RULE 130: RULES OF
ADMISSIBILITY
What is important here is the
documentary evidence. In the
amendments, an audio recording is now
considered documentary evidence.
Q: What is the significance about
something that is considered
documentary evidence
A: it means that the original document
rule will apply to it if it’s a documentary
evidence
Q: What is considered original
A: in the case of photograph, the
original of a photograph includes the
negative or any print therefrom.
Q: Object evidence
A: anything addressed to the senses of
the court
Q: Testimonial evidence
A:
*testimony of witness in direct
examination is no longer done in court;
it is now through judicial affidavit which
is in question and answer form
When a witness takes the witness stand,
it is done only in cross examination, not
in direct examination because the party
presenting the witness should have been
submitted to the court a copy of JA of
the witness that’s why when he takes
the witness stand, it is only for cross
examination
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE
(previously known as best evidence rule)
Q: What’s the reason of changing the
term
A: the name “best evidence rule” is
inaccurate; it is misleading. It is as if the
evidence is the best among the
admissible evidence (which is not
correct)
The best evidence rule spoke on the only
admissible evidence—the original
document; not the best evidence
Q: State the original document rule
A: The original document rule provides
that when the subject matter of an
inquiry is the contents of the document,
no evidence is admissible except for the
original document itself, subject to
exceptions. Under this rule, documents
refer to all kinds of documents
When the subject of the inquiry is the
contents of a document, then no
evidence is admissible other than the
original document itself
Example:
A demand letter to prove that plaintiff in
a action for sum of money ahs made a
demand upon demand to the defendant
when the obligation became due. A
demand is an essential element of the
cause of action of plaintiff against
defendant in action of sum of money.
The plaintiff has to allege that he made
a demand in his complaint. And he has
to prove that the plaintiff made the
demand through a letter, a demand
letter. The plaintiff now has to prove
that demand letter which exists because
it is an essential element to his cause of
action.
Q: What is the subject of the inquiry in
the example given
A: The contents of the demand letter
(therefore, the plaintiff may only present
the original of the letter to prove that he
made a demand)
Q: With regard to an audio recording,
what is the original of an audio
recording? How about photograph?
A:
Q: As a rule, what are considered an
original document
A:
1. the document itself
2. a counterpart of the original
document
Q: explain that the original document is
the document itself
A:
Q: what is a counterpart of the original
document
A: A duplicate which is produced by the
same impression as the original (Atty is
really confused about words used in the
amendments)
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.
Q: explain: “produced from the same
matrix”
A:
Q: What is a matrix
A:
ATTY: Just memorize what are
considered original document for
purposes of applying the original
document rule
EXCEPTIONS TO THE ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT RULE
Q: Give exceptions to the original
document rule
A: When the original document is lost,
destroyed or cannot be produced in
court without bad faith on the part of the
offeror
Q: What is meant by “without bad faith
on the part of the offeror”
A: The lost or destruction or
unavailability of the original document
must not be due to the fault or
negligence of the offeror
Q: Since the original was lost, what
secondary evidence may be presented
by the offeror
A: Offeror may present a copy of the
original (photocopy)
Q: If there is no photocopy of the
original document, what other secondary
evidence that may be presented
A: the recital of the contents of the
original in some authentic document
Q: What is the secondary evidence to be
used if the recital of the contents in
another document is not available
A: testimony of the witness
*it must be proved to the court that the
witness has personal knowledge
*those 3 secondary evidence may be
presented in the order stated
Q: 2nd exception
A: When the original is in the custody or
under the control of the party against
whom the original document is to be
presented
For the offeror to be allowed to present
secondary evidence, he should show to
the court that he has given the adverse
party notice to produce the original but
the adverse party failed to produce the
original despite reasonable notice
Q: What secondary evidence may be
presented if the original is in the custody
against the party whom the original
document is to be presented
A: same with that of 1st exception
*offeror must show the existence of the
original
NOTE:
Every time secondary evidence is
presented, you must always present the
existence of the original
Q: 3rd exception
A: original is composed of
numerous/voluminous accounts which
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
Q: What secondary evidence may be
presented
A: The offeror may present the contents
of such evidence in form of a chart,
calculation or the summary
Q: 4th exception
A: If the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or which is
kept in a public office
Q: What is the rule of irremovability of
public records or documents
A: This rule provides that public records
cannot be taken out from the public
office where they are kept. So if a party
wants to present a public record, he
could not present the original of that
public record because of said principle.
Q: if the party cannot get the original of
the public record, what secondary
evidence may the offeror be presented
in lieu of the public record that cannot
be removed from the public office
A: He may show a certified true copy of
the original public record
*but if you now go to RD to get a copy
of certificate title, you will not be given a
certified true copy but instead, an
electronic copy --- just the same of
certified true copy because the original
cannot be taken out from the public
office
Q: the new exception provided in the
amendments
A: when the original is not closely
related to a controlling issue (Atty is
confused about this exception)
*in the last exception, there is no
mention that the original is not available
ATTY: If the original is not closely
related to the controlling issue, why
present it at all? But if you were ask to
enumerate it, you still have to include
this.
NOTE:
The original document rule applies to all
documents, whether a letter, affidavit or
a contract. It also includes photographs,
audio recordings, moving pictures, etc.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Q: State the parol evidence rule
A: Under the rules, parol evidence is
when the terms of an agreement had
been reduced into writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, as
between the parties and their successors
in interest, no evidence of such terms
other than the contents of a written
agreement.
Q: Based on that statement, to what
kind does this parole evidence apply?
A: Applies only to written contracts or
agreement (will not apply to a letter,
affidavit)
Q: Why is it that it will only apply to
written contracts?
A: Because if the terms of the
agreement have been reduced into
writing, that would mean that it would
only refer to written agreements and not
any other document
When the terms of agreement have been
reduced into writing, the writing is
considered to contain all the terms
agreed upon by the parties. A party
cannot later on said that “we also agreed
upon on other terms” – which are not
included in the written agreement.
We are not talking here about the
original copy of the document. The only
evidence that may be presented if the
issue is the terms agreed upon between
the parties – the only evidence that may
be presented is the contents of the
written agreement
NOTE:
Parol means oral. But as used in this
parol evidence, parol does not mean oral
evidence. The word parol here means
any evidence other than the contents of
the written agreement is parol evidence;
it could be testimonial, documentary
evidence, etc.
A party would not be allowed to prove a
term agreed upon between them using
parol evidence because it is only limited
to the contents of the written
agreement.
The parol evidence could also be in
writing. Let’s say that the party is
presenting another document claiming
that aside from the written agreement,
they also agreed on other terms
contained in this document – a party
cannot do that.
[Atty. Obra]: A party cannot do that
because he is limited to the contents of
that one written agreement, he cannot
present other written agreement to
prove the terms agreed upon by the
parties.
- So, the parole evidence oral
testimony or it can even be
documentary evidence.
- If it is not the contents of the
written agreement then such
will be excluded by the parole
evidence rule.
Illustration:
Suppose Mr. X and Mr. Y into a
construction agreement.
- So they executed a
construction agreement
where it was stipulated that
Mr. X, the owner, will pay Mr.
Y certain amount for Mr. Y to
construct the House of Mr. X.
- They reduce the terms of
their agreement to writing.
- Suppose later on Mr. X
believes that Mr. Y violated
certain terms that they have
agreed upon which are
contained in the construction
agreement.
- Mr. X wants to sue wants to
sue Mr. Y for breach of
contract with damages.
- So the first thing that Mr. X
should do is to allege those
terms that that they agreed
upon and were reduced to
writing in that written
construction agreement, and
then he has to prove those
the terms agreed upon.
Q: So what evidence may he present
to prove the terms agreed upon
between him Mr. X and Mr. Y? What
evidence is he allowed to present?
A: He is only allowed to present the
contents of the written agreement.
So he has to present the written
agreement because the contents
would be the evidence that he may
present.
- Of course, we are not talking
here of the original written
agreement. You must apply
another rule. So the parole
evidence rule and the original
document rule may apply at
the same time. So here the
plaintiff Mr. X is limited only
to the contents of the written
agreement, but the original
document who will also apply
at this same time because the
contents of the written
agreement is the same
subject of the inquiry.
- So, he must also apply the
original document rule and
present the original copy of
the agreement.
- Both rules will apply. The
original is required because of
the original document rule,
 not because of the parole
evidence rule. The parole
evidence rule pertains only to
the contents of the written
agreement being presented
as the evidence.
- So, to prove the terms agreed
upon between parties, Mr. X
is limited to the contents of
the agreement.
[Atty. Obra]: If he testifies that
aside from those terms agreed upon,
Mr. Y also violated other terms that
we did not include but we agreed on
them.
- In fact we had another
written agreement where we
included the other terms that
we agreed upon and I'm
presenting that to prove those
other terms agreed upon.
- The testimony of Mr. X would
be excluded by the parole
evidence and will not be
admissible for violating the
parole evidence rule.
- So he will be limited to the
contents of the written
agreement.
- It may be true that the
parties agreed on other
terms, but the parole
evidence rule will prevent any
of the parties to present
evidence to prove those other
terms.
- Because first of all, the
written agreement is
considered as containing all
the terms agreed upon. So no
other terms can be prove by
other evidence aside from the
contents of the written one.
Exceptions to the Parole Evidence
Rule
A party may present evidence to modify,
explain or add to the terms of the
written agreement if he or she puts in
issue in a verified pleading:
1. An intrinsic ambiguity,
mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
2. The failure of the written
agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of
the parties thereto;
3. The validity of the written
agreement; or
4. The existence of other terms
agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest
after the execution of the
written agreement.
[Atty. Obra]: So before a party is
allowed to present parole evidence to
modify, explain, or add to the terms of
the written agreement which normally
could not be done, he should first put in
issue the exceptions.
- You should put that in
issue in a verified pleading.
- So let us say it's the
plaintiff who wants to present
parole evidence because of
those exceptions then he has
to allege it in his complaint
and the complaint must be
verified which is a
requirement because a
complaint is an initiatory
pleading it's required to be
verified.
- So he should already
allege in his verified complaint
let us say an intrinsic
ambiguity, mistake, or
imperfection in the written
agreement.
- Or that be written
agreement fails to express the
true intentions of the parties.
The terms agreed upon is not
accurately stated in the
written agreement.
- Or if the party wants to
put in issue the validity. Let
 us say if the defense of the
defendant in that case for
breach of contract, he could
not be held liable for breach
of contract because the
contract is null and void. So,
if the defendant wants to
prove that the written
agreement is null and void so
that he will not be held liable
for breach of contract and
damages, then he should put
in issue in his answer that the
written agreement is null and
void. So that later on, he will
be allowed to present parole
evidence because he can
prove that the written
agreement is null and void by
presenting the contents of the
written agreement.
- Definitely you cannot prove
that the written agreement is
null and void by using the
contents of the written
agreement.
Exception No. 1: Intrinsic Ambiguity
Q: When is an ambiguity intrinsic and
when is it not extrinsic?
A: It is an intrinsic ambiguity when the
ambiguity is not patent or not obvious
on the face of the written agreement.
[Atty. Obra]: So by reading the written
agreement, you will not be able to
determine that there is an ambiguity
because the ambiguity is intrinsic.
- It's when you apply they
written agreement that you
realize that there is an
ambiguity, but on the face of
the written agreement
meaning if you just read the
written agreement you won't
know that there is an
ambiguity and therefore the
ambiguity is intrinsic.
- You cannot determine the
ambiguity by just reading the
written agreement.
- It's when you apply the
written agreement that you
discover the ambiguity
- If you determine that there is
an ambiguity by merely
reading the agreement, then
it's extrinsic, and that would
not be an exception to the
parole evidence rule
- For the ambiguity to be an
exception to the parole
evidence rule it should be
intrinsic
Illustration A:
Intrinsic Validity
Mr X provided in his last will and
testament that after his death, he is
giving his house and lot located at No.
20 Munoz st. B.F. Resort Village Las
Pinas City (it's a specific address)
to his favorite niece by the name of
Maria Perez.
Q: Considering that provision alone, can
you see an ambiguity?
A: No, there is no ambiguity. The
property being given is specific enough
(house and lot located at No. 20 Munoz
st. B.F. Resort Village Las Pinas City (it's
a specific address).
There’s also no ambiguity as to the
person to whom the house and lot is
being given. Provision provides “to my
favorite niece by the name of Maria
Perez.” Hence, no ambiguity.
Illustration B:
So Mr. X died and later on during the
probate of his will, the Court upon
looking at the extrinsic validity has
already allowed the last will and
testament.

- Now, the Court will now
determine the intrinsic validity
of the last will and testament
as to the validity of the
contents or the provisions of
the last will and testament.
- It turned out that Mr. X has
two nieces by the name of
Maria Perez.
- Now both nieces by the name
of Maria Perez are now
claiming that each of them is
the one referred to in the last
will and testament
- So let us say your client is
Maria Perez (1)
- You have to prove that it is
your client Maria Perez (1)
who is the favorite niece
referred to by Mr. X in his last
will and testament and who
should therefore be the one to
receive the house and lot.
- For purposes of the
application of the parole
evidence rule, a last will and
testament is considered a
written agreement.
Note:
A person who receives real property
from the testator in his last will and
testament is called a DEVISEE.
[Atty. Obra]: So, under the parole
evidence rule, to prove that she's the
one, she is limited to the contents of
written last will and testament.
- We cannot prove that she's
the one referred to because
there is intrinsic ambiguity.
- If Maria Perez (1) is limited
to the contents of the last will
and testament, then she
could not prove that she's the
one.
Q: So what should she do?
A: She should file an intervention in the
probate of the will to prove that she's
the one referred to as Maria Perez as the
favorite niece.
- So she will file an intervention
and she should put an issue
that there is an intrinsic
ambiguity in that provision,
but she is the one referred to
favorite niece, not Maria Perez
(2) but Maria Perez (1).
- She must also state that such
ambiguity could not have
been determined on the face
of the last will and testament,
and then he will have to prove
that she's the favorite niece
referred to.
- If she did that, Maria Perez
(1) will be allowed to present
parole evidence. Meaning
evidence other than the
contents of the last will and
testament to prove that she’s
the one referred to by Mr. X
in the last will and testament.
Q: How can she prove?
A: Maria Perez (1) may present parole
or evidence other than the contents of
the last will and testament to prove that
she’s the one referred to by Mr. X in the
last will and testament.
Q: Could you think of other evidence to
prove that she is the one referred to by
Mr. X in the last will and testament?
A: There may be letters which Maria
Perez (1) received from the decedent
saying that she is the favorite niece of
the decedent Mr. X.
[Atty. Obra]: Perhaps in one of those
letters Mr. X had already promised Maria
Perez (1) that in his last will, he will
leave his house and lot situated in that
specific address.
- So she has to present those
letters.
Q: Do you agree that these letters are
parole evidence?
A: Yes because the letters are not the
contents of the last will and testament.
- Under the parole evidence
rule, those letters could not
be presented. They are not
admissible, but because we
are discussing an exception
because it was put in issue
that there is an intrinsic
ambiguity in the last will and
testament, therefore, Maria
Perez (1) may be allowed now
to present parole evidence.
(Meaning those letters that were written
to her by Mr. X saying that: “you have
been taking care of me when i was sick
and i love you very much you're my
favorite niece in fact you're my favorite
relative and so when i die, I’m leaving to
you in my last will and testament my
house and lot in that specific address.”)
Exception No. 2:
When the party puts in issue in his
pleading the validity of the written
agreement.
Let us say the defendant in a breach of
contract case. His defense is that he
could not be held liable for breach of
contract because the contract is null and
void. He was coerced to sign the
contract and he did not give his consent
to the contract and therefore the
contract is null and void.
- The plaintiff used force and
intimidation to compel him to
sign the contract.
- In that breach of contract
case, he must prove that the
written contract is null and
void.
- So he should put in issue in
his answer that the contract is
null and void.
Q: But how will he now prove that the
contract is null and void if he is limited
to the contents of the written contract?
A: He has to present parole evidence by
way of his testimony to the effect that
the plaintiff used force and intimidation
to compel him to sign the written
contract.
This is to prove that the contract is null
and void, that it was without his
consent.
- He has to present parole
evidence but he must comply
with that because he puts in
issue the validity of the
written agreement or
contract.
[Atty. Obra]: So you can apply this to
the other exceptions. That's the way to
apply the exceptions to the parole
evidence rule.
- Put an issue and then present
parole evidence. First to prove
the intrinsic ambiguity and
then to prove the that the
written agreement or contract
is null and void.
[Atty. Obra]: We will not discuss
interpretation of documents
Please read Sec. 11 – Sec. 20 of Rule
130
Please study each of them
QUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES
Q: Who is qualified to be a witness?
A: Any person who can perceive and
perceiving can make known their
perception to others
may be witnesses.
Q: So what are the 2 qualifications of a
witness?
A: First, the ability to perceive. Second,
the ability to make known his or her
perception to the court
Q: How does a person perceive?
A: A person perceives through his or her
senses. So if it occurs through his or her
senses, a person perceives either by way
of sight, hearing, taste, smell or feeling.
RULE ON TESTIMONIAL
KNOWLEDGE
Q: Could you please state the rule on
testimonial knowledge?
A: It provides that a witness may testify
only on facts of which he has personal
knowledge.
Q: How does a witness acquire personal
knowledge of facts?
A: A witness acquires personal
knowledge of facts though his own
perception.
- That’s the reason why a
witness should have the
ability to perceive. Because
later on if he takes the
witness stand, he will be
allowed to testify only to
those facts which he has
perceived because that's the
way to acquire personal
knowledge of facts through
the use of his senses or
perception.
- So these two rules are closely
related.
- The first qualification of a
witness is the ability to
perceive.
- Why? because a witness can
testify only to those facts
which he has perceived or
facts of his personal
knowledge.
- That's how a witness acquires
personal knowledge of facts
through the use of his senses
or through the use of his
perception. So, you can say a
witness may testify only as to
what he has seen or what he
has heard or what he has felt
or smell. Only to those things
because that's what the rule
on testimonial knowledge
provides.
- That the witness may testify
only to those facts of which
he has personal knowledge.
Q: How does a witness acquire personal
knowledge of fact?
A: Through the use of his senses.
- Therefore, a witness may
testify only to what he has
seen or what he has heard,
what he has told, what he has
smelled.
- That's also the reason why a
witness may not testify on his
opinion
Q: In respect to the rule on testimonial
knowledge, why is a witness as a rule
not allowed to testify on his opinion?
A: As a rule, a witness cannot testify on
his opinion because of the rule on
testimonial knowledge that the witness
may testify only to those facts of which
he has personal knowledge which are
acquired through his perception
(through the use of his sense of sight
sense of hearing sense of smell sense of
touch).
Q: How does a witness acquire opinion?
A: It is not acquired through one’s
perception.
Q: When a witness testifies on a fact of
which he has no personal knowledge,
what will be the objection to the
testimony of that witness?
A: The objection is his testimony is in
violation of the rule on testimonial
knowledge.

[Atty. Obra]: Before the 2019
amendments, the proper objection to
that is that it's hearsay evidence. If a
witness testifies on a fact of which he
has no personal knowledge the proper
objection is that it is hearsay evidence
and therefore not admissible.
- But under the 2019
amendments, the rule on
hearsay evidence was
modified.
DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESS
[Atty. Obra]: There are certain
disqualifications also for certain reasons.
One which would be disqualification by
reason of marriage.
- So, a spouse cannot testify
for or against the other
spouse without the consent of
the affected spouse.
- The affected spots is the
spouse who is a party in a
case. So, the other spouse
the one who is not a party in
a case cannot testify for or
against the other spouse who
is a party in a case without
the consent of the affected
spouse (the spousal is a party
in a case).
- That's a disqualification of one
spouse testifying for or
against the other spouse (we
say party in a Case)
- Of course the one spouse may
testify for or against the other
only with the consent of the
affected spouse (meaning the
spouse who is a party in a
Case)
- If it's with the consent no
problem that would not be a
disqualification.
- But the affected spouse (the
spouse is a party) may object
to the testimony of his or her
spouse even if the testimony
is in his or her favor because
that's a disqualification.
There's also disqualification by reason of
privileged communication between
husband and wife
- But this is different from the
disqualification by reason of
marriage
- We have disqualification by
reason of privileged
communication between
husband and wife.
- Here, one spouse cannot be
examined as to any
communication made by one
spouse made in confidence by
one spouse to the other
spouse during the marriage.
- So take note: a spouse
cannot be examined as to any
communication made in
confidence by one spouse to
the other spouse during the
marriage.
- So it's not one spouse
testifying for or against the
other. The disqualification is
that one spouse may not be
examined or is not testifying
as to or or against the other
spouse.
- One spouse may not be
examined as to any
communication made to him
or her in confidence by the
other spouse during the
marriage.
Q: Who may invoke the disqualification?
A: It's the spouse being examined. The
other spouse may not be a party in a
Case, but it's the right of a spouse to
refuse to answer a question when the
question is about a communication made
to him or made to her or made by her or
made by him to the other spouse during
the marriage if the communication was
made in confidence.
 - Then the rule on a
disqualification by reason of
privileged communication will
apply between a husband and
a wife.
- Disqualification by reason of
privileged communication
between husband and wife
applies only when one spouse
is being examined as to any
communication made by him
or to him in confidence by the
other spouse during the
marriage.
- He may refuse to answer or
she may refuse to answer
There are other disqualifications by
reason of privileged communication
between a lawyer and his client (you
have to read these provisions because
there are so many new provisions
introduced by the 2019 amendments).
Q: What is the parental and filial
privilege rule?
A: Parental and filial privilege rule
provides that no person shall be
compelled to testify against his or her
parents other direct ascendants, children
or other direct descendants
[Atty. Obra]: Parental, of course, that
word is from the point of view of a
parent in respect to his or her children.
- Filial is from the point of view
of a child in respect to his or
her parents
- So it's the same, it's the
relationship between a parent
and a child.
Filial is taken from the Latin word “filius”
meaning brother. But in English it can be
any child (female or male).
Illustration:
Suppose the father is an accused in a
criminal case and the prosecution
presented the son of the accused to
testify against his father.
Q: May his father now object to the
testimony of his son against him by
invoking this parental and filial privilege
rule?
A: No, The father against whom the son
is testifying cannot object to the
testimony of a son by invoking the
parental and filial privilege rule, because
that is not the privilege. The privilege is
not to be compelled to testify.
Q: What is the privilege given that is
being given to a son testifying against a
father or to a father testifying again
against the son? So what is the
privilege?
A: The privilege is not to be compelled
to testify against your father or not to be
compelled to testify against your child
(against your son against your daughter)
- That is the privilege not to be
compelled to testify against a
parent or a child
- The father against whom the
son is testifying cannot object
to the testimony of a son by
invoking the parental and filial
privilege rule, because that is
not the privilege. The
privilege is not to be
compelled to testify.
- Of course the son can testify
against his father if he wants,
but the privilege of the son is
not to be compelled to testify.
- Normally a witness may be
compelled to testify in a
criminal case by subpoena. So
it's not a matter of the
witness wanting to testify, he
may be compelled by
subpoena to testify.
- But if it is a son testifying
against his father the
accused, the son has the
privilege not to be compelled
to testify against his father by
a subpoena.
 - or if the accused is the son
and the father is the one
called to testify by the
prosecution to testify against
his son, the father may refuse
to testify by invoking the
parental and filial privilege
rule.
- So you see, class, what is the
real privilege.
- Now there are two exceptions
stated by the 2019
amendments.
1 hr and 37 mins
0:00 – 49:00 Jeoh
EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION (Sec.
27, Rule 130)
[Atty. Obra]: Judicial admission is an
admission made by a party, oral or
written, in the course of the proceedings
of the same case. The rule on judicial
admission is that it does not require
proof. This means that a judicial
admission made by a party need not be
given in evidence by the party benefited
by the admission (adverse party) for the
court to consider it in deciding the case.
The court is mandated to consider the
admission in deciding the case without
the party benefited by the admission
having to present it in evidence
because the judicial admission is
already on record.
Note:
An admission is always adverse to the
party who made the admission and it
benefits the adverse party. If the
admission is judicial, the party benefited
need not present it in evidence for the
court to consider it in deciding the case.
Q: What is an extrajudicial admission?
A: It is an act, declaration, or omission
of a party as to a relevant fact (Sec. 27,
Rule 130).
Q: Why do we know that the admission
was done outside the proceedings of the
case?
A: Because the term itself is
“extrajudicial”. To distinguish it from
judicial admission which is made by a
party in the course of the proceedings of
a case in the same case. Therefore, an
extrajudicial admission is also an
admission; it can be an act, declaration,
or omission made by a party as to a
relevant fact. And we can assume it was
made by a party outside the
proceedings of the case or not in the
course of the proceedings of the
case, because we are now talking of
“extrajudicial”. There’s no mention that
it was done outside the proceedings of
the case, but we can assume, as
distinguished from judicial admission.
Q: What is the rule regarding
extrajudicial admissions?
A: An extrajudicial admission may be
given in evidence against the party who
made the admission (Sec. 27, Rule 130).
[Atty. Obra]: A judicial admission made
by a party does not require proof, and
need not be given in evidence by the
party benefited by the admission
(adverse party) for the court to consider
it in deciding the case. But the rule in
extrajudicial admission is that it should
be given in evidence for the court to
consider it. If it is not given in evidence
by the party who is benefited by the
admission, the court cannot consider it
in deciding the case.
Q: Why is it necessary that when the
admission is extrajudicial, it should be
given in evidence by the party benefited
by the admission for the court to
consider it in deciding the case?
A: Since the admission is extrajudicial, it
is not part of the records of the case. So
for the court to consider the extrajudicial
admission, it must be presented in
evidence.
Q: Why is the extrajudicial admission
not on record?
A: Because it is not made in the
proceedings of the case.
Judicial and extrajudicial admissions
(UP BOC)
JUDICIAL ADMISSION
Made in connection with a judicial
proceeding in which it is offered (Sec. 4,
Rule 129).
Made in the course of the proceedings of the
same case (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
Does not require proof (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
May be conclusive unless contradicted (Sec.
4, Rule 129).
May be written, oral, express, or implied
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE (Sec.
29, Rule 130
Q: What is the res inter alios acta rule?
A: The rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another (Sec. 29, Rule 130).
[Atty. Obra]: This is just the reverse of
the rule on extrajudicial admission - the
act, declaration, or omission of a party
may be given in evidence against him.
But the act, declaration, or omission of
one person cannot prejudice the rights
of another (res inter alios acta rule).
This does not sound like a rule on
evidence. It sounds like a substantive
provision of law. Every rule on evidence
speaks of evidence that is not
admissible, or evidence that is
admissible. But the res inter alios acta
rule does not speak of evidence that is
admissible or inadmissible. So we cannot
apply this as a rule on evidence because
the way this is written is unlike a rule on
evidence. So we have to translate
this as a rule on evidence.
Q: Translate the res inter alios acta rule
into a rule on evidence.
A: (General rule) - The act,
declaration, or omission made by a
EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION
person (third party) may not be
given
Any otherin evidence
admission as against
(Secs. a party
27 and 33, Rule
130)
in a pending case.
NotAdmission by court
made in the a third
of party is
the proceedings of
inadmissible
the same case. as against another. The act,
declaration or omission of another is
Must still be formally
generally offered
irrelevant, in evidence
and that in justice,
(Sec. 27, Rule 130).
a person should not be bound by the
acts of mere unauthorized strangers.
Rebuttable
Q: What are the instances when the act,
declaration, or omission of another
person may be given in evidence against
another (exceptions to the res inter alios
acta rule)?
A:
a. Admission by a co-partner or an
agent (Sec. 30, Rule 130);
b. Admission by a conspirator (Sec.
31, Rule 130);
c. Admission by privies (Sec. 32,
Rule 130); and
d. Admission by silence (Sec. 33,
Rule 130).
Admission by a co-partner
SECTION 30. Admission by Co-Partner
or Agent. — The act or declaration of a
partner or agent authorized by the party
to make a statement concerning the
subject, or within the scope of his or her
authority, and during the existence of
the partnership or agency, may be given
in evidence against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or
declaration. The same rule applies to the
act or declaration of a joint owner, joint
debtor, or other person jointly interested
with the party.
[Atty. Obra]: Assume there is a
partnership among Mr. A, Mr. B, and Mr.
C, the ABC Partnership. Assuming Mr. A
is authorized to speak for the
partnership, the act, declaration, or
omission of Mr. A regarding the
partnership may be given in evidence
not only against him, but also against
his co-partners, Mr. B and Mr. C.
Provided, Mr. A is authorized to speak
for the partnership and provided further
that the partnership is established other
than the act, declaration, or omission of
Mr. A.
Q: Why is an admission by a co-partner
an exception to the res inter alios acta
rule?
A: One of the characteristics of a
partnership is mutual agency among the
partners. There is a fiduciary relationship
among all the partners. A partner acts
on behalf of the other partners and of
the partnership.
Admission by an agent
[Atty. Obra]: An admission made by an
agent is admissible against the principal
because of the fiduciary relationship
between them. The agent acts on behalf
of his principal.
Admission by a conspirator
SECTION 31. Admission by Conspirator.
— The act or declaration of a conspirator
in furtherance of the conspiracy and
during its existence may be given in
evidence against the co-conspirator after
the conspiracy is shown by evidence
other than such act of declaration.
Q: When is there a conspiracy?
A: A conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it (Art. 8, Revised
Penal Code).
[Atty. Obra]: Mr. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C
come to an agreement to kill Mr. X and
they decided to kill him. After which, Mr.
A told his friend Mr. Y that his friends
and him agreed and decided to kill Mr.
X. Later, Mr. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C killed
Mr. X and were charged with murder.
Q: How will the declaration made by Mr.
A, one of the conspirators, be given in
evidence against his co-conspirators, Mr.
B and Mr. C?
A: The friend, Mr. Y, can testify on what
Mr. A told him - that his friends and him
agreed and decided to kill Mr. X.
Q: May Mr. Y’s testimony be admitted
against Mr. A?
A: Yes, under the rule on extrajudicial
admission because an extrajudicial
admission may be given in evidence
against the party who made the
admission.
Q: May the testimony of Mr. Y be given
in evidence against Mr. B and Mr. C?
A: Yes, under the admission by a
conspirator as an exception to the res
inter alios acta rule.
Note: It is not the conspirator who
made the declaration who will testify. It
should be somebody else to whom the
declaration was made.
Q: Suppose conspirator Mr. A was
discharged from the Information and
was made a state witness and he is now
testifying against Mr. B and Mr. C. Is the
testimony of conspirator Mr. A
admissible against conspirators Mr. B
and Mr. C?
A: Yes, under the rule on testimonial
knowledge.
SECTION 22. Testimony Confined to
Personal Knowledge. — A witness can
testify only to those facts which he or
she knows of his or her personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived
from his or her own perception.
Q: What is the rule on testimonial
knowledge?
A: It provides that a witness can testify
only to those facts which he or she
knows of his or her personal knowledge;
that is, which are derived from his or her
own perception.
[Atty. Obra]: If Mr. Y will testify on the
declaration made to him by Mr. A as
against Mr. A, that is admissible under
the rule on extrajudicial admission. If
Mr. Y will testify on the declaration made
to him by Mr. A as against Mr. B and C,
that is admissible under the admission
by a conspirator as an exception to the
res inter alios acta rule.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE (Sec. 37, Rule
130)
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 Rule.
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.
Note: This is a new provision introduced
by the 2019 Amendments.
49:01 - end tal
Q: When does a witness testify on
hearsay evidence?
A: A witness testifies on hearsay
evidence when he testifies on the
declaration made to him by another
person who is not in court and the
purpose of the testimony of the witness
is to prove the facts contained in the
declaration made to him by the person
who is not in court.
Q: X killed Y (murder case from
above). Suppose the prosecution
presented a witness, Mr. F. Mr. F
testifies that his close friend, Mr. G told
him that Mr. G was present at the scene
of the crime and that he saw Mr. X shoot
and kill Mr. Y, the victim. Is Mr. F
testifying on hearsay evidence?
A: Yes. Mr. F is testifying on the
declaration made to him by Mr. G, who
is not in court and the testimony of Mr. F
is being used to prove that Mr. X killed
Mr. Y.
· Hence, it is inadmissible
because a witness cannot
testify on the declaration
made to him by another
person. It is objectionable
because it violates the rule on
testimonial knowledge (of a
fact to which he has no
testimonial knowledge) and
that the testimony is hearsay
evidence.
Q: A private complainant, Ms. Y filed
a case for oral defamation against
Mr. X for calling Ms. Y, in the
presence of several persons,
including Mr. A, a prostitute. The
prosecution presented Mr. A as a
witness. Mr. A is testifying on what
he heard on the declaration made by
Mr. X towards Ms. Y. What is the
purpose of the testimony? Why is
the prosecution presenting Mr. A as
a witness?
A: My answer is no sir. The purpose of
the testimony of Mr. A is to prove that
Mr. X say that Ms. Y is a prostitute and
not to prove that Ms. Y is a prostitute.
The purpose is not to prove the facts
contained in the declaration (kasi
magiging hearsay evidence na siya-
objectionable), but the purpose is to
prove that Mr. X made that defamatory
statement, whether it is true or not. He
is testifying on a fact to which he has
personal knowledge (kasi narinig niya.
He has personal knowledge na-
admissible)
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY
EVIDENCE RULE
Exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule:
Section 38. Dying declaration.
Section 39. Statement of decedent or
person of unsound mind.
Section 39. Dead man’s statute
Section 40. Declaration against
interest.
Section 41. Act or declaration about
pedigree.
Section 42. Family reputation or
tradition regarding pedigree.
Section 43. Common reputation.
Q: Why should these exceptions be
admitted?
A: Because the person who has the
personal knowledge of the facts is either
dead or can no longer testify. This is
true in all these exceptions.
Q: For a dying declaration to be
admissible, what requisites must be
present?
A:
1. The declaration must be made
by a dying person and that
such declaration is made by
the person under the
consciousness of an
impending death.
· Impending- something that is
about to happen
2. May be given in a case where
the death of the declarant is
the subject of inquiry
3. The dying declaration may be
received only as evidence of
the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death
Q: Mr. X is walking along a road, and
he saw a person lying on the
ground, bleeding. He bent towards
the person and the person lying on
the ground told Mr. X, the passerby
that he knows he’s about to die
because he was stabbed by Mr. A,
Section 44. Part of the res gestae.
10 times. Mr. Y died. Mr. X has no
Section 45. Records of regularly
knowledge at all as to what
conducted business activity.
happened. The prosecution now
Section 46. Entries in official
filed a case for murder against Mr. A
records.
for killing Mr. Y. Who will testify on
Section 47. Commercial lists and the
the dying declaration?
like.
A: Mr. X, the passerby. He will testify
Section 48. Learned treatises.
that he was walking and saw a person
Section 49. Testimony or deposition
lying on the road, bleeding and that he
at a former proceeding
said he is Mr. Y and that he knew he was
Section 50. Residual exception.
about to die, and he was stabbed 10
times by Mr. A
Q: Is the testimony hearsay
evidence?
A: Yes. He is testifying on a declaration
made to him, who was not in court and
the purpose is to testify on the facts
made to him

Q: What is the purpose of the

testimony of Mr. X?
A: To prove that he was stabbed 10
times which resulted to Mr. Y’s death,
which is the cause and the surrounding
circumstances of the death of Mr. Y

Q: Is the testimony of Mr. A

admissible?
A: Yes.

Q: What are the 2 reasons why

hearsay evidence should be
admissible
A: First, there is a necessity to admit
hearsay evidence. Second, the
declaration is trustworthy.

Q: Why is there a necessity to admit

the testimony of Mr. X?
A: Because the person who has the
personal knowledge of the facts is either
dead or can no longer testify. This is
true in all these exceptions.

Note: The witness must testify

accurately of what the victim told him

Q: Why is dying declaration

considered trustworthy?
A: Since the declaration is made by the
person who is about to die, it is unlikely
that he will lie on his declaration as to
who caused or who killed him. Provided,
the witness will testify on it accurately.