citing Republic v. Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, G.R. No. 146030,
December 3, 2002)
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage

During their marriage, neither the husband nor During their marriage, the husband or the wife,
the wife may testify for or against the other cannot testify for or against the other without the
without the consent of the affected spouse, consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil
except in a civil case by one against the other, or case by one against the other, or in a criminal case
in a criminal case for a crime committed by one for a crime committed by one against the other or
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. (22a)
or ascendants. (20a)
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage
• The reasons given for the rule are:

a) There is identity of interests between husband and wife;
b) If one were to testify for or against the other, there is consequent danger of perjury;
c) The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and
d) Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile
testimony of the other. (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005)
• Thus, where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor
peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a
case, identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.
Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be
nothing but ideals, which through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home. There is therefore no
reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule. (Id.)
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communications
The following persons cannot testify as to matters The following persons cannot testify as to matters
learned in confidence in the following cases: learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after their (a) The husband or the wife, during or after their
marriage, cannot be examined without the consent marriage, cannot be examined without the consent
of the other as to any communication received in of the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the confidence by one from the other during the
marriage except in a civil case by one against the marriage except in a civil case by one against the
other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter’s direct one against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants; descendants or ascendants;
communications
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his (b) An attorney or person reasonably believed by the
client, be examined as to any communication made by client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law
the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined
course of, or with a view to, professional employment, as to any communication made by the client to him or
nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk be her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of,
examined, without the consent of the client and his or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other
has been acquired in such capacity; persons assisting the attorney be examined, without the
consent of the client and his or her employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity, except in the following cases:
communications
Attorney – Client Privilege (NOTE: As amended, the rule now admits of exceptions. See succeeding slides)
•A communication is absolutely privileged when it is not actionable, even if the author has acted in bad faith.
This class includes allegations or statements made by parties or their counsel in pleadings or motions or during the
hearing of judicial and administrative proceedings, as well as answers given by the witness in reply to questions
propounded to them in the course of said proceedings, provided that said allegations or statements are relevant to
the issues, and the answers are responsive to the questions propounded to said witnesses. xxx The absolute
privilege remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence of malice, if the same are relevant,
pertinent or material to the cause in and or subject of the inquiry. (Belen v. People, G.R. No. 211120, February
13, 2017)
•While Philippine law is silent on the question of whether the doctrine of absolutely privileged communication
extends to statements in preliminary investigations or other proceedings preparatory to trial. (Id., citing
Borg v. Boas, 231 F 2d 788 (1956)
communications
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or i. Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or
obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained
the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to
given by him or any information which he may have commit what the client knew or reasonably
acquired in attending such patient in a professional should have known to be a crime or fraud;
capacity, which information was necessary to enable
him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken he
reputation of the patient;
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of
the person making the confession, be examined as to
any confession made to or any advice given by him in
his professional character…
communications
i. Crime or fraud (“future crime-fraud exception”)
The rationale for this exception is that clients are not entitled to use lawyers to help them in pursuing
unlawful or fraudulent objectives. If the privilege were to cloak such activity, the result would be loss of
public confidence and corruption of the profession. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section
5.22 [1995])
The policy of the privilege is that of promoting the administration of justice and it would be a
perversion of the privilege to extend it to the client who seeks advice to aid him in carrying out an illegal
fraudulent scheme. This would be tantamount to participating in a conspiracy. (McCormick on
Evidence, 3rd ed., p. 229 [1984])
communications
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of ii.Claimants through the same deceased client. As to a
the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment communication relevant to an issue between
given by him or any information which he may have parties who claim through the same deceased
acquired in attending such patient in a professional client, regardless of whether the claims are by
capacity, which information was necessary to enable testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction;
him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken he
reputation of the patient;
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of
the person making the confession, be examined as to
any confession made to or any advice given by him in
his professional character…
communications
ii. Claimants through a deceased client
While the attorney-client privilege survives the death of the client, there is no privilege in a will
contest or other case between parties who both claim through that very client. This is because his
communications may be essential to an accurate resolution of competing claims of succession, and
the testator would presumably favor disclosure in order to dispose of his estate accordingly.
(Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.24 [1995])
communications
…in the course of discipline enjoined by the iii. Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a
church to which the minister or priest belongs; communication relevant to an issue of
breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his client, or by the client to his or her
term of office or afterwards, as to lawyer;
communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)
communications
iii. Breach of duty by lawyer or client (“self-defense exception”)
If the lawyer and client become involved in a dispute between themselves concerning the services
provided by the lawyer, the privilege does not apply to their dispute. Thus, where a client alleges a breach
of duty on the part of the lawyer, i.e. professional malpractice, incompetence, or ethical violations – or
where the lawyer sues a client for his fee, either the lawyer or the client may testify as to communications
between them.
In theory, the client has impliedly “waived” the privilege by making allegations of breach of duty against
lawyer. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.23 [1995])
communications
iv. Document attested by the lawyer. As to a

communication relevant to an issue
concerning an attested document to
which the lawyer is an attesting
witness; or
communications
iv. Lawyer as attesting witness
The privilege does not apply to “a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested
document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness.” This should not really be an exception
because the privilege never arises, as a lawyer who acts as an attesting witness is not providing
professional legal services. When an attorney serves as an attesting witness, he is not acting as a
lawyer and the client’s obvious intent is to have him available to testify to the matter attested.
(Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.25 [1995]; Lempert, R. & Saltzburg, S., A
Modern Approach to Evidence, 3rd ed., pp. 269-370 [1982])
communications
v. Joint clients. As to a communication

relevant to a matter of common interest
between two or more clients if the
communication was made by any of them
to a lawyer retained or consulted in
common, when offered in an action
between any of the clients, unless they
have expressly agreed otherwise.
communications
v. Joint clients
The rationale for the exception is that joint clients do not intend their communication to be
confidential from each other, and typically their communications are made in each other’s
presence. xxx Agreeing to joint representation means that each joint client accepts the risk that
another joint client may later use what he or she has said to the lawyer. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick,
Modern Evidence, Section 5.14 [1995])
communications
(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably
believed by the patient to be authorized to practice
medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case, without
the consent of the patient, be examined as to any
confidential communication made for the purpose of
diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental or
emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction,
between the patient and his or her physician or
psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to persons,
including members of the patient’s family, who have
participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient
under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist.
communications
A “psychotherapist” is:
a) A person licensed to practice medicine

engaged in the diagnosis or treatment
of a mental or emotional condition, or
a) A person licensed as a psychologist by

the government while similarly
engaged.
communications
Psychotherapist – Patient Privilege
The rationale to include this privilege is that the psychotherapist has a special need to maintain confidentiality.
His or her capacity to help his or her patients is completely dependent upon their willingness and ability to talk
freely. Confidentiality is a condition sine qua non for a successful psychiatric treatment. (Lempert, R. & Saltzburg, S.,
A Modern Approach to Evidence, 2nd ed., pp. 712-713 [1982], citing Report No. 45, Group for the Advancement
of Psychiatry 92 [1960]), quoted in the Advisory Committee’s note o PFRE 504, the Psychotherapist-Patient
Privilege
•Qualification
For one to be considered a “psychotherapist,” a medical doctor need only be “licensed” to practice medicine
and need not be a psychiatrist, whereas a psychologist must be “licensed” by the government.
communications
(d) A minister, priest or person reasonably
believed to be so cannot, without the consent of
the affected person, be examined as to any
communication or confession made to or any
advice given by him or her, in his or her
professional character, in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or
priest belongs.
communications
Priest – Penitent Privilege
The old provision limited the privilege to “penitential communications” made to a minister or priest
in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the priest or minister belongs. As worded,
it is unduly preferential to the Roman Catholic Church. The amendment expands the privilege to
embrace any confidential communication by a person to a minister or priest in his professional
character as a spiritual advisor.
communications
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after
his or her tenure as to communications made to him or
her in official confidence, when the court finds that the
public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
The communication shall remain privileged, even in
the hands of a third person who may have obtained the
information, provided that the original parties to the
communication took reasonable precaution to protect
its confidentiality. (24a)
The use of the phrase “during or after his or her tenure” is a matter of style. The Sub-Committee considered
the word “tenure” to be more apt. (SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)
communications
The elements of presidential communications privilege are:
1. The protected communication must relate to a "quintessential and non-delegable presidential

power.”
2. The communication must be authored or "solicited and received" by a close advisor of the President
or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in "operational proximity" with the
President.
3. The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by
a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought "likely contains important evidence"
and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
communications
In the case at bar, Executive Secretary Ermita premised his claim of executive privilege on the ground that the
communications elicited “fall under conversation and correspondence between the President and public officials"
necessary in "her executive and policy decision-making process" and, that "the information sought to be disclosed
might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People's Republic of China." Simply put, the
bases are presidential communications privilege and executive privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or
foreign relations.
Using the above elements, we are convinced that, indeed, the communications elicited by the three (3)
questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege. First, the communications relate to a
"quintessential and non-delegable power" of the President, i.e. the power to enter into an executive agreement
with other countries. This authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the concurrence of
the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. Second, the communications are…
communications
"received" by a close advisor of the President. Under the "operational proximity" test, petitioner can be considered
a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyo's cabinet. And third, there is no adequate showing of a
compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information
elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. (Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683; In Re: Sealed Case No.
96-3124, June 17, 1997; Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Justice, 365 F. 3d 1108, 361 U.S. App. D.C. 183, 64 Fed. R.
Evid. Serv. 141; CRS Report for Congress, Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law, Practice and
Recent Developments; Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A Commentary,
2003 Ed., p. 903.
communications
• Other privileged matters:
a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news;

b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted;
c) trade secrets;
d) information contained in tax census returns;
e) bank deposits (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act);
f) national security matters and intelligence information; and
g) criminal matter. (Eagleridge Dev't. Corp. v. Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204700, Nov. 24,
2014)
There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default from taking the witness stand for
non-disqualified parties. (Marcos v. Heirs of Navarro, G.R. No. 198240, July 3, 2013)
communications
Journalist-Source Privilege
Republic Act No. 1477 (1956) Republic Act No. 11458 (2019)
Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and
criminal laws, the publisher, editor, columnist or duly criminal laws, any publisher, owner, or duly recognized or
accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or accredited journalist, writer, reporter, contributor, opinion
periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to writer, editor, columnist, manager, media practitioner
reveal the source of any news-report or information involved in the writing, editing, production, and
appearing in said publication which was related in dissemination of news for mass circulation, of any print,
confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless broadcast, wire service organization, or electronic mass
the court or a House or committee of Congress finds media, including cable TV and its variants, cannot be
compelled to reveal the source of any news item, report or
that such revelation is demanded by the security of the
information appearing or being reported or disseminated
State.
through said media, which was related in confidence to…
communications
Journalist-Source Privilege
Republic Act No. 1477 (1956) Republic Act No. 11458 (2019)
…the abovementioned media practitioners unless the
court or the House of Representatives or the Senate or
(NOTE: R.A. No. 1477 amended R.A. No. 53) any committee of Congress finds that such revelation is
demanded by the security of the State.”
2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege
No person may be compelled to testify against No person shall be compelled to testify against
his parents, other direct ascendants, children, or his or her parents, other direct ascendants,
other direct descendants. (20a) children or other direct descendants, except when
such testimony is indispensable in a crime against
that person or by one parent against the other.
(25a)
2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege
• Use of the phrase “except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or by one
parent against the other” – incorporates Article 315 of the Family Code of the Philippines which provides that
“[n]o descendant can be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and ascendants.”
A stepmother can be compelled to testify against stepdaughter, xxx they have no common ancestry,
privilege applies only to "direct" ascendants and descendants. (Lee v. CA, G.R. No. 177861, July 13,
2010)
The privilege is not strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is not incompetent or
disqualified to testify against an ascendant. xxx refers to a privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or
waived like other privileges.
NEW PROVISION
SECTION 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets. – A person cannot be compelled

to testify about any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or
otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such
protective measure as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties
and the furtherance of justice may require. (n)
Section 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets
In Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc. (G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007), the Supreme Court
held that trade secrets are of a privileged nature, but the privilege is not absolute; the court may compel
disclosure where it is indispensable for doing justice. A trade secret was defined in said case “as a plan or
process, tool, mechanism or compound known only to its owner and those of his employees to whom it is
necessary to confide.” The definition was held to extend to “a secret formula or process not patented, but
known only to certain individuals using it in compounding some article of trade having a commercial value.”
The Court went on to explain that a trade secret may “consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation
of information that (1) is used in one’s business, and (2) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an
advantage over competitors who do not possess the information.
3. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
SECTION 26. Admission of a party. – The act, SECTION 27. Admission of a party. – The act,
declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact
may be given in evidence against him. (22) may be given in evidence against him or her. (26a)
• Admission
Any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends
or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.
• To be admissible, it must:
a) involve matters of fact, and not of law;
b) be categorical and definite;
c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
d) be adverse to the admitter's interests, otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible.
Section 28. Offer of compromise not admissible

In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not admissible in admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. evidence against the offeror. Neither is evidence of
conduct nor statements made in compromise
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi- negotiations admissible, except evidence otherwise
offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by discoverable or offered for another purpose, such as
law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a
the accused may be received in evidence as an contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to
implied admission of guilt. obstruct a criminal investigation of prosecution.
xxx xxx

A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses
of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
in evidence against the accused who made the plea or compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused
offer. may be received in evidence as an implied admission of
guilt.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or
other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer
in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible
injury. (24a) in evidence against the accused who made the plea or
offer. Neither is any statement made in the course of
plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does not…

…result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of
guilty later withdrawn, admissible.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or

other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible
in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the
injury. (27a)
Offer of Compromise
a. Civil Cases
• NOT ADMISSIBLE as admission of any liability.
• ADMISSIBLE for other purposes (e.g., to prove bias of a witness, to negate undue delay, to prove
obstruction of criminal investigation/prosecution)
Rule is NOT absolute:
If a party denies the existence of a debt but offers to pay the same for the purpose of buying peace and
avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party making the offer
admits the existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the claim amicably, then, the admission
is admissible to prove such indebtedness. (Tan v. Rodil Enterprises, G.R. No. 168071, December 18, 2006)
b. Criminal Cases, EXCEPT quasi- offenses and those allowed to be compromised
• ADMISSIBLE as an implied admission of guilt.

• INADMISSIBLE if plea of guilt withdrawn; if offer of plea of guilt to lesser offense is not accepted; if
statement made during plea bargain and no plea of guilt results or plea is later withdrawn.
Offer made prior to the filing of the criminal complaint cannot xxx be an implied admission of guilt, xxx
as it was not made in the context of a criminal proceeding. (San Miguel Corp. v. Kalalo, G.R. No. 185522, June 13,
2012)
Act of pleading for forgiveness, through letters from detention, xxx analogous to an attempt to compromise.
Offer must be made under a consciousness of guilt, NOT merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment.
(People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 180915, Aug. 9, 2010)

SECTION 28. Admission by third party. – Now Section 29.
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by
an act, declaration, or omission of another,
except as hereinafter provided. (28)
Section 30. Admission by co-partner or agent

The act or declaration of a partner or agent of The act or declaration of a partner or agent
the party within the scope of his authority and authorized by the party to make a statement
during the existence of the partnership or agency, concerning the subject, or within the scope of his or
may be given in evidence against such party after the her authority and during the existence of the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other partnership or agency, may be given in evidence
than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to against such party after the partnership or agency is
the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, shown by evidence other than such act or
or other person jointly interested with the party. (26a) declaration. The same rule applies to the act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
person jointly interested with the party. (29a)
Section 31. Admission by conspirator

The act or declaration of a conspirator The act or declaration of a conspirator in
relating to the conspiracy and during its furtherance of the conspiracy and during its
existence, may be given in evidence against existence, may be given in evidence against
the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than such act or shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. (27) declaration. (27)
Section 31. Admission by conspirator
The exception provided under Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to the rule allowing the
admission of a conspirator requires the prior establishment of the conspiracy by evidence other
than the confession. In this case, there is a dearth of proof demonstrating the participation of
Salapuddin in a conspiracy to set off a bomb in the Batasan grounds and thereby kill Congressman
Akbar. Not one of the other persons arrested and subjected to custodial investigation professed that
Salapuddin was involved in the plan to set off a bomb in the Batasan grounds.
Mere association with the principals by direct participation, without more, does not
suffice. Relationship, association and companionship do not prove conspiracy. (Salapuddin v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013)
Section 32. Admission by privies

Where one derives title to property from Where one derives title to property from
another, the act, declaration, or omission of another, the latter’s act, declaration, or
the latter, while holding the title, in relation to omission, in relation to the property, is
the property, is evidence against the former. evidence against the former if done while the
(28) latter was holding the title. (31a)

SECTION 32. Admission by silence. - An act SECTION 33. Admission by silence. - An act
or declaration made in the presence and within the or declaration made in the presence and within the
hearing or observation of a party who does or hearing or observation of a party who does or
says nothing when the act or declaration is such as says nothing when the act or declaration is such as
naturally to call for action or comment if not true, naturally to call for action or comment if not true,
and when proper and possible for him to do so, and when proper and possible for him or her to
may be given in evidence against him. (23a) do so, may be given in evidence against him or
her. (32a)
Section 33. Admission by silence
The natural instinct of man impels him to resist an unfounded claim xxx and
defend himself. It is xxx against human nature to just remain reticent and say nothing
in the face of false accusations. (People v. Castañeda, G.R. No. 208290, Dec. 11, 2013)
Silence during custodial investigation is not admission by silence as he has the right
to remain silent during that stage. (People v. Guillen, G.R. No. 191756, Nov. 25, 2013)

SECTION 33. Confession. - The declaration of SECTION 34. Confession. - The declaration of
an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the
charged, or of any offense necessarily included offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
therein, may be given in evidence against him. included therein, may be given in evidence against
(29a) him or her. (33a)
Section 34. Confession
Extrajudicial confessions are binding only on the confessant and cannot be admitted against co-
accused, except if there is prior establishment of the conspiracy by evidence other than the
confession. It must be proven that:
a)the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself;
b)the admission relates to the common object; and
c)it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.
Mere association with the accused do not conclude that he was a participant in the conspiracy to
commit the crime. (Salapuddin v. CA,G.R. No. 184681, Feb. 25, 2013)
4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
SECTION 34. Similar acts as evidence. — SECTION 35. Similar acts as evidence. —
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at he or she did or did not do the same or a similar
another time; but it may be received to prove a thing at another time; but it may be received to
specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and
like. (48a) the like. (34a)
SECTION 35. Unaccepted offer. — An offer SECTION 36. Unaccepted offer. — An offer
in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to
deliver a written instrument or specific personal deliver a written instrument or specific personal
property is, if rejected without valid cause, property is, if rejected without valid cause,
equivalent to the actual production and tender of equivalent to the actual production and tender of
the money, instrument, or property. (49a) the money, instrument, or property. (35)
• Previous Conduct as Evidence
Evidence that one did a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did the same or similar thing
at another time.
Prior involvement in a cash shortage in the bank's branch does not conclusively prove that she is responsible
for the loss of money in the new branch. (Metrobank v. Custodio, G.R. No. 17380, March 21, 2011)
Evidence is not admissible when it shows, or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal case has committed a
crime independent from the offense for which he is on trial. A man may be a notorious criminal, and may have
committed many crimes, and still be innocent of the crime charged on trial. (People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 141644,
May 27, 2004)
5. HEARSAY
NEW SUBTITLE and PROVISION
SECTION 37. Hearsay. – 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. (n)
NEW HEARSAY RULE
HEARSAY
- out of court statement made by witness-declarant, not made during trial or hearing in a case
- statement = oral or written assertion, or conduct intended as assertion
EXCEPTIONS:
1) Prior inconsistent statement under oath at a trial, hearing or other proceeding, or in a deposition, to
impeach witness-declarant;
2) Prior consistent statement only to rebut “an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent
fabrication, or improper influence or motive”;
3) Identification of a person made after perceiving the person.
6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

SECTION 37. Dying declaration. - The SECTION 38. Dying declaration. - The
declaration of a dying person, made under declaration of a dying person, made under
the consciousness of an impending death, the consciousness of an impending death,
may be received in any case wherein his death may be received in any case wherein his or
is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the her death is the subject of inquiry, as
cause and surrounding circumstances of such evidence of the cause and surrounding
death. (31a) circumstances of such death. (37a)
Section 38. Dying declaration
DEAD MAN’S STATUTE: REQUISITES
a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's
death;
b) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending
death;
c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and
d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where
the declarant is the victim. (People v. Palanas, G.R. No. 214453, June 17, 2015)
Section 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind

SECTION 23. Disqualification by reason of death SECTION 39. Statement of decedent or person of
or insanity of adverse party. — Parties or assignors unsound mind. – In an action against an executor or
of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is administrator or other representative of a deceased
prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a
other representative of a deceased person, or against a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased
person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand person or against such person of unsound mind, where
against the estate of such deceased person or against a party or assignor of a party or a person in whose
such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact
matter of fact occurring before the death of such occurring before the death of the deceased person or
deceased person or before such person became of before the person became of unsound mind, any
unsound mind. (20a) statement of the deceased or the person of unsound
mind, may be received in …

…evidence if the statement was made upon the
personal knowledge of the deceased or the person
of unsound mind at a time when the matter had
been recently perceived by him or her and while
his or her recollection was clear. Such statement,
however, is inadmissible if made under
circumstances indicating its lack of
trustworthiness. (23a)
Under the Dead Man's Statute Rule, "[i]f one party to the alleged transaction is
precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other
party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and
unexplained account of the transaction." Thus, the alleged admission of the
deceased xxx cannot be used as evidence against [him] as the latter would be unable
to contradict or disprove the same. (Garcia v. Vda. de Caparas, G.R. No. 180843, April
17, 2013)
Section 40. Declaration against interest

SECTION 38. Declaration against interest. - The SECTION 40. Declaration against interest. - The
declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to
testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact
asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made
so far contrary to declarant's own interest, that a so far contrary to the declarant's own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have made the reasonable person in his or her position would not have
declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be made the declaration unless he or she believed it to be
received in evidence against himself or his successors in true, may be received in evidence against himself or
interest and against third persons. (32a) herself or his or her successors in interest and against
third persons. A statement tending to expose the
declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate
the accused is not admissible unless corroborating…
Section 40. Declaration against interest

…circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of
the statement. (38a)
Declaration against interest vs. Admission against interest
Declaration against interest is made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the
suit. xxx admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness.
Admission against interest is made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in
legal interest with such party, and is admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness.
(Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010)
Section 41. Act or declaration about pedigree

SECTION 39. Act or declaration about SECTION 41. Act or declaration about pedigree. -
pedigree. - The act or declaration of a person The act or declaration of a person deceased or unable to
deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related
pedigree of another person related to him by birth to him or her by birth, adoption, or marriage, or, in the
or marriage, may be received in evidence where it absence thereof, with whose family he or she was so
occurred before the controversy, and the relationship intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate
between the two persons is shown by evidence other information concerning his or her pedigree, may be
than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" received in evidence where it occurred before the
includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, controversy, and the relationship between the two persons
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration…
these facts occurred, and the names of the
relatives…

…It embraces also facts of family history …The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family
intimately connected with pedigree. (33a) genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and
the places where these facts occurred, and the names of
the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree. (39a)
Elements:
a) the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify;

b) the act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject by birth, marriage, or adoption, or with
whose family he was so intimately associated;
c) the relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by evidence other than such
act or declaration; and
d) the act or declaration was made ante litem motam, or prior to the controversy.
The claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself xxx. A notarial agreement to
support a child whose filiation is admitted by the putative father was considered acceptable
evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the child and pictures of the putative…
…father cuddling the child on various occasions, together with the certificate of live birth, proved
filiation. However, a student permanent record, a written consent to a father's operation, or a
marriage contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic
writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family pictures are sufficient to establish
filiation. (Nepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 19, 2010, reiterating Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA
197)
Section 42. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

SECTION 40. Family reputation or tradition SECTION 42. Family reputation or tradition
regarding pedigree. - The reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. - The reputation or tradition
existing in a family previous to the controversy, in existing in a family previous to the controversy, in
respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, respect to the pedigree of any one of its members,
may be received in evidence if the witness testifying may be received in evidence if the witness testifying
thereon be also a member of the family, either by thereon be also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or consanguinity or affinity, or adoption. Entries in
other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family bibles or other family books or charts,
family portraits and the like, may be received as engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may
evidence of pedigree. (34a) be received as evidence of pedigree. (40a)
Section 42. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
Family Reputation or Tradition regarding Pedigree
Requisites:
a) a statement by a member of the family either by consanguinity, affinity, or adoption;

b) the statement is about the reputation or tradition of the family in respect to the
pedigree of any member of the family; and
c) the reputation or tradition is one existing previous to the controversy.
Section 43. Common reputation

SECTION 41. Common reputation. Common SECTION 43. Common reputation. -
reputation existing previous to the controversy, Common reputation existing previous to the
respecting facts of public or general interest more controversy, as to boundaries of or customs
than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or affecting lands in the community and reputation
moral character, may be given in evidence. as to events of general history important to the
Monuments and inscriptions in public places may community, or respecting marriage or moral
be received as evidence of common reputation. character, may be given in evidence. Monuments
(35) and inscriptions in public places may be received
as evidence of common reputation. (41a)
Section 43. Common reputation

SECTION 41. Common reputation. Common SECTION 43. Common reputation. - Common
reputation existing previous to the controversy, reputation existing previous to the controversy, as to
respecting facts of public or general interest more than boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the
thirty years old, or respecting marriage or moral community and reputation as to events of general
character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and history important to the community, or respecting
inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence.
of common reputation. (35) Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be
received as evidence of common reputation. (41a)
The requirement of antiquity (“more than 30 years old”) is removed. Instead, reliability is ensured because the
testimony represents the consensus of the community.
Section 44. Part of the res gestae

SECTION 42. Part of the res gestae. — SECTION 44. Part of the res gestae. -
Statements made by a person while a startling Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the subsequent thereto, under the stress of excitement
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as caused by the occurrence with respect to the
part of the res gestae. So, also, statements circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as
accompanying an equivocal act material to the part of the res gestae. So, also, statements
issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be accompanying an equivocal act material to the
received as part of the res gestae. (36a) issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be
received as part of the res gestae. (42a)
In People v. Putian (G.R. No. L-33049, November 29, 1976), the Supreme Court noted that
if the declaration was made at the time of, or immediately thereafter, the commission of the
crime, or at a time when the exciting influence of the startling occurrence still continued in
the declarant’s mind, it is admissible as part of the res gestae.
Requisites of res gestae:

a) that the principal act, the res gestae be a startling occurrence;
b) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and
c) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending
circumstances.
Tests in applying the res gestae rule:
a) the act, declaration or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or
event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself; and
b) the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
Spontaneity, how determined:
a) the time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making
of the statement;
b) the place where the statement is made;
c) the condition of the declarant when the utterance is given;
d) the presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the statement
relative thereto; and
e) the nature and the circumstances of the statement itself. (Manulat v. People, G.R. No.
190892, August 17, 2015)
Section 45. Records of regularly conducted business activity

SECTION 43. Entries in the course of SECTION 45. Records of regularly conducted business
business. — Entries made at, or near the time activity. – A memorandum, report, record or data compilation
of the transactions to which they refer, by a of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by
person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar means at or
a position to know the facts therein stated, may near the time of or from transmission or supply of information
be received as prima facie evidence, if such person by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular
made the entries in his professional capacity or course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the
in the performance of duty and in the ordinary regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or
or regular course of business or duty. (37a) data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of
which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other
qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay
evidence. (43a)
Section 45. Records of regularly conducted business activity
Entries in the Course of Business under the old Section 43:

The party offering must establish that:
a)the person who made those entries is dead, outside the country, or unable to testify;
b)the entries were made at, or near the time of the transaction to which they refer;
c)the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein;
d)the entries were made in the professional capacity or in the course of duty of the entrant; and,
e)the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. (Landbank v. Oñate, G.R. No. 192371,
January 15, 2014)
Under the new Section 45:
No more requirement that the entrant must be dead or unable to testify and must have personal knowledge of
the recorded matter. Adopted Rule 8, Section 1 of the REE.

SECTION 44. Entries in official records. SECTION 46 Entries in official records.
— Entries in official records made in the — Entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer performance of his or her duty by a public
of the Philippines, or by a person in the officer of the Philippines, or by a person in
performance of a duty specially enjoined by the performance of a duty specially enjoined
law, are prima facie evidence of the facts by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. (38) therein stated. (44a)
Section 46. Entries in official records
Requisites:
a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so;
b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other person in
the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which
must have been acquired by him personally or through official information.
A Traffic Accident Investigation Report cannot be given probative weight when the
investigating officer who prepared the same was not presented in court to testify that he had
sufficient knowledge of the facts therein stated, and that he acquired them personally or through
official information. (Standard Insurance Co., Inc. v. Cuaresma, G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014)
SECTION 45. Commercial lists and the like. — SECTION 47. Commercial lists and the like. —
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list,
register, periodical, or other published compilation is register, periodical, or other published compilation is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant
matter so stated if that compilation is published for use matter so stated if that compilation is published for use
by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally
used and relied upon by them therein. (39) used and relied upon by them therein. (45)
Commercial lists and the like:
Statement of matters contained in a periodical may be admitted only "if that compilation is published for use by
persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them.” (MERALCO v. Quisumbing, G.R.
No. 127598, February 22, 2000)

SECTION 46. Learned treatises. — A published SECTION 48. Learned treatises. — A published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history,
law, science or art is admissible as tending to prove the law, science or art is admissible as tending to prove the
truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes
judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies,
that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical
or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as or pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession or
expert in the subject. (40a) calling as an expert in the subject. (46a)
Learned treatises:
History books and published findings of scientists fall within this exception provided that an expert on the
subject testifies to the expertise of the writer.
Section 49. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

The testimony or deposition of a witness The testimony or deposition of a witness
deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case deceased or out of the Philippines or who cannot,
or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving with due diligence, be found therein, or is
the same parties and subject matter, may be given in unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in a
evidence against the adverse party who had the former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
opportunity to cross-examine him. (41a) involving the same parties and subject matter, may
be given in evidence against the adverse party who
had the opportunity to cross-examine him or her.
(47a)
Section 49. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
For the admissibility of a former testimony or deposition that the adverse party must have had an opportunity to
cross-examine the witness or the deponent in the prior proceeding. The issues involved in both cases must, at least, be
substantially the same; otherwise, there is no basis in saying that the former statement was — or would have been —
sufficiently tested by cross-examination or by an opportunity to do so. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375, Dec.
13, 2011)
Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in preliminary investigations because such investigation
is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. (PCGG v. Gutierrez, G.R. No.
194159, Oct. 21, 2015, reiterating Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-41, January 21, 2015)
Requisites for applicability:
a) The person making the hearsay statement is credible;
b) There must be “substantial basis” for crediting the hearsay (NOT to be confused with “substantial
evidence”)
NEW PROVISION
SECTION 50. Residual exception. – A statement not specifically covered by any of the
foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is
admissible if the court determines that (a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
(b) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence
which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (c) the general purposes of
these rules and the interests of justice will be best served by admission of the statement into
evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent
makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage
in the case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to
prepare to meet it, the proponent‘s intention to offer the statement and th particulars of it,
including the name and address of the declarant. (n)
SECTION 50. Residual exception
Rather than add a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule, the Sub-Committee opted to adopt the
residual or catchall exception provided in Rules 803 (24) and 804 (b) (5) [now Rule 807] of the FRE.
The catchall exception found in the FRE stemmed from the ruling in Dallas County v. Commercial
Union Assurance Co., Ltd. (286 F. 2d 388 [5th Cir. 1961]), which admitted an old newspaper article to
prove that a fire occurred at the court tower during construction. Although not falling under any of
the recognized hearsay exceptions, the news article was admitted because of “circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness based on the fact that the individual reporting the fire had no motive to
falsify and that a false report of a matter so easily checked by readers of the paper would have
subjected the reporter to considerable embarrassment.”
The catchall exception should be “used very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.” (Id.)
6. OPINION RULE
SECTION 48. General rule. — The Now Section 51.
opinion of a witness is not admissible, except
as indicated in the following sections. (42)
Section 52. Opinion of expert witness

SECTION 49. Opinion of expert witness. - SECTION 52. Opinion of expert witness. -
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training special knowledge, skill, experience or training or
which he is shown to possess, may be received in education, which he or she is shown to possess,
evidence. (43a) may be received in evidence. (49a)
Section 52. Opinion of expert witness
Admissibility of opinion of an expert witness who:

a) has the required professional knowledge, learning and skill of the subject under inquiry sufficient to qualify
him to speak with authority on the subject; and
b) is familiar with the standard required of a professional under similar circumstances.
The principle is that the witness' familiarity, and not the classification by title or specialty, should control issues
regarding the expert witness' qualifications. (Casumpang v. Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015)
REASONABLE MEASURE OF RELIABILITY: BROAD LATITUDE GIVEN TO THE JUDGE

Section 53. Opinion of ordinary witness

SECTION 50. Opinion of ordinary witness. - The SECTION 53. Opinion of ordinary witness. - The
opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given,
may be received in evidence regarding — may be received in evidence regarding —
a) The identity of a person about whom he has a) The identity of a person about whom he or she has
adequate knowledge; adequate knowledge;
b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient b) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient
familiarity; and familiarity; and
c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she
sufficiently acquainted. is sufficiently acquainted.
xxx xxx
Section 53. Opinion of ordinary witness

The witness may also testify on his impressions of The witness may also testify on his or her
the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
person. (44a) appearance of a person. (50a)
Admissibility of opinion of an ordinary witness on:
a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;

b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted; and
d) may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
8. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Section 54. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions

(a) In Criminal Cases: Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of
character is not admissible for the purpose of proving
(1) The accused may prove his good moral character action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion,
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the except:
offense charged.
(a)In Criminal Cases:
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not
(1) The character of the offended party may be
prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the
proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
xxx
xxx

(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended (2) The accused may prove his or her good moral
party may be proved if it tends to establish in any character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
reasonable degree the probability or improbability of offense charged. However, the prosecution may not
the offense charged. prove his or her bad moral character unless on rebuttal.
(b) In Civil Cases: (b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil
case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the case. character involved in the case.

(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14. (c) In Criminal and Civil Cases
(46a, 47a)
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been impeached.
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait

of character of a person is admissible, proof may be
made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in
the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is
allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.

In cases in which character or a trait of
character of a person is an essential element of a
charge, claim or defense, proof may also be made
of specific instances of that person’s conduct. (51a;
14; Rule 132)
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
GENERAL RULE: INADMISSIBLE

- the “circumstantial use” of character evidence, that a person acted in a similar way in the past
because that is his or her character or he or she has a propensity for doing similar acts
- Prohibited because it is circumstantial at best and it tends to confuse the issues or creates unfair
surprise or prejudice
EXCEPTIONS: ADMISSIBLE
Criminal Cases
1) Accused - may prove his or her moral trait pertinent to the charge
- the prosecution, on rebuttal, may prove the accused’s bad moral
character
2) Offended party – character may be proved if it tends to establish probability or improbability of charge
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Civil Cases
- only when moral character of a party is pertinent to the issue of character involved
Character of a Witness
- good character of a witness may only be proven after such witness’ character has been impeached
HOW TO PROVE CHARACTER:
1)Testimony on reputation – traditional form

2)Testimony in the form of an opinion – previously not allowed, but now recognized that testimony on reputation
is just “opinion”
3)On cross-examination only: the character witness may be asked about relevant prior specific conduct for the
limited purpose of testing knowledge and credibility of such witness
BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF
EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS
RULE 131
Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence
by law. (1a, 2a) required by law. Burden of proof never shifts.
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to

present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact
in issue to establish a prima facie case. Burden of
evidence may shift from one party to the other in the
course of the proceedings, depending on the
exigencies of the case. (1a)
Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence
The “burden of proof ” remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposed. It
is the “burden of evidence” that shifts from party to party during trial. (Republic v. Mupas, G.R. No.
181892, September 8, 2015)
BURDEN OF PROOF
- the duty to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish the claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law (Section 1, Rule 131)
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
- “burden of going forward,” the burden of proving a fact in issue
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions

The following are instances of conclusive The following are instances of conclusive
presumptions: presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or (a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration,
omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such another to believe a particular thing true, and to act
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such upon such belief, he or she cannot, in any litigation
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it; arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it; and
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
relation of landlord and tenant between them. (3a) or her landlord at the time of the commencement of
the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (3a)
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions
Given the existence of the lease, the petitioner’s claim denying the respondents’ ownership of the residential
house must be rejected. According to the petitioner, it is Adoracion who actually owns the residential building
having bought the same, together with the two parcels of land, from her father Tomas, who, in turn, bought it in
an auction sale.
It is settled that "[o]nce a contact of lease is shown to exist between the parties, the lessee cannot by
any proof, however strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that the lessor has a valid title to or a
better right of possession to the subject premises than the lessee." xxx In Santos v. National Statistics
Office, the Court expounded on the rule on estoppel against a tenant and further clarified that what a tenant is
estopped from denying is the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the landlord-
tenant relation. If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the
commencement of that relation, the presumption will not apply. (Midway Maritime and Technological Foundation
v. Castro, G.R. No. 189061, August 6, 2014)
Section 3. Disputable presumptions
NOTE: Amendments made to the disputable presumptions enumerated under Section 3, Rule 131 were for
GENDER INCLUSIVENESS.
c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his or her voluntary act;
It is presumed that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act and unless the
requirements for proper substitution were made, a lawyer enjoys the presumption of authority given him by
his client. Racines does not deny that the signatures in the pleadings were his. He also does not claim that he
was prevented by Atty. Manalad from reading the contents thereof. He only said that since he fully trusted
Atty. Manalad he immediately signed the documents. From the foregoing, it is clear that Racines acquiesced
and gave his stamp of approval to the pleadings filed in court. (Racines v. Morallos, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1698,
March 3, 2008)
d) That a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns;
Case law dictates that the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document
without first informing himself of its contents and consequences. Further, under Section
3 (p) of the same Rule, it is equally presumed that private transactions have been
fair and regular. This behooves every contracting party to learn and know the contents
of a document before he signs and delivers it. (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 208113, December
2, 2015)
j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is
the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him or her;
Celedonio never claimed ownership of the subject items. When the alleged stolen items were found
in his motorcycle compartment which he had control over, the disputable presumption of being
the taker of the stolen items arose. He could have overcome the presumption, but he failed to give
a justifiable and logical explanation. Thus, the only plausible scenario that could be inferred
therefrom was that he took the items. (Celedonio v. People, G.R. No. 209137, July 1, 2015)
k) That a person in possession of an order on himself or herself for the

payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or
delivered the thing accordingly;
w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he or
she is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his or her succession until after an
absence of ten years. If he or she disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years
shall be sufficient in order that his or her succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the
heirs:
1. A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has not been
heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
2. A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for four
years;
3. A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not
been known for four years; and
4. If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a
subsequent marriage if he or she has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. In
case of disappearance, where there is danger of death under the circumstances hereinabove
provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must institute
a summary proceeding as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for a declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent
spouse.
ii)That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a
particular person has actually conveyed it to him or her when such
presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his or her
successor in interest;
Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy

There is no presumption of legitimacy or There is no presumption of legitimacy or
illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred
days following the dissolution of the marriage or days following the dissolution of the marriage or
the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges
the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must
prove his allegation. (6) prove his or her allegation. (4a)
Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy
There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly established and founded on sounder
morality and more convincing reason than the presumption that children born in wedlock are
legitimate. This presumption indeed becomes conclusive in the absence of proof that there is physical
impossibility of access between the spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days which
immediately precedes the birth of the child due to (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have
sexual intercourse with his wife; (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separately in such way
that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevents
sexual intercourse. (SSS v. Aguas, G.R. No. 165546, February 27, 2006)
NEW PROVISIONS
SECTION 5. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. – In all civil actions and proceedings not
otherwise provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed
the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.
If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy
shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight, neither presumption applies. (n)
SECTION 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases. – If a presumed fact that establishes guilt,
is an element of the offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt. (n)
NEW PROVISION: SECTION 5
This amendment was taken from Rule 301 of the FRE and clarifies that presumptions should affect only the
burden of evidence or production, referred to as the “bursting bubble” approach to presumptions.
As for the second paragraph, the Supreme Court has held that, in case of conflicting presumptions, “it is
necessary to examine the basis for each presumption, and determine what logical or social basis exists for each
presumption, and then determine which should be regarded as the more important and entitled to prevail over the
other.” (People v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, December 6, 1995) Thus, between the presumption that “a young
Filipina will not charge a person with rape if it is not true” and the presumption of innocence, the latter should
prevail because it “is founded upon the first principles of justice, and is not a mere fom but a substantial part of
the law.” (Id.)
NEW PROVISION: SECTION 6
The model of this amendment is Rule 303 (b) of the URE and is designed to deal
with a situation in a criminal case where the prosecution relies solely upon a
presumption to establish guilt or the element of a crime and not any other evidence.
The Court may view the presumption in such a case as conclusive or as shifting the
burden of proof.
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
RULE 132
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded
The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including
the questions propounded to a witness and his answers the questions propounded to a witness and his or her
thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the answers thereto, the statements made by the judge or
parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case, any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference
shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or
or by other means of recording found suitable by the stenotype or by other means of recording found
court. suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by
the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and
certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a certified as correct by him or her shall be deemed prima
correct statement of such proceedings. (2a) facie a correct statement of such proceedings. (2a)
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness

A witness must answer questions, although his answer A witness must answer questions, although his or her
may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is answer may tend to establish a claim against him or her.
the right of a witness: However, it is the right of a witness:
(a)To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or (a)To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor; demeanor;
(b)Not to be detained longer than the interests of (b)Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require; justice require;
(c)Not to be examined except only as to matters (c)Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue; pertinent to the issue;

(d) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject (d) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise him or her to a penalty for an offense unless
provided by law; or otherwise provided by law; or
(e) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade (e) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
his reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue his or her reputation, unless it be to the very fact at
or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact
his previous final conviction for an offense. (3a, of his or her previous final conviction for an
19a) offense. (3a, 19a)
A witness need not worry that the oral examination might subject him or her to badgering
by adverse counsel. The trial court’s duty is to protect every witness against oppressive
behavior of an examiner and this is especially true where the witness is of advanced age. (Lee
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010)
Section 5. Direct examination

SECTION 5. DIRECT SECTION 5. DIRECT
EXAMINATION. - Direct examination is EXAMINATION. - Direct examination is
the examination-in-chief of a witness by the the examination-in-chief of a witness by the
party presenting him on the facts relevant to party presenting him or her on the facts
the issue. (5a) relevant to the issue. (5a)
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent
Old Provision New Provision

SECTION 6. CROSS EXAMINATION; ITS SECTION 6. CROSS EXAMINATION; ITS
PURPOSE AND EXTENT. - Upon the PURPOSE AND EXTENT. - Upon the
termination of the direct examination, the witness termination of the direct examination, the witness
may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any may be cross-examined by the adverse party on any
matters stated in the direct examination, or relevant matter, with sufficient fullness and freedom
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and to test his or her accuracy and truthfulness and
freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (6a)
elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent
DELETED “as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or connected

therewith”
REPLACED WITH “on any relevant matter”
Shift from the American Rule, the Scope-of-Direct Rule, which limits cross-
examination to matters taken up in the direct examination or anything connected
therewith, to the English Rule, or the Wide Open Rule, which permits cross on any
relevant matter.
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent

After the cross-examination of the witness has After the cross-examination of the witness has
been concluded, he may be re-examined by the been concluded, he or she may be re-examined by
party calling him, to explain or supplement his the party calling him or her, to explain or
answers given during the cross-examination. On supplement his or her answers given during the
re-direct examination, questions on matters not cross-examination. On re-direct examination,
dealt with during the cross-examination, may be questions on matters not dealt with during the
allowed by the court in its discretion. (12) cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in
its discretion. (7a)
Section 8. Re-cross examination

Upon the conclusion of the re-direct Upon the conclusion of the re-direct
examination, the adverse party may re-cross- examination, the adverse party may re-cross-
examine the witness on matters stated in his examine the witness on matters stated in his
re-direct examination, and also on such other or her re-direct examination, and also on such
matters as may be allowed by the court in its other matters as may be allowed by the court
discretion. (13) in its discretion. (8a)
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions

A question which suggests to the witness the answer A question which suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires is a leading question. which the examining party desires is a leading question.
It is not allowed, except: It is not allowed, except:
(a) On cross examination; (a) On cross examination;

(b) On preliminary matters; (b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and (c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a
child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf- child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-
mute; mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or (d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or

(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an
officer, director, or managing agent of a public or officer, director, or managing agent of a public or
private corporation or of a partnership or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party. association which is an adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as A misleading question is one which assumes as
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is contrary to that which he or she has previously
not allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a) stated. It is not allowed. (10a)
A child of tender years may be asked leading questions under Section 10(c), Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court. Section 20 of the 2000 Rule on Examination of a Child Witness also
provides that the court may allow leading questions in all stages of examination of a child if
the same will further the interests of justice. This rule was formulated to allow children to
give reliable and complete evidence, minimize trauma to children, encourage them to testify in
legal proceedings and facilitate the ascertainment of truth. (People v. Ilogon, G.R. No. 206294,
June 29, 2016)
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness
Old Provision New Provision

A witness may be impeached by the party against A witness may be impeached by the party against
whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by whom he or she was called, by contradictory evidence,
evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, by evidence that his or her general reputation for truth,
or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he or
other times statements inconsistent with his present she has made at other times statements inconsistent
testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful with his or her present testimony, but not by evidence
acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown
the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has by the examination of the witness, or the record of the
been convicted of an offense. (15) judgment, that he or she has been convicted of an
offense. (15)
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness
Under a rule permitting the impeachment of an adverse witness, although the calling party does not
vouch for the witness’ veracity, he is nonetheless bound by his testimony if it is not contradicted or remains
unrebutted.
A party who calls his adversary as a witness is, therefore, not bound by the latter’s testimony only in the
sense that he may contradict him by introducing other evidence to prove a state of facts contrary to what
the witness testifies on. A rule that provides that the party calling an adverse witness shall not be bound by
his testimony does not mean that such testimony may not be given its proper weight, but merely that the
calling party shall not be precluded from rebutting his testimony or from impeaching him. (Gaw v. Chua, G.R.
No. 160855, April 16, 2008)
NEW PROVISION
SECTION 12. Impeachment by evidence of conviction or crime. – For the

purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she has been convicted by final
judgment of a crime shall be admitted if (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in
excess of one year; or (b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the
penalty.
However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been

the subject of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction. (n)
SECTION 12. Impeachment by evidence of conviction or crime
• Instead of adopting the qualification under Rule 609 (a) (1) of the FRE allowing impeachment “if
the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year,” the Sub-Committee
deleted “death” because of the abolition of death penalty in our jurisdiction.
• Instead of adopting the provision in Rule 609 (a) (2) of the FRE, allowing impeachment if the
crime “involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment,” the Sub-Committee
opted to substitute the qualification “(b) [if] the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the
penalty” considering that “moral turpitude” has a settled meaning in our law and conviction of such
a crime has an unquestionable bearing on honesty, veracity and integrity.
Section 13. Party may not impeach his or her own witness

Except with respect to witnesses referred to in Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10 of this Rule, the
producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach
credibility. his or her credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile

hostile only if so declared by the court upon only if so declared by the court upon adequate
adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified showing of his or her adverse interest, unjustified
reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party reluctance to testify, or his or her having misled the
into calling him to the witness stand. party into calling him or her to the witness stand.
Section 13. Party may not impeach his or her own witness

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the
witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by
the party presenting him in all respects as if he had the party presenting him or her in all respects as if he or
been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of she had been called by the adverse party, except by
his bad character. evidence of his or her bad character.
Section 14. How witness impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that
he has made at other times statements inconsistent with he or she has made at other times statements
his present testimony, the statements must be related to inconsistent with his or her present testimony, the
him, with the circumstances of the times and places and statements must be related to him or her, with the
the persons present, and he must be asked whether he circumstances of the times and places and the persons
made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain present, and he or she must be asked whether he or she
them. If the statements be in writing they must be made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain
shown to the witness before any question is put to him them. If the statements be in writing they must be
concerning them. (16) shown to the witness before any question is put to him
or her concerning them. (16)
[SECTION 14 on the “Evidence of good character of witness” was incorporated in Section 55, Rule 130.]
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses

On any trial or hearing, the judge may The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall order witnesses
exclude from the court any witness not at the excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other
time under examination, so that he may not witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (a) a party
hear the testimony of other witnesses. The who is a natural person, (b) a duly designated representative of a
judge may also cause witnesses to be kept juridical entity which is a party to the case, (c) a person whose
separate and to be prevented from conversing presence is essential to the presentation of the party‘s cause; and
with one another until all shall have been (d) a person authorized by a statute to be present.
examined. (18)
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to
be prevented from conversing with one another, directly or
through intermediaries, until all shall have been examined. (15a)
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum

A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory A witness may be allowed to refresh his or her
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by memory respecting a fact, by anything written or
himself or under his direction at the time when the fact recorded by himself or herself or under his or her
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the
knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; fact was fresh in his or her memory and he or she knew
but in such case the writing or record must be produced that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in
and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if such case the writing or record must be produced and
he chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it, and may may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he
read it in evidence… or she chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it, and
may read it in evidence…
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum

So, also, a witness may testify from such a writing or So, also, a witness may testify from such a writing or
record, though he retain no recollection of the record, though he or she retain no recollection of the
particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or particular facts, if he or she is able to swear that the
record correctly stated the transaction when made; but writing or record correctly stated the transaction when
such evidence must be received with caution. (10a) made; but such evidence must be received with caution.
(16a)
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
Section 19. Classes of documents
For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, For the purpose of their presentation in evidence,
documents are either public or private. documents are either public or private.
Public documents are: Public documents are:
a) The written official acts, or records of the official a) The written official acts, or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country; Philippines, or of a foreign country;
b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public
except last wills and testaments; and except last wills and testaments; and
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of c) Documents that are considered public
private documents required by law to be documents under treaties and conventions
entered therein. which are in force between the Philippines and
the country of source; and
All other writings are private. (20a) d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
All other writings are private. (19a)

Section 20. Proof of private documents

Before any private document offered as authentic is Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved either: must be proved by any of the following means:
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or written;
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker. handwriting of the maker; or
c) By other evidence showing its due execution and
Any other private document need only be identified as authenticity.
that which it is claimed to be. (21a)
Any other private document need only be identified as
that which it is claimed to be. (20)
Section 20. Proof of private documents
• Public documents
◆ Admissible without proof of due execution and genuineness.
a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last wills and testaments; and
c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
d) Public documents under treaties and conventions.
• Private documents
◆ Due execution and authenticity must be proved:
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker;
c) By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved

The handwriting of a person may be proved by any The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
person because he has seen the person write, or has person because he or she has seen the person write, or
seen writing purporting to be his upon which the has seen writing purporting to be his or her upon which
witness has acted or been charged, and has thus the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given
by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (23a) genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (22)
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved
It bears stressing that the trial court may validly determine forgery from its own independent
examination of the documentary evidence at hand. This the trial court judge can do without
necessarily resorting to experts, especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or
dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual Comparison of specimen of the questioned
signatures with those of the currently existing ones. Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting "with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to
be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.” (Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes, G.R. No. 205681, July 1,
2015)
Section 24. Proof of official record

The record of public documents referred to in The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any
purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the
legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and legal custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a custody.
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
country, which is a contracting party to a treaty or
consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer
convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or…
in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in…

…the foreign country in which the …considered a public document under such treaty or convetion pursuant
record is kept, and authenticated by to paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall
the seal of his office. (25a) be in the form prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to
reciprocity granted to public documents originating from the Philippines.
For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a

contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to in the next preceding
sentence, the certificate may be made by a sectretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his or
her office.

A document that is accompanied by a
certificate or its equivalent may be presented in
evidence without further proof, the certificate or
its equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due
execution and genuineness of the document
involved. The certificate shall not be required
when a treaty or convention between a foreign
country and the Philippines has abolished the
requirement, or has exempted the document itself
from this formality. (24a)
Section 25. What attestation of a copy must state

Whenever a copy of a document or record is Whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the attested for the purpose of evidence, the
attestation must state, in substance, that the copy attestation must state, in substance, that the copy
is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must
be under the official seal of the attesting officer, be under the official seal of the attesting officer,
if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court if there be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a
having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a) court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
(25a)
Section 25. What attestation of a copy must state
For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are mandatory:
(1) it must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and (2) it
must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office. Such official
publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate
that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the
authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that
the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be
under the official seal of the attesting officer. (Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam v. Glow Laks Enterprises,
Ltd., G.R. No. 156330, November 19, 2014)
Section 28. Proof of lack of record

A written statement signed by an officer having A written statement signed by an officer having
the custody of an official record or by his deputy the custody of an official record or by his or her
that after diligent search no record or entry of a deputy that after diligent search no record or entry
specified tenor is found to exist in the records of of a specified tenor is found to exist in the
his office, accompanied by a certificate as above records of his office, accompanied by a certificate
provided, is admissible as evidence that the as above provided, is admissible as evidence that
records of his office contain no such record or the records of his or her office contain no such
entry. (29) record or entry. (28a)
Section 28. Proof of lack of record
In an action for declaration of nullity of marriage, where the wife failed to present
the actual marriage license, or a copy thereof, and relied on the marriage contract as
well as the testimonies of her witnesses to prove the existence of said license, and the
husband, to prove that no such license was issued, turned to the office of the civil
registrar which had allegedly issued said license, the Supreme Court held that the
certification issued by the civil registrar enjoyed probative value, as his duty was to
maintain records of data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. (Abbas v. Abbas,
G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
103047, September 2, 1994)
Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain

The party producing a document as genuine which has The party producing a document as genuine which has
been altered and appears to have been altered after its been altered and appears to have been altered after its
execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
must account for the alteration. He may show that the must account for the alteration. He or she may show
alteration was made by another, without his that the alteration was made by another, without his or
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the her concurrence, or was made with the consent of the
parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or
innocently made, or that the alteration did not change innocently made, or that the alteration did not change
the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails the meaning or language of the instrument. If he or she
to do that, the document shall not be admissible in fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in
evidence. (32a) evidence. (31a)
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION
Section 35. When to make offer
As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer All evidence must be offered orally.
must be made at the time the witness is called to
testify. Documentary and object evidence shall be The offer of the testimony of a witness in
offered after the presentation of a party's evidence must be made at the time the witness is
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done called to testify.
orally unless allowed by the court to be done in
writing. (n) The offer of documentary and object evidence
shall be made after the presentation of a party’s
testimonial evidence. (35a)
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION
Section 35. When to make offer
Thus, the trial court is bound to consider only the testimonial evidence presented and exclude the documents
not offered. Documents which may have been identified and marked as exhibits during pre-trial or trial but which
were not formally offered in evidence cannot in any manner be treated as evidence. Neither can such unrecognized
proof be assigned any evidentiary weight and value. It must be stressed that there is a significant distinction
between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer. The former is done in the course of the pre-
trial, and trial is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit; while the latter is done only when the
party rests its case. The mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean
that it has already been offered as part of the evidence.
The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter. Failure to make a formal offer within a considerable
period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it. Consequently, any evidence that has not been offered shall be
excluded and rejected. (Heirs of Pasag v. Spouses Parocha, G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007)
Section 36. Objection

Objection to evidence offered orally must be made Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally
immediately after the offer is made. immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a
of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as formal offer must be made as soon as the witness
soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably begins to testify. Objection to a question propounded
apparent. in the course of the oral examination of a witness must
be made as soon as the grounds therefor become
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to reasonably apparent.
within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a
different period is allowed by the court. In any case, the The grounds for the objections must be specified.
grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a) (36a)
Section 36. Objection
This amendment incorporates the ruling in Catuira v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 105813,
September 12, 1994), a case where the prosecution failed to offer in evidence the testimony
of a complaining witness upon calling her to testify and that the offer was made only after her
testimony and after the accused had moved that the testimony be stricken off the record. The
Supreme Court held that the procedural error or defect was waived when accused did not
object to the testimony when it was not first offered upon calling the complainant.
Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary

When it becomes reasonably apparent in the When it becomes reasonably apparent in the
course of the examination of a witness that the course of the examination of a witness that the
questions being propounded are of the same class questions being propounded are of the same class
as those to which objection has been made, as those to which objection has been made,
whether such objection was sustained or whether such objection was sustained or
overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the
objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party
to record his continuing objection to such class of to record his or her continuing objection to such
questions. (37a) class of questions. (37a)
Section 39. Striking out answer

Should a witness answer the question Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party
before the adverse party had the had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, or where
opportunity to voice fully its objection to a question is not objectionable, but the answer is not responsive, or
the same, and such objection is found to be where a witness testifies without a question being posed or testifies
meritorious, the court shall sustain the beyond limits set by the court, or when the witness does a narration
objection and order the answer given to be instead of answering the question, and such objection is found to be
stricken off the record. meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order such
answer, testimony or narration given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also
order the striking out of answers which are On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
improper. (n) (39a)
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE
RULE 133
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof
must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. must establish his or her case by a preponderance of
In determining where the preponderance or superior evidence. In determining where the preponderance or
weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies,
may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances
the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing
which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the
which they testify, the probability or improbability of facts to which they testify, the probability or
their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and improbability of their testimony, their interest or want
also their personal credibility so far as the same may of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as
legitimately appear upon the trial… the same may legitimately appear upon the trial…

…The court may also consider the number of …The court may also consider the number of
witnesses, though the preponderance is not witnesses, though the preponderance is not
necessarily with the greater number. (1a) necessarily with the greater number. (1a)
Preponderance of evidence:
- burden of proof in civil cases
- is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side
- synonymous with the term "greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of credible evidence
It is presumed that a person is innocent of wrong; that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
that private transactions have been fair and regular; and that the ordinary course of business has been
followed. Based on these presumptions, [it is presumed] that xxx NAIA III [was] built in accordance
with the specifications required The burden of proof lies with the Government to prove by
preponderance of evidence that the NAIA III suffered from structural defects. (Republic v. Mupas, G.R.
NO. 181892, September 8, 2015)
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean such a degree of proof as, does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. (2a) unprejudiced mind. (2a)
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Proof beyond reasonable doubt:

- burden of proof in criminal cases.
- does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty
- moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
- still the standard for criminal prosecutions under the Intellectual Property Code. (ABS-CBN
Corp. v. Gozon, G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015)
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction
conviction if: if:
a) There is more than one circumstance; a) There is more than one circumstance;
b) The facts from which the inferences are derived b) The facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; and are proven; and
c) The combination of all the circumstances is such c) The combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.

(4a)
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the following requisites must concur:
a) there must be more than one circumstance to convict;
b) the facts on which the inference of guilt is based must be proved; and
c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
With respect to the third requisite, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an
unbroken chain, which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
others, as the guilty person. (Franco v. People, G.R. No. 191185, February 1, 2016, citing People v. Ayola, G.R. No.
138923, September 4, 2001)
Although there was no eyewitness or direct evidence xxx (which) point to the petitioner as the one who killed
his wife, there was also no direct evidence establishing that the victim took her own life, circumstantial evidence
may be established or admitted. It is the quality of the circumstances, rather than the quantity, xxx, (which must)
consist of an unbroken chain that will inescapably lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty without an iota
of doubt. (Manulat, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 190892, Aug. 17, 2015)
NEW PROVISION
SECTION 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined. – In any case
where the opinion of an expert witness is received in evidence, the court has a wide latitude of
discretion in determining the weight to be given to such opinion, and for that purpose may consider
the following:
a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;

b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case; and
d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such determination. (n)
SECTION 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how
determined
This new provision gives guidance to judges in determining weight to be given to

expert opinion. It hews to the basic sense expressed by the US Supreme Court in
Daubert v. Merrel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that the judge must have considerable leeway in
the matter and that the listing of particular factors was meant to be “helpful” rather
than “definitive.”

SECTION 5. Substantial evidence. - In cases SECTION 6. Substantial evidence. - In cases
filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies,
a fact may be deemed established if it is a fact may be deemed established if it is
supported by substantial evidence, or that amount supported by substantial evidence, or that amount
of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
(n) (5)
Section 6. Substantial evidence
Substantial Evidence:
- burden of proof in administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.

- means "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.”
- affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence (Punongbayan & Araullo v. Lepon,
G.R. No. 174115, November 9, 2015)
THANK YOU

Day 5 Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Day 5 Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright 2021 by Maria Filomena D. Singh (Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, Manila, Philippines). All rights reserved.

Not for commercial use.

(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)

Associate Justice, Court of Appeals

Old Provision Revised Provision

Relevant evidence is any class of evidence which has 'rational probative

Competent evidence is evidence that is not excluded by the

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

The classification of the land is obviously essential to the valuation of the

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

• Expanded definition of documentary evidence

• Photographs as documentary evidence

Old Title Revised Title

Best Evidence Rule

Best Evidence Rule

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

(e) When the original is not closely-related to a

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as

• The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate best evidence objections to copies

• The new Section 4 (c) is based on Section 2, Rule 4 of the REE.

Kinds of Original Documents:

b) Duplicate original – still retained

Old Provision Revised Provision

The offeror must prove:

a) existence or due execution of the original;

Old Provision Revised Provision

The offeror must prove:

a) the original exists;

Old Provision Revised Provision

SECTION 8. Party who calls for document not Now Section 9.

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision

SECTION 19. Interpretation according to Now Section 20.

Old Provision Revised Provision

Religious or political belief, interest in the

SECTION 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. – The

Old Provision Revised Provision

OLD CONCEPT OF HEARSAY

NEW CONCEPT AS LACK OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE

INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT

Old Provision Revised Provision

• The reasons given for the rule are:

iv. Document attested by the lawyer. As to a

v. Joint clients. As to a communication

a) A person licensed to practice medicine

a) A person licensed as a psychologist by

Priest – Penitent Privilege

1. The protected communication must relate to a "quintessential and non-delegable presidential

a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news;

SECTION 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets. – A person cannot be compelled

Old Provision Revised Provision

Old Provision Revised Provision