3C 2012 EVIDENCE MATRIX

REVISED RULES OF COURT – PROPOSED RULES OF COURT – COMMENTS
RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Evidence defined. – Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) Section 2. Scope. – The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a) Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. – Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or these rules. (3a) Section 1. Evidence defined. – Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) Section 2. Scope. – The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these Rules. (2) Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. – Evidence is admissible when relevant to the issue and not excluded by THE CONSTITUTION, the law or these Rules. (3a)

No change.

No change.

• The revision included the Constitution, the highest law of the land, as a source of exclusion regarding admissibility of evidence. • This change has the effect of excluding evidence, which is rendered inadmissible by the Constitution. • For example, evidence obtained in violation of the Miranda rights, or the rights of the person under investigation for the commission of an offense to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel, are rendered inadmissible by Art. 3, Sec. 12 of the present Constitution.

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. – Evidence must have such a

Section 4. Relevancy; Collateral Matters – Evidence must have such a

No change.

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

relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4) RULE 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a) Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. – A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a) Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. – During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on

Section 1. Judicial Notice, when mandatory. – A court shall take judicial notice of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the GOVERNMENT OF THE Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a) Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. – A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (2) Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. – During the PRETRIAL AND THE trial, the court, on its

• The current rule may refer to various legislative, executive and judicial departments in our country. • The addition of the phrase “Government of the” clarified that judicial notice is mandatory with regard to the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the national government of the Philippines.

No change.

• The proposed rule includes a hearing on the proprietary of taking judicial notice, during the pre-trial,

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

own initiative, or on MOTION, SHALL HEAR the parties ON THE PROPRIETARY OF TAKING judicial notice of any matter. Before judgment or on appeal, the court, on its own initiative or on MOTION, may take judicial notice of any matter and SHALL HEAR the parties thereon is such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (3a)

whereas the current rule provide for a hearing during the trial only. • The hearing, in addition to the court’s initiative, may also be called for by the parties through a motion, unlike in the current rule, which is merely a request. A motion implies a more formal procedure before parties are heard. • The use of the word “SHALL” in the proposed rule also makes the hearing, upon the court’s initiative or motion of a party, mandatory. Under the current rule, the hearing on taking judicial notice of any matter “MAY” be allowed by the court, implying that there is still discretion on the court whether or not to hear the parties. • The proposed rule changed the term “verbal” to “oral”, which is the more correct term for admissions that are not written. • In contradicting an admission, the current rule only allows it by showing that no such admission was made. The proposed rule seeks to broaden the scope by looking into the intention as well. So even if an admission was made, but it was not intended to be one, the party seeking to contradict such admission may cite his lack of intention as a ground.

Section 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)

Section 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, ORAL or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that THE IMPUTED admission was not made OR INTENDED. (4a)

RULE 130 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

examined or viewed by the court. In the case of Sison vs. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters. – Documents as evidence consists of writings. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. figures. photographs or sounds emphasizes the incorporation of the Rules on Electronic Evidence thereby expanding the definition of documentary evidence as including electronic evidence which may be offered as long as they are used as proof of their contents. OBJECT EVIDENCE Section 1. — Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. symbols. (n) Section 2. numbers. . Zeta. The verification need not be made by the photographer himself it can be by any other competent witness who can testify as to its exactness and accuracy. Holloway and in more recent cases of College Assurance Plan vs. (2a) • • The inclusion of recordings. In addition. Article X Rule 1001 on the Definition of the Contents of Writings. Belfranlt Development and People vs. the proposed changes are reproductions of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Documentary Evidence.Section 1. it may be exhibited to. VIDEO TAPES. SOUNDS. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE • No change. X-RAY FILMS. Object as evidence. OR THEIR EQUIVALENT. numbers. figures. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue. words. words. it may be exhibited to. the court allowed the use of photographs as documentary evidence if they are relevant to the issue and are verified. PHOTOGRAPHS INCLUDE STILL PICTURES. or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. STORED IMAGES. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue. RECORDINGS. Recordings and Photographs. PHOTOGRAPHS or any material containing letters. People and Adamczuk vs. Documentary evidence. (1a) A. OR MOTION PICTURES. examined or viewed by the court. (1) B. Object as evidence. Section 2. symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents.

Original document must be produced. PHOTOGRAPH OR OTHER RECORD. recording or photograph. (b)When an original is in the custody or under the control of a party against whom the evidence is offered. no evidence is admissible other than the original document. BEST (ORIGINAL) DOCUMENT RULE • The addition of writings. without bad faith of the offeror. WRITING. PHOTOGRAPH OR OTHER RECORD. RECORDING. or cannot be produced in court. except in the following cases: (a)When the original has been lost or destroyed. or the original cannot be • . Original document must be produced. (b)When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. except in the following cases: (a)When the original is lost or destroyed. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. (c)When the original consists of Section 3. or cannot be produced in court. If the witness has a means of knowing about the past reality that doesn’t depend on having obtained from the writing. exceptions. he Section 3. WRITING. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. recording or photograph. According to Arthur Best the FRE’s original writing rule doesn’t necessarily affect the testimony about every aspect of a past event or condition that was a subject of a writing. exceptions. Recordings and Photographs as an expansion to what are considered as documentary evidence. photographs and recordings are in accordance with the adaptation of the Federal rules of Evidence Article X on Contents of Writings. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.1. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. RECORDING.

one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction. OR FROM THE SAME MATRIX. ANY PRINTOUT OR OTHER OUTPUT READABLE BY SIGHT OR OTHER MEANS. (3a) Section 4. While paragraph (b) and (c) are reproductions of Section 2 Rule 4 under the Rules on Electronic Evidence on copies as equivalent of originals. OR BY OTHER EQUIVALENT TECHNIQUES WHICH ACCURATELY REPRODUCE THE • or she is allowed to testify from personal knowledge and the fact that a tangible record of the condition or event exists has no bearing on the testimony. all such copies are equally regarded as originals. (b)When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. (3a) The definition of an original document has been expanded to include the definition of the Original of an electronic document as provided in Rule 4 Section 1 on the Rules on Electronic Evidence and also Rule 1001 Article X of the Federal Rules of Evidence. AN “ORIGINAL” OF A PHOTOGRAPH INCLUDES THE NEGATIVE OR ANY PRINT THEREFROM. Original of document. OR BY CHEMICAL REPRODUCTION. and (d)When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. — (A)AN “ORIGINAL” OF A DOCUMENT IS THE DOCUMENT ITSELF OR ANY COUNTERPART INTENDED TO HAVE THE SAME EFFECT BY A PERSON EXECUTING OR ISSUING IT. INCLUDING ENLARGEMENTS AND MINIATURES.numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. OR BY MECHANICAL OR ELECTRONIC RERECORDING.” (B)A “DUPLICATE” IS A COUNTERPART PRODUCED BY THE SAME IMPRESSION AS THE ORIGINAL. Original of document. (2a) obtained by judicial process or procedure. (d)When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. . (c)When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. (c)When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. — (a)The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. SHOWN TO REFLECT THE DATA ACCURATELY. IS AN “ORIGINAL. OR BY MEANS OF PHOTOGRAPHY. or (E) WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS NOT CLOSELY-RELATED TO A CONTROLLING ISSUE. with identical contents. Section 4. IF DATA ARE STORED IN A COMPUTER OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

(4a) Section 6. (5) Section 6. secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. – THE OF VOLUMINOUS RECORDS. he must have reasonable notice to produce it. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party. or cannot be produced in court. or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document. upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part. or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document. Summaries. he fails to produce the document. IT IS UNJUST OR INEQUITABLE TO ADMIT THE DUPLICATE IN LIEU OF 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. CONTENTS DOCUMENTS. he fails to produce the document. • No change. may prove its contents by a copy. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed. or cannot be produced in court. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence. or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. • No change. When original document is unavailable. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence. (5a) Section 5. When original document is unavailable. (4a) 2. upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part. the offeror. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party. or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. he must have reasonable notice to produce it.ORIGINAL. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. (6) Section 7. the offeror. OR (2) IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. may prove its contents by a copy. SECONDARY EVDIENCE Section 5. • The proposed change addresses the problem of modern commercial litigation and is an incorporation of .

PHOTOGRAPHS, OR NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS WHICH CANNOT BE CONVENIENTLY EXAMINED IN COURT AND THE FACT SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED IS ONLY THE GENERAL RESULT OF THE WHOLE, MAY BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF A CHART, SUMMARY, OR CALCULATION. THE COPYING, OR BOTH, BY THE ADVERSE PARTY AT A REASONABLE TIME AND PLACE. THE COURT MAY ORDER THAT THEY BE PRODUCED IN COURT. (n)

existing jurisprudence as seen in Compania Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers Union which provided that original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole, the original writings need not be produced and that in order to apply the rule, the records and accounts should be made accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of the summary may be tested on cross-examination. This section also applies the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 1006 on Summaries. Its effect would be the allowance of summaries as long as they are made available to the opposing party and the court can order their production in trial. No change.

Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When the original of document is in the custody of 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 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)

Section 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When the original of document is in the custody of 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. (7) Section 9. Party who calls for document not 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. (8)

No change.

3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: (a)An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement; (b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; (c)The validity of the written agreement; or (d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a) Section 10. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to 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 the written agreement. However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in A VERIFIED pleading: (a)An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement; (b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; (c)The validity of the written agreement; or (d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. The term "agreement" includes wills. (9a) • The introduction of the words ‘verified pleading’ emphasizes the need to put in issue in ones pleadings the four grounds or else the party can’t introduce parole evidence.

4. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS Section 10. Interpretation of a writing 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. Interpretation of a writing 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. (10) • No change.

Section 11. Instrument construed so as to give 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) Section 12. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. — In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and 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 circumstances. — For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those who language he is to interpret. (11) Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms. — 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

Section 12. Instrument construed so as to give 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. (11) Section 13. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. — In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and 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. (12) Section 14. Interpretation according to circumstances. — For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those who language he is to interpret. (13) Section 15. Peculiar signification of terms. — 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

No change.

No change.

No change.

No change.

(15) Section 18. (16) Section 18. Of Two constructions. — When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations. in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. • No change. Written words control printed. that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it. is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. and the two are inconsistent. and the two are inconsistent. Written words control printed. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. — When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form. Construction in favor of natural right. (13) Section 16. — When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered. or who understand the language. or the language is not understood by the court. one in favor of natural • No change. the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters. (14) Section 16. the former controls the latter. — When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it. is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. or who understand the language. or the language is not understood by the court. which preferred. the former controls the latter. • No change. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. . (15) Section 17. and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper. Of Two constructions. • No change. — When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations. — When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it. that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it. (17) Section 19. which preferred. the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters. one in favor of natural instance.instance. Construction in favor of natural right. (14) Section 17. — When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered. — When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form. and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper. (12) Section 15. in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly.

neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other Section 21. in order to determine its true character. may be witnesses. hearsay excluded. can make known their perception to others. can make known their perception to others. or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law. Religious or political belief. (18a) Section 36. Religious or political belief. (18) Section 20. (16) Section 19. Disqualification by reason of marriage. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. CANNOT testify against the other • The clear import of the change is that either the husband or the wife can testify for the other. shall not be a ground for disqualification. C. – An instrument may be construed according to usage. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 1. their qualifications. – An instrument may be construed according to usage. – During their marriage. • No change. which are derived from his own perception. the former is to be adopted. their qualifications. Witnesses. Interpretation according to usage. which are derived from his own perception. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES • No change. Disqualification by reason of marriage. Interpretation according to usage. interest in the outcome of the case. shall not be a ground for disqualification. except as otherwise provided in these rules (30a) Section 23. Section 23. (17) right and the other against it. the husband OR the wife. in order to determine its true character. that is.right and the other against it. Section 20. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge. and perceiving. – A witness can testify only to those facts THAT he knows of his personal knowledge. – All persons who can perceive. – All persons who can perceive. interest in the outcome of the case. (36a. Witnesses. the former is to be adopted. – During their marriage. (20a) Section 22. Only when the testimony is adverse to the other spouse that the would-be . – A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. that is. may be witnesses. and perceiving. R130) • No substantial change except for the change in phraseology in the section title and semantics. or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law.

without the consent of his client. be examined Section 24. another class of persons is added to be covered by the protective ambit of the privilege namely. cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other. in the recent case of Alvarez vs. – The following persons cannot testify as to the matters learned in confidence in the following cases: (a) The husband or the wife. (b) An attorney cannot. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. (23a) witness/spouse disallowed to testify save for the exceptions set forth in this Section However. No. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. (20a) without the consent of the affected spouse. during or after the marriage. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct ascendant or descendants. – The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases. a person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law and other people assisting the attorney. with respect to the attorneyclient privilege.” It should have been proper therefore to have this doctrine included in the amendment of the current rules as an additional exception to accommodate this case. except in a civil case by one against the other. A person who relies in good faith on the representations of a fake lawyer must not be prejudiced by the Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. 143439.without the consent of the affected spouse. Note however that in the former case. (a) The husband or the wife. except in a civil case by one against the other. during or after the marriage. the permission of both the client and employer/attorney is necessary. the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct ascendant or descendants.R. • • Several substantial changes have been introduced. permission by the client is sufficient to remove the case from the ambit of the privilege while in the latter case. Ramirez (G. The reason for the change is an obvious one. First. cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other . or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendant or ascendant. (b) An attorney OR PERSON REASONABLY BELIEVED BY THE . 2005) the Supreme Court recognized another exception which is that “where the marital and domestic relations between are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed.

be examined as to any communication made by the client to him. AS TO A COMMUNICATION RELEVANT TO AN ISSUE BETWEEN PARTIES WHO CLAIM THROUGH THE SAME DECEASED CLIENT. IF THE SERVICES OF THE LAWYER WERE SOUGHT OR OBTAINED TO ENABLE OR TO AID ANYONE TO COMMIT OR PLAN TO COMMIT WHAT THE CLIENT KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN TO BE A CRIME OR FRAUD. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CLAIMS ARE BY TESTATE OR INTESTATE OR BY INTER VIVOS TRANSACTION. the case of US vs. surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case. without the consent of the client and his employer. which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity. Sandiganbayan 262 SCRA 124). or with a view to. the case is removed from the ambit of the privilege and the attorney made be examined. professional employment. nor can an attorney’s secretary. when two contending clients both invoke a communication made by a deceased to an attorney. without the consent of the person making the confession. This meant that despite such professional relationship. stenographer. without the consent of the patient. Gordon-Nikkar (518 F. exceptions are introduced to the attorney-client privilege. 1975). On the part of the fake lawyer. (ii) CLAIMANTS THROUGH SAME DECEASED CLIENT. professional employment.as to any communication made by the client to him. EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: (i) FURTHERANCE OF CRIME OR FRAUD. is illustrative. (iii) BREACH OF DUTY BY LAWYER OR CLIENT.” Therefore. Second. nor can an attorney’s secretary. or clerk be examined. the attorney may be examined as to communication (even those made in confidence) made by the client. Such is the case whether the claims are litigated by testate. intestate or inter vivos transactions. OR OTHER PERSON ASSISTING THE ATTORNEY be examined. conversations regarding and intended crime are not covered by the privilege. when the court finds that the public interest CLIENT TO BE LICENSED TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW cannot. Thus when the trust and confidence governing the relationship ceases to exist and the parties become . stenographer. concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. or his advice given thereon in the course of. or clerk. Similarly. be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs. (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards. “the conversations in question dealt with plans to commit perjury so as to hide the criminal activity of appellants xxx. (d) A minister or priest cannot.2d 972 – 5th Cir. and which would blacken the reputation of the patient. With respect to the Crime-Fraud exception. When a either the attorney or the client breaches his duty. (c) A person authorized to practice medicine. In this case. The relationship between the attorney and client is uberrimei fidei (Regala vs. without the consent of the client and his employer. without the consent of THE client. or his advice given thereon in the course of. as to communication made to him in official confidence. concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. AS TO A COMMUNICATION RELEVANT TO AN ISSUE OR BREACH OF DUTY • • • • latter. be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him in any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity. he is in estoppel. the fiduciary relations between the two disappears justifying the removal of the case from the ambit of the privilege. or with a view to.

it is removed from the ambit of the privilege. surgery and obstetrics but also a (1) psychotherapist. When the communication is within the common interests of two or more clients and such clients had becomes adversaries in an action. the notary who acknowledged the instruments may be examined that the will was acknowledged by him and that the formalities for the execution of the will have been strictly followed. (2) persons who is reasonably believed by the patient to be licensed to engage in the practice of medicine or psychotherapy and (3) persons. he may be examined.would suffer by the disclosure. The Physician-Patient now covers not only persons in the practice of medicine. either may utilize the communication against the other and the attorney may be examined with respect to it. INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE • • • adversarial. the communication is no longer protected. OR (v) JOINT CLIENTS. who participated in the diagnosis of the patient. when a will is submitted for probate. The writer however poses some serious misgivings on this. (iv) DOCUMENT ATTESTED BY THE LAWYER. WHEN OFFERED IN AN ACTION BETWEEN ANY OF THE CLIENTS. (c) A PHYSICIAN. BE EXAMINED AS TO ANY CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT OF THE PATIENT’S PHYSICAL. When a document is attested by an attorney. including members of the patient’s family. PSYCHOTHERAPIST. THIS PRIVILEGE ALSO APPLIES TO PERSONS. Gordon-Nikkar supra. 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. Thus for instance. In the case of US vs. (21a) BY THE LAWYER TO HIS CLIENT OR BY THE CLIENT TO HIS LAWYER. INCLUDING ALCOHOL OR DRUG ADDICTION. Thus it should no . the court said that when a communication is made in the presence of third persons. In this case. AMONG TH PATIENT. HIS PHYSICIAN OR PSYCHITHERAPIST. AS TO A COMMUNICATION RELEVANT TO AN ISSUE CONCERNING AN ATTESTED DOCUMENT TO WHICH THE LAWYER IS AN ATTESTING WITNESS. MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL CONDITION. OR PERSON REASONABLY BELIEVED BY THE PATIENT TO BE AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE OR PSYCHOTHERAPY CANNOT IN A CIVIL CASE. the writer considers (3) above as third persons which acquired knowledge of the communication. WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PATIENT.

is to make (3) above as covered by Section 25 on “Parental and Filial Privilege” Like in the attorney-client and physician-patient privilege. (e) A public officer cannot be examined during OR AFTER HIS TENURE as to communications made to him in official confidence. Note however that the new rules expand the coverage by adding “any communication” apart from the confession and advice. WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE AFFECTED PERSON.PATIENT’S FAMILY. “term” is different from “tenure” in that the former denotes the statutory period within which a person may serve in a designated public office while the latter denotes the actual time served by a public official. to the opinion of the writer. BE EXAMINED AS TO ANY COMMUNICATION OR CONFESSION MADE TO OR ANY ADVICE GIVEN BY HIM IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CHARACTER IN THE COURSE OF DISCIPLINE ENJOINED BY THE CHURCH TO WHICH THE MINISTER OR PRIEST BELONGS. The better view. WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT OF THE PATIENT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PHYSICIAN OR PSYCHOTHERAPIST. With respect to state secrets. But the requirement that the communication should be given (1) in the priest’s professional character and (2) the duty is enjoined by the church or denomination to which the priest belongs remains. OR (b) A PERSON LICENSED AS A PSYCHOLOGIST BY THE GOVERNMENT WHILE SIMILARLY ENGAGED. it does not necessarily mean that it is absolute and privileged absent any showing that disclosure thereof would cause detriment to the government. the new rules have changes the word “term” from “tenure” indicating an intent by the framers to cover communication made to a public officer even after he retires from office notwithstanding that his term has not elapsed. (d) A MINISTER. . that when the law speaks of a communication as confidential. when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. Note however. The reason behind this is the same – estoppel. the priestpenitent privilege is binds not only the priest but any persons reasonably believed by the penitent to be so. (24a) • • longer be privileged. A “PSYCHOTHERAPIST” IS (a) A PERSON LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE ENGAGED IN DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT OF A MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL CONDITION. PRIEST OR PERSON REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE SO CANNOT.

Parental and filial privilege. an exception to the prohibition is provided similar to that in section 23. Parental and filial privilege. children. (20a) Section 25. children. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE Section 25. – No person SHALL be compelled to testify against his parents. UNLESS THE COURT FINDS THAT THE DISCLOSURE IS REQUIRED BY THE INTEREST OF THE STATE. or other direct descendants. editor or reporter unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State. other direct ascendants. editor. KINESCOPIC FILM OR CERTIFIED WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT OF THE ACTUAL • Monetary The changes are substantial. Board 142 SCRA 523) 2. NEWS MEDIA CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF ANY NEWS REPORT OR INFORMATION DISCLOSED IN CONFIDENCE TO SUCH PERSON. CONNECTED WITH OR EMPLOYED BY. magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher. THIS RULE SHALL NOT APPLY TO RADIO OR TELEVISION STATIONS. or other direct descendants. UNLESS THE RADIO OR TELEVISION STATION MAINTAINS AND KEEPS OPEN FOR INSPECTION FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF AN ACTUAL BROADCAST OR TELECAST AN EXACT RECORDING. Second. EXCEPT WHEN SUCH TESTIMONY IS INDISPENSABLE IN A CRIME AGAINST THAT PERSON OR BY ONE PARENTS AGAINST THE OTHER. columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper. – A PERSON ENGAGED IN. the change of the word “may” to the word “shall” indicates an intention to make the prohibition absolute and unwavering. First. TRANSCRIPTION. JOURNALIST-SOURCE PRIVILEGE. the publisher." Note that.(Banco Filipino vs. – No person may be compelled to testify against his parents. (25a) Section 26. according to the discussions in the evidence class with attorney Lim. other direct ascendants. the privilege belongs to the privilege belongs to the newsman . • • Section 1RA 53 as amended by RA 1477 is the Newsman’s Privilege which reads “ Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws.

– A PERSON CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY ABOUT ANY TRADE SECRET.R. WHEN DISCLOSURE IS DIRECTED. 172835 December 13. Penswell. 2007).e. the Supreme Court said that the claim of trade secret must have substantial factual basis otherwise. No. that one who can invoke its protection? After all. Again. (Air Philippines supra). the newsman being duty bound to keep secret the identity of the informant and thus being the obligor. • Section 27. the privilege does not apply if the newsman himself voluntarily elects to disclose his source. G. UNLESS NONDISCLOSURE WILL CONCEAL FRAUD OR OTHERWISE WORK INJUSTICE. PRIVILEGE RELATING TO TRADE SECRETS. Trade secrets constitute a proprietary right. the prohibition is only against compelling the newsman to reveal his source. • A trade secret is defined as a plan or process. mechanism or compound known only to its owner and those of his employees to whom it is necessary to confide it (Air Philippines Corporation vs. Should the informant and not the newsman who should be the holder of the privilege i. 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.BROADCAST OR TELECAST. it . Inc. Furthermore. so only he can move to quash a subpoena ad testificandum. he is the one who stands to be prejudiced when the information is disclosed. the factors to determine whether an information is a trade secret. The case just cited is the leading case on trade secrets and enumerates. NLRC (259 SCRA 51 – 1996 cited in Air Philippines supra). tool. by citing the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. In Cocoland Development Corporation vs. the writer has misgivings on this.

– The act. – The act. or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS Section 26. SUCH AS PROVING BIAS OR PREJUDICE OF A WITNESS. NEITHER IS EVIDENCE OF CONDUCT NOR STATEMENTS MADE IN COMPROMISE NEGOTIATIONS ADMISSIBLE. • The proposed rules of evidence added more categories in ruling on the admission of liability in offers of compromise. an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. the privilege must not apply and disclosure is proper. In criminal cases. A plea of guilty later withdrawn.In civil cases. except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised. If the disclosure would work injustice or conceal fraud. OR PROVING AN EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION. – In civil cases. NEGATIVING A CONTENTION OF UNDUE DELAY. the proposed rules also state that evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose. Admission of a party. except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised.• would permit an employer to label almost anything a trade secret. Offer of compromise not admissible. 3. an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. In criminal cases. Making these statements inadmissible against the offeror promotes a compromise as a remedy that settles disputes between parties faster and without repercussions. such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness. Note the exception however. Offer of compromise not admissible. (22) Section 27. and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. hospital or other expenses Section 28. • No change. EXCEPT EVIDENCE OTHERWISE DISCOVERABLE OR OFFERED FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE. declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. An offer to pay or the payment of medical. is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. the proposed rules state that evidence of neither conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations is not admissible against the offeror. negativing a . (26) Section 29. . • However. an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. the court must take measures in order to fully protect the interests of the employer. But in such cases. • In civil cases. Admission of a party. This is in line with the State’s goal of unclogging the dockets through a compromise between the parties.

• The proposed rules on evidence added the words “authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject” to further emphasize that there is a valid contract of agency between the parties and that the agent is acting within the scope of his authority. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner. • According to Weinstein. one of the practical reasons advanced is the encouragement of negotiation between the defense and the prosecution counsel with respect to pleas requires flexibility in making and withdrawing them without prejudice. (24a) A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. • Furthermore. . The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner. • In criminal cases. the proposed rules added more categories especially in plea bargaining.The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency. hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. is not admissible against the accused in evidence. the admission mys be made Section 29. (27a) contention of undue delay. Admission by co-partner or agent. An offer to pay or the payment of medical. or other person jointly interested with the party. or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution shall be admissible against the offeror. Aside from a withdrawn plea of guilty. or (b) which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn. or other person OR . the requisites of the agency being previously proven by evidence other than the admission itself. and an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense. (26a) Section 31. may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. in his commentary. may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. – The act or declaration of a partner or agent AUTHORIZED BY the party TO MAKE A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE SUBJECT within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency. the proposed rules also state that any statement in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution that (a) does not result in a plea of guilty. NEITHER IS ANY STATEMENT 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. joint debtor. joint debtor. Admission by co-partner or agent.

The declaration of an accused acknowledging • No Change. Where one derives title to property from another. the act. • No Change. and that the admission refers to a matter within the scope of the agent’s authority (Mahlandt v. or omission of the latter. the act. Yatco. .jointly interested with the party. may be given in evidence against him. . may be given in evidence against him. declaration. Where one derives title to property from another.The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence. Admission by privies. Confession. Admission by conspirator. Section 30. 97 Phil. while holding the title. and when proper and possible for him to do so. The declaration of an accused acknowledging Section 33. (32) Section 35. Admission by silence. (30a) Section 31.2d 626) must still be followed. in relation to the property. • The proposed rules of evidence changed the words “relating to the conspiracy” into “in furtherance of the conspiracy”. 588 F. Admission by silence. is evidence against the former. (23a) Section 33. Admission by privies. An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true. the conspiracy must be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself. (31) Section 34. in relation to the property. Wild Candid Survival and Research Cetner. An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true. Furthermore. Confession. or omission of the latter. and when proper and possible for him to do so. 941). Admission by conspirator. is evidence against the former. (28) Section 32. – The act or declaration of a conspirator IN FURTHERANCE OF the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the coconspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. (29a) during the existence of the agency. while holding the title. • No Change. (27) Section 32. may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. • The words in furtherance of the conspiracy were added to emphasize the requirement in this rule that admissions by a conspirator are admissible if the statements were made during the pendency of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its objects (People v. declaration.

It is a common mistake to think that section 36 of Rule 130 of the present rules of evidence defines what hearsay is. if rejected without valid cause. (49a) Section 36. instrument. and the like. (33) 4. system.his guilt of the offense charged. identity. HEARSAY. (34) Section 37.An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is. (29a) his guilt of the offense charged. habit.Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time. identity. plan. or of any offense necessarily included therein. may be given in evidence against him. . OTHERWISE PROVIDED • The proposed rules adopted the definition of hearsay in Rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (35) 5. or of any offense necessarily included therein. (48a) Section 35. HEARSAY IT EVIDENCE IN INTENDED BY HIM AS AN ASSERTION. Similar acts as evidence. may be given in evidence against him. • Statements may consist of either: an . – HEARSAY OTHER THE THAN ONE OF MADE BY THE IS A STATEMENT WHILE • No Change. but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge. scheme. Similar acts as evidence. DECLARANT TESTIFYING AT A TRIAL OR HEARING. The said rule requires personal knowledge in a witness’ testimony but does not define what hearsay is. equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money. . Unaccepted Offer. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE Section 34. . instrument. or property. IF STATEMENT IS A IS (2) IS NON-VERBAL (1) AN ORAL OR WRITTEN ASSERTION OR CONDUCT PERSON. if rejected without valid cause. custom or usage. but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge.An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is. HEARSAY SECTION 38. . OFFERED TO PROVE TRUTH THE FACTS ASSERTED OF A THEREIN. or property. equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money. system. INADMISSIBLE EXCEPT AS THESE RULES. habit. and the like. custom or usage. scheme.Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time. plan. Unaccepted Offer. • No Change.

hearing. AND WAS GIVEN UNDER OATH SUBJECT OR PENALTY OF PERJURY AT A HEARING. v.A STATEMENT IS NOT HEARSAY IF THE DECLARANT TESTIFIES AT THE TRIAL OR HEARING AND IS SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION CONCERNING THE STATEMENT. or in a deposition. 37 SCRA 336) or non-verbal conduct of a person. OR IDENTIFICATION PERCEIVING HIM. such prior inconsistent statement must have been given under oath at a trial. or other proceeding. Supp. These statements are inadmissible in evidence. or in a deposition. • A statement does not fall under the hearsay rule if: a) The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing b) Is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement c) The statement is: 1) Inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony. and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial. (A) INCONSISTENT WITH THE (B) CONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARANT’S TESTIMONY AGAINST THE OF DECLARANT A PERSON OF MADE RECENT AND IF OFFERED TO REBUT AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CHARGE ONE OF FABRICATION OR IMPROPER INFLUENCE OR MOTIVE. 492 F. -According to the committee on the proposed rules of evidence. (C) AFTER [n] oral or written assertion (People v. 2) Consistent with the declarant’s testimony and if offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or . Brioso.S. Zenni. OR OTHER PROCEEDING. if it is intended by him as an assertion (U. TRIAL. hearing. AND THE STATEMENT TO THE IS DECLARANT’S TESTIMONY. OR IN A DEPOSITION. 464). or other proceeding.

. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE Section 37. . made under the consciousness of an impending death. a statement is admissible as long as the declarant testifies at the trial. 6.The declaration of a dying person. it is not hearsay (Estrada v. Dying declaration. 356 SCRA 108). -In this case. may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject • No Change.motive. made under the consciousness of an impending death. may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject Section 39. . Desierto. whether or not the identification was made under oath or at a former proceeding.The declaration of a dying person. • If the statement is used to establish a fact and not a truth. -As for statements consistent with the declarant’s testimony. 3) One of identification of a person made after perceiving him. This is the doctrine of independently relevant statements. Dying declaration. the committe on the proposed rules of evidence stated that it must have been made before the charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive came into existence.

(20a) of inquiry. It now falls as one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. however. MAY BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE IF THE STATEMENT WAS MADE UPON THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE DECEASED OR PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND AT A TIME WHEN THE MATTER HAD BEEN RECENTLY PERCEIVED BY HIM AND WHILE HIS RECOLLECTION WAS CLEAR. IS INADMISSIBLE IF MADE UNDER LACK TRUSTWORTHINESS. SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING ITS SUCH OF STATEMENT. the wording of Section 1261(a) of the California Evidence Code was adopted. also known as the dead man’s statute. upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind. and (c) must have been made while his recollection was clear. the proposed rules of evidence did not delete the dead man’s statute entirely. or against a person of unsound mind. as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. • In order to be an exception to the hearsay rule. the statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind (a) must be made upon his personal knowledge. the current rule. Thus. • Do note that the purpose of this rule is to guard against the temptation to give false testimony and to discourage perjury. WHERE A PARTY OR ASSIGNOR OF A PARTY OR A PERSON IN WHOSE BEHALF A CASE IS PROSECUTED TESTIFIES ON A matter of fact occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the person became of unsound mind. (23a) • According to the committee on the proposed rules on evidence. • However. is blind and brainless because in seeking to avoid injustice to the dead it may cause injustice to the living. ANY STATEMENT OF THE DECEASED OR THE PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND. (b) must have been made at a time when the matter had been recently perceived by him. This means that the statement made by the declarant will be inadmissible in evidence. as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. • The proposed rules state. upon a claim or demand against the estate of THE deceased person or against THE person of unsound mind. This applies to the statements of the decedent. or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted.Parties or assignor of parties to a case. . OF DECEDENT OR – IN AN ACTION against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person. (31a) Section 23. that this statement will be considered hearsay if it was made under such circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness. (37) Section 40.of inquiry. STATEMENT PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND. as taken from Bentham. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person. cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. . or against a person of unsound mind. HOWEVER.

Section 38. may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. Toledo. against the interest of the declarant. — The declaration made by a person deceased. In the case of People v. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. c) A party or assignor of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the person became of unsound mind. Declaration against interest. may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.” • This change explicitly expanded the application of declaration against interest to penal interests as well. the requisites found in the proposed rule must be followed. A STATEMENT TENDING TO EXPOSE THE DECLARANT TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND OFFERED TO EXCULPATE THE ACCUSED IS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNLESS CORROBORATING CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY INDICATE THE • In the proposed rules on evidence. the Court said that to limit the . it was stated by the Court that it fails to see why a man will be presumed to tell the truth regarding his pecuniary interest but not his penal interest. Moreover. namely: a) It must be an action against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person. if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest. or unable to testify against the interest of the declarant. or against a person of unsound mind.• Furthermore. or unable to testify. Declaration against interest. (31a) Section 41. b) The claim or demand must be against the estate of the deceased person or against the person of unsound mind. a sentence was added to the provision on declaration against interest which states “a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. — The declaration made by a person deceased. if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true.

or marriage. death. (33a) Section 42. in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage. WITH WHOSE FAMILY HE WAS SO INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED AS TO BE LIKELY TO HAVE ACCURATE INFORMATION CONCERNING HIS PEDIGREE. This change recognizes the effect of adoption where the person adopted becomes part of the family. family genealogy. the dates when and the places where these facts occurred.TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE STATEMENT. — The act or declaration of a person deceased. This expansion provides that statements made by a person “with whose family he was so intimately associated as to be likely to have Section 39. may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy. The word "pedigree" includes relationship. death. and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. or marriage OR. • For such reason. ADOPTION. (38a) exception to statements against pecuniary interests and not criminal liability cannot be justified on grounds of public policy. in the absence of declarations made by persons related to him by birth. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. the proposed rules on evidence also included an additional person who may provide information concerning pedigree. or unable to testify. will find someone to admit to the commission of the crime in exchange for a sum of money. . and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Lim mentioned in class that the reason for adding the last sentence to the provision on declaration against interest is to prevent the instances wherein a person. • Atty. may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy. in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth. the proposed rules on evidence did not only expand the application of the provision but also provide an additional requisite where such statements may be allowed. • Moreover. and the names of the relatives. marriage. the dates when and the places where these facts occurred. desperate to free himself from any criminal liability. or unable to testify. and the names of the relatives. — The act or declaration of a person deceased. Act or declaration about pedigree. The word "pedigree" includes relationship. family genealogy. adoption. marriage. birth. IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF. Act or declaration about pedigree. birth. • The proposed rules on evidence expanded the provision on act or declaration about pedigree by adding “adoption” as part of those related to the person in question by adoption. who can provide information concerning the latter’s pedigree.

Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts.It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. — The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy. in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members. engraving on rings. family portraits and the like. may accurately give information concerning the latter’s pedigree. • • The proposed rules on evidence expanded the provision on family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree by adding “or adoption” to the list wherein the statements of a person. either by consanguinity or affinity. or marriage. may be received as evidence of pedigree. The two neighbors were allegedly neighbors of the petitioner’s parents when the petitioner was born and were also invited to the baptismal party of the petitioner. either by consanguinity. AS TO BOUNDARIES OF OR CUSTOMS AFFECTING LANDS IN THE COMMUNITY. may be received as evidence of pedigree. Common reputation. AND REPUTATION AS TO respect to the provision on common reputation deleted the phrase “respecting fasts of public or general interest more than thirty years old” . concerning the reputation or tradition of the family existing prior to the controversy in respect to the pedigree of any member of such family. OR ADOPTION. — Common reputation existing previous to the controversy. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — Common reputation existing previous to the controversy. adoption. respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old. (39a) Section 40. family portraits and the like. affinity. Mamigo. may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. engraving on rings. • This change recognizes a person who by virtue of adoption became part of the family. be received in evidence. affidavits of two neighbors were given as evidence of the petitioner’s age. or respecting marriage Section 41. This case is an example of an instance where a person even if not related by birth. (40a) accurate information concerning his pedigree” may be received in evidence. but is intimately associated to the person in question. who is a member or the family by virtue of adoption. • The proposed rules on evidence with Section 41. (34a) Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. Common reputation. may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. • In the case of Gravador v. — The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy.

the deletion of the requirement of “more than thirty years old” is also substantial because it is the test of reliability of the document showing common reputation. and giving it a legal significance. • The change in the proposed rules on evidence adding the phrase “under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence” emphasizes that the statements must be made during the time when the declarant is still startled by the occurrence and therefore. statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue. provides an additional qualification in order that the statements are made part of res gestae. may be received as part of the res gestae. and giving it a legal significance. Blackwell. Part of res gestae. may be received as part of the res gestae. Part of res gestae. (36a) Section 45. also. The change therefore.or moral character. does not have the opportunity to concoct or develop a story. also. and reputation as to events of general history important to the community”. Without such requirement. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue. may be given in evidence. So. • Moreover. may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof. (41a) and replaced it with “as to boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community. • It was mentioned in the case of Commonwealth v. • This change is substantial because it limited the effect of common reputation with respect to the community. Section 42. — Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto UNDER THE STRESS OF EXCITEMENT BY THE OCCURRENCE with respect to the circumstances thereof may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. to lands and general history. may be given in evidence. So. or respecting marriage or moral character. it may open the door to fabrication or forgery of documents. that the justification for the exception that the excited utterances made by an individual who recently suffered an overpowering and shocking experience is likely to be truthful. (35) EVENTS OF GENERAL HISTORY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. (42a) .

AND (C) ALL AS SHOWN BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE CUSTODIAN OR OTHER QUALIFIED WITNESS. or unable to testify. PROFESSION. Entries in the course of business. or near the time of transactions to which they refer. EVENTS. (37a) Section 46. RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY. OPINIONS OR DIAGNOSES MAY BE RECEIVED AS EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS THEREIN CONTAINED. IF (A) IT WAS MADE AT OR NEAR THE TIME BY. Section 43. OCCUPATION AND CALLING OF EVERY KIND. if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. or at a time when the exciting influence of the startling occurrence still continued in the declarant’s mind. (B) IT WAS THE REGULAR PRACTICE OF THAT BUSINESS ACTIVITY TO MAKE THE MEMORANDUM. This proposed provision is a more liberal rule on the admission of business records as the requirement that the person who made the entries should be dead or unable to testify is dispensed with. – ANY FORM OF MEMORANDUM. by a person deceased. may be received as prima facie evidence. who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. EVEN THOUGH THE PERSON WHO MADE THE RECORD OR ENTRIES IS AVAILABLE AS A WITNESS. The proposed amendments to the Rules on Evidence deleted the whole provision on entries in the course of business of the current Rules on Evidence. REPORT. it was noted by the Court that if the declaration was made at the time of. CONDITIONS. – Entries made at. OR DATA COMPILATION. it is admissible as part of res gestae. the commission of the crime. WHETHER OR NOT • . OR FROM INFORMATION TRANSMITTED BY. A PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE. Putian. which is adapted from Rule 8 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence and the definition of the term business is copied from the definition of business records in Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. ASSOCIATION. RECORD. THIS EXCEPTION SHALL NOT APPLY IF THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION OR THE METHOD OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF PREPARATION INDICATE LACK OF TRUSTWORTHINESS. RECORD OR DATA COMPILATION OF ACTS. INSTITUTION. It changed it to a provision on records of regularly conducted business activity. REPORT.• In the case of People v. or immediately thereafter. THE TERM “BUSINESS” AS USED IN THIS SECTION INCLUDES BUSINESS.

periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. • No change. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. science. Learned treatises. – Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines. – A published treatise. or a witness expert in the subject testifies. . periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. (46) Section 50. Entries in official records. – The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history. or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice. periodical. (39) Section 46. (45) Section 49. Commercial lists and the like. – Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list. register. register. that the writer of the statement in the treatise. given in a former case or proceeding.CONDUCTED FOR PROFIT. (43a) Section 44. judicial or Section 47. • No change. – The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify. (44) Section 48. periodical. law. Commercial lists and the like. or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. • No change. given in a former case or proceeding. Learned treatises. are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. or a witness expert in the subject testifies. that the writer of the statement in the treatise. – Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines. (38) Section 45. judicial or • No change. science. are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. law. or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history. Entries in official records. – A published treatise. – Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list. (40a) Section 47. or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein.

AND (C) THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THESE RULES AND THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE WILL BE BEST SERVED BY ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT INTO EVIDENCE. IS ADMISSIBLE IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT (A) THE STATEMENT IS OFFERED AS EVIDENCE OF A MATERIAL FACT. The case is about the admissibility of a newspaper clipping which was published 58 years before the trial of this case. This was added to supplement the exceptions to the hearsay rule. A STATEMENT MAY NOT BE ADMITTED UNDER THIS EXCEPTION UNLESS THE PROPONENT MAKES KNOWN TO THE ADVERSE PARTY SUFFICIENTLY IN ADVANCE OF THE TRIAL OR HEARING TO PROVIDE THE ADVERSE PARTY WITH A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE TO MEET IT. However. HAVING EQUIVALENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL GUARANTEES OF TRUSTWORTHINESS. Commercial Union Assurance Company. INCLUDING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DECLARANT. involving the same parties and subject matter.2d 388). Ltd. administrative. the requirements provided for by the provision should be strictly complied or satisfied. Instead of adding specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. – A STATEMENT NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY ANY OF THE FOREGOING EXCEPTIONS.S. may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to crossexamine him. may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to crossexamine him. the residual exception should rarely be used and only under exceptional circumstances. (41a) . (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. HOWEVER. which is derived from the U.administrative. (286F. The residual exception is based on Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. case of Dallas County v. THE PROPONENT’S INTENTION TO OFFER THE STATEMENT AND THE PARTICULARS OF IT. involving the same parties and subject matter. also. The contention of petitioner was that the newspaper article was inadmissible as evidence as it was hearsay and does not fall under any . (47) Section 51. (n) • • A provision on residual exception is a new addition to the Rules on Evidence as provided for by the proposed amendments. RESIDUAL EXCEPTION. the proposed Rules on Evidence adopted a residual exception which is a catch-all exception for the admission of hearsay not falling under any of the current exceptions to the hearsay rule when circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness are present.

Wigmore’s 1st requisite. providing for an analysis that the requisites of an exception to the hearsay rule are necessity and circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness. or because the assertion is of such a nature that one could not expect to obtain evidence of the same value from the same person or from other sources. the facts it brings out may otherwise be lost. These are: (1) Where the circumstances are such that a sincere and accurate statement would naturally be uttered. which is the necessity requirement.of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. relevant and material. For the trustworthiness requirement (2nd requisite). Necessity in this case is not to be interpreted as uniformly demanding a showing of total inaccessibility but that necessity exists where otherwise great practical inconvenience would be experienced in making the desired proof. either because the person whose assertion is offered may be dead or unavailable. The court held that it is admissible because it is necessary and trustworthy. and no plan of falsification be formed. (2) Where. . means that unless the hearsay statement is admitted. three trustworthy circumstances may serve as a practicable substitute to the ordinary test of cross-examination. Wigmore on Evidence was relied upon. and its admission is within the trial judge’s exercise of discretion in holding the hearing within reasonable bounds.

(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity. – The opinion of witness is not admissible. condition or appearance of a person. behavior. OPINION RULE Section 48. may be received in evidence regarding – (a) The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. – The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge. may be received in evidence regarding – (a) The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. (3) Where the statement was made under such conditions of publicity that an error. may be received in evidence. such as the danger of easy detection on the fear of punishment. skill. No change. may be received in evidence. Opinion of expert witness. General rule. except as indicated in the following sections.even though a desire to falsify might present itself. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. 7. other considerations. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. Opinion of expert witness. except as indicated in the following sections. (49a) Section 54. – The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given. (43a) Section 50. – The opinion of witness is not admissible. (48) Section 53. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion. – The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given. (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity. if it had occurred. The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion. behavior. • No change. would probably counteract its force. Section 52. (42) Section 49. and (c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. would probably have been detected and corrected. General rule. experience or training which he shown to possess. skill. and (c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. – The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge. experience. • . • The proposed amendments to the Rules on Evidence for the provision on opinion of expert witness added the qualification of education in the expertise of the witness. training OR EDUCATION which he shown to possess.

the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. EXCEPT: (a) In Criminal Cases: (1) THE CHARACTER OF THE OFFENDED PARTY MAY BE PROVED IF IT TENDS TO ESTABLISH IN ANY REASONABLE DEGREE THE PROBABILITY OR IMPROBABILITY OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED. in essence. HOWEVER. (2) Unless in rebuttal. IN ALL CASES IN WHICH EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER OR A TRAIT OF CHARACTER OF A PERSON IS ADMISSIBLE. The exception under criminal cases and in civil cases (Section 51 (a) and (b) of the current Rules on Evidence. (b) In Civil Cases: Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. PROOF MAY BE MADE • • • The proposed amendments to the Rules on Evidence specifically stated the general rule on admissibility of character evidence as compared to the current rules wherein it directly stated the exceptions without first mentioning the general rule.(44a) condition or appearance of a person. it added the admissibility of opinion evidence to prove character and the allowance of crossexamination into relevant specific instances of conduct. 47a) Section 55. the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character unless on rebuttal. Section 14. the proposed amendments to the Rules on Evidence transferred Section 14 of Rule 132 of the current Rules on Evidence to Section 55. Section 55 (a) and (b) of the proposed Rules on Evidence) is. (50) 8. (c) IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES: EVIDENCE OF THE GOOD CHARACTER OF A WITNESS IS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNTIL SUCH CHARACTER HAS BEEN IMPEACHED. The proposed rules merely phrased the provision better for easy understanding. similar to each other. Aside from that. (b) In Civil Cases: Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. Character evidence not generally admissible. exceptions: – EVIDENCE OF A PERSON’S CHARACTER OR A TRAIT OF CHARACTER IS NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING ACTION IN CONFORMITY THEREWITH ON A PARTICULAR OCCASION. CHARACTER EVIDENCE Section 51. For the 3rd exception which is that of both criminal and civil cases. (c) In the case provided for in Rule 132. exceptions: – (a) In Criminal Cases: (1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. . (2) The accused may prove his good moral character. Character evidence not generally admissible. (3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. claim or defense. and also the admissibility of specific instances of conduct to prove character in cases in which character or a trait of character is an essential element of a charge. (46a. pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

Burden of Evidence: In the proposed rules the burden of proof is differentiated from the burden of evidence insofar as the former never shifts while the latter does. – Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. (51a) RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF. . Burden of proof and burden of evidence. Burden of proof. the duty to establish or rebut a fact in issue shifts during the course of trial. 2a) Section 1. ON CROSSEXAMINATION. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE MAY SHIFT IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. CLAIM OR DEFENSE. – Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. whether sought to be established or rebutted. INQUIRY IS ALLOWABLE INTO RELEVANT SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT. BURDEN OF PROOF NEVER SHIFTS. On the contrary. Therefore. On the other hand.BY TESTIMONY AS TO REPUTATION OR BY TESTIMONY IN THE FORM OF AN OPINION. (1a) • Burden of Proof vs. (1a. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS Section 1. This means that the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue to establish his claim or defense remains his duty throughout the entire case. PROOF MAY ALSO BE MADE OF SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF THAT PERSON’S CONDUCT. IN CASES IN WHICH CHARACTER OR A TRAIT OF CHARACTER OF A PERSON IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A CHARGE. even before trial begins the parties already know upon whom the law imposes the burden of proof. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE IS THE DUTY OF A PARTY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH OR REBUT A FACT IN ISSUE. the parties shall only become aware upon whom the burden of evidence is imposed during trial whenever facts in issue arise.

be permitted to falsify it. by his own declaration. Section 3. – The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: (a) Whenever a party has. Conclusive presumptions. and to act upon such belief. a fact in issue. and to act upon such belief. the defense thereafter has the burden to rebut the same. or omission. Conclusive presumptions. . Burden of evidence – In a similar criminal case for qualified theft. the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution. Disputable presumptions. Section 2. (2) Section 3.• Examples: Burden of proof – In a criminal case for qualified theft. but may be contradicted and No change. intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true. All the elements of the crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in order to procure a conviction. but may be • No change. in any litigation arising out of such declaration. by his own declaration. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted. Disputable presumptions. in any litigation arising out of such declaration. intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true. or omission. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted. he cannot. (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. act or omission. after the prosecution presents evidence to establish that the accused was a person in confidence of the plaintiff. This burden does not shift even if the defense establishes any fact in issue. – The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: (a) Whenever a party has. act. he cannot. (3a) Section 2. act or omission. act. (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. be permitted to falsify it.

(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. (h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid. or exercises acts of ownership over. (l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it. (k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money. (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. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. or judge acting as such. are owned by him. (n) That a court. (f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter. (k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money. (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced. (o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it. (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced. was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction. (m) That official duty has been regularly performed. (n) That a court. (o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the . that things which a person possess. otherwise. (m) That official duty has been regularly performed. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. and in contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong. (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent. (g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter. (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent. (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. (l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it. has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly. (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. that things which a person possess. has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly. (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. (f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter. (h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid. was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction. or judge acting as such. or the delivery of anything. or exercises acts of ownership over. (g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter. (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.overcome by other evidence: (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong. are owned by him. otherwise. or the delivery of anything.

That the ordinary course of business has been followed. it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives. That private transactions have been fair and regular. he is considered dead for all purposes. That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated. or an aircraft with is missing. who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) (w) court and passed upon by it. That after an absence of seven years. he is considered dead for all purposes. That the ordinary course of business has been followed. who has not been heard of for . If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years. 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. an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them. That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. That a writing is truly dated. That after an absence of seven years. 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.(p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) (w) like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them. it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives. That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated. That a writing is truly dated. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract. The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. except for those of succession. That private transactions have been fair and regular. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years. or an aircraft with is missing. except for those of succession.

(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities. In case of disappearance. in any case. before marrying again.the vessel or aircraft. (x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact. (4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years. the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. However. (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years. and has been missing for four years. where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided. (z) That persons acting as copartners four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. (y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life. However. an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. and has been missing for four years. (x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact. before marrying again. (y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life. (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years. the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. in any case. an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. . (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 well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death. In case of disappearance. where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided. (2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities.

(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent . even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: (1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. property or industry. (bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage. (dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage. (2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have (z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship. (dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage. (cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money.have entered into a contract of copartneship. such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal. (aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. has been obtained by their joint efforts. (cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money. such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal. work or industry. work or industry. has been obtained by their joint efforts. property or industry. (aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: (1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. (bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage.

battle. (ff) That the law has been obeyed. If both were above the age sixty. purporting to be printed or published by public authority. according to the following rules: 1. when two persons perish in the same calamity. (hh) That a printed or published book. or conflagration. 2. If both were above the age sixty. when two persons perish in the same calamity. purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published. purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published. If one is under fifteen and the marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred. (hh) That a printed or published book. (ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature. and it is not shown who died first. 2. . battle. the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes. (ff) That the law has been obeyed. the older is deemed to have survived.been conceived during such marriage. and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred. 3. the older is deemed to have survived. (jj) That except for purposes of succession. such as wreck. (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 when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest. such as wreck. (gg) That a printed or published book. was so printed or published. was so printed or published. even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. the younger is deemed to have survived. (jj) That except for purposes of succession. (ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature. even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. (gg) That a printed or published book. (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 when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest. and it is not shown who died first. If both were under the age of fifteen years. according to the following rules: 1. contains correct reports of such cases. the younger is deemed to have survived. If both were under the age of fifteen years. the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes. or conflagration. contains correct reports of such cases. purporting to be printed or published by public authority.

If one be under fifteen or over sixty. that party has the burden of meeting such presumption.other above sixty. 5. in the absence of proof. the older. shall prove the same. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must probe his allegation. the former is deemed to have survived. A PRESUMPTION IMPOSES ON THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM IT IS DIRECTED THE BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE TO REBUT OR MEET THE PRESUMPTION. and the sex be different. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. as to which of them died first. 5. as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other. they shall be considered to have died at the same time. (5a) If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty. That if there is a doubt. – IN ALL CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR BY LAW OR THESE RULES. • Burden of going forward: This burden plainly states that whenever a presumption arises against a party. as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other. – There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. • Example: In a civil case for the collection of a sum of money. BUT DOES NOT SHIFT TO SUCH PARTY THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THE SENSE OF THE RISK OF • No change. whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other. (3) 3. If one be under fifteen or over sixty. the defendant presented a receipt for the payment of later installments. 4. if the sex be the same. they shall be considered to have died at the same time. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. Pursuant to Section 3 of . That if there is a doubt. If both be over fifteen and under sixty. (4) Section 5. (6) Section 4. 4. the older. the latter is deemed to have survived. shall prove the same. If both be over fifteen and under sixty. as to which of them died first. whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must probe his allegation. Section 4. – There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS. the former is deemed to have survived. in the absence of proof. the latter is deemed to have survived. the male is deemed to have survived. and the sex be different. if the sex be the same. the male is deemed to have survived. and the other between those ages. and the other between those ages.

NEITHER PRESUMPTION APPLIES. the plaintiff has the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut such presumption. . • Example: A vehicle ran over X. • Burden of proof in the sense of risk of non-persuasion: This means that a presumption will not shift the burden of proof. the prosecution would still have the burden to prove A’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. IF PRESUMPTIONS ARE INCONSISTENT. PRESUMPTION AGAINST AN ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASES. In such a case. as it is defined in Section 1 of this Rule. IS AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED . the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of non-persuasion would remain with the party upon whom it was originally cast. Section 6. who died because of the incident. – IF A PRESUMED FACT ESTABLISHES GUILT. The vehicle used was found in the possession of A against whom a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed. OR NEGATES A DEFENSE. (n) Rule 131. THE PRESUMPTION THAT IS FOUNDED UPON WEIGHTIER CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY SHALL APPLY. the victim. • This new provision simply means that whenever a basic fact gives rise to a presumption that establishes guilty. In other words.NON-PERSUASION WHICH REMAINS THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL UPON THE PARTY ON WHOM IT WAS ORIGINALLY CAST. the basic fact must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. He must therefore prove that the previous installments have not yet been paid. this gives rise to the disputable presumption that the earlier installments have already been paid. a presumption would arise that A was the doer of the whole act. IF CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY ARE OF EQUAL WEIGHT. Pursuant to Section 3 (j) of this Rule. However. A would then have the burden of going forward with evidence to meet the presumption.

the answers of the witness shall be given orally. Pursuant to Section 3 (j) of this Rule. and under oath or affirmation. including the questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto. – The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing. or witness with reference to the case. RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE A. (n) • Example: A was found in possession of a laptop which was recently stolen. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak. – The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court. In such a case. the answers of the witness shall be given orally. shall • No change • No change . including the questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto. the statements made by the judge or any of the parties. On the other hand. (1) Section 2: Proceedings to be recorded. the basic fact is that the stolen laptop was found in the possession of A. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak. (1a) Section 2: Proceedings to be recorded. the basic fact – that A was found in possession of the stolen laptop – will have to proved beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict A. or the question calls for a different mode of answer. A criminal charge of theft was filed against A. – The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court. counsel. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES Section 1: Examination to be done in open court. shall Section 1: Examination to be done in open court. or the question calls for a different mode of answer. and under oath or affirmation. the statements made by the judge or any of the parties. counsel. the presumed fact that arose from the basic fact is that A is guilty of theft. a disputable presumption arises that A was guilty of the crime charged.THE EXISTENCE OF THE BASIC FACT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND THE PRESUMED FACT FOLLOWS FROM THE BASIC FACT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. – The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing. In this case. or witness with reference to the case.

(2a) Section 3. stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. However. (3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. – A witness must answer questions. (3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. improper. stenotypist or recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. or (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. (2) Section 3. it is the right of a witness: (1) To be protected from irrelevant. However. – A witness must answer questions. or insulting questions. or (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court. Rights and obligations of a witness. it is the right of a witness: (1) To be protected from irrelevant. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final • No change . (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer. (2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. Rights and obligations of a witness. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. improper. or insulting questions. (2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require.be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court.

(b) Cross-examination by the opponent. Direct examination. Province of Negros Occidental. The proposed rules widens the scope of the crossexamination to include any relevant matter. (c) Re-direct examination by the proponent. Order in the examination of an individual witness. (d) Re-cross examination by the opponent. he may crossexamine a witness on matters not embraced in his direct examination. – Direct examination is the examination-inchief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. Cross-examination. Cross-examination. the witness may be cross-examined on matters stated in the direct examination or connected therewith. (5) Section 6. (b) Cross-examination by the opponent. (4) Section 5. Order in the examination of an individual witness. – The order in which an individual witness may be examined is as follows: (a) Direct examination by the proponent. the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct examination. in this jurisdiction. Direct examination. 19a) Section 4. the English Rule. (5a) Section 6. Hence. – Direct examination is the examination-inchief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. (d) Re-cross examination by the opponent. or the reverse. and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. – Upon the termination of the direct examination. v. reflecting more clearly the general rule of thumb followed in this jurisdiction for cross-examination. the adverse party may cross-examine a witness to elicit all the important facts bearing upon the issue. (3a. or the reverse. with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias. its purpose and extent.conviction for an offense. and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (3) Section 4. i. (8a) conviction for an offense. – Upon the termination of the direct examination.e. or connected therewith. its purpose and extent. the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party ON ANY RELEVANT MATTER. As stated in the case of Capitol Subdivision Inc. . (c) Re-direct examination by the proponent. (6a) • No change • No change • Under the present rules. (4) Section 5. – The order in which an individual witness may be examined is as follows: (a) Direct examination by the proponent. with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias.

– A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. – After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded. Section 7. Re-direct examination. Recalling witness. (h) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers • No change • No change • No change • No change . Recalling witness. the adverse party may recross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination. (13) Section 9. its purpose and extent. may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (g) On preliminary matters. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion. (14) Section 10. (8) Section 9. – After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded. Leading and misleading questions. as the interests of justice may require. the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. Leading and misleading questions. (9) Section 10. the adverse party may recross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination. (b) On preliminary matters. – Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination. – After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded. – A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion. (7) Section 8. Re-cross examination. questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination. he may be re-examined by the party calling him to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. except: (a) On cross examination. as the interests of justice may require.as long as they are relevant to the issue. (12) Section 8. except: (f) On cross examination. It is not allowed. (c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers Section 7. – After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded. its purpose and extent. It is not allowed. may be allowed by the court in its discretion. On re-direct examination. Re-direct examination. and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. On re-direct examination. he may be re-examined by the party calling him to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. Re-cross examination. questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination. – Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination.

– A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called. (10a) Section 11. (d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness. honesty. or record of the judgment. that he has been convicted of an offense. or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. or integrity is bad. or (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer. EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED BY FINAL JUDGMENT OF A CRIME SHALL BE ADMITTED IF: (A) THE CRIME WAS • No change • Section 11. or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts. It is not allowed. or (j) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness. by contradictory evidence. by contradictory evidence. director. or contrary to that which he has previously stated. (11) Section 12.from a witness who is ignorant. honesty. that he has been convicted of an offense. (i) Of an unwilling or hostile witness. or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. under . or integrity is bad. 8a) Section 11. or contrary to that which he has previously stated. or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness. except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness. A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness. director. 6a. IMPEACHMENT BY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTION OF CRIME. or a deaf-mute. is of feeble mind. there is no qualification on the kind of conviction that may be used to impeach the witness. or a deaf-mute. a child of tender years. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness. is of feeble mind. except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness. – FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHING A WITNESS. by evidence that his general reputation for truth. – A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called. It is not allowed. by evidence that his general reputation for truth. (15) from a witness who is ignorant. a child of tender years. Hence. Rule 132 of the present rules allows the impeachment of a witness by evidence of a prior criminal conviction. or record of the judgment. (5a. but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts. However.

the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility. Section 13. EVIDENCE OF A CONVICTION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IF THE CONVICTION HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF AN ABSOLUTE PARDON OR ANNULMENT OF THE CONVICTION. To settle matters. the proposed rules set the requirements for the kind of conviction necessary for impeachability: 1) it must be serious. – Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10.PUNISHABLE BY A PENALTY IN EXCESS OF ONE YEAR. the party PRESENTING THE witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility. unjustified reluctance to testify. The unwilling or hostile witness so declared. a conviction of a minor offense may be used to impeach the credibility of the witness. A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest. A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest. or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. Section 12. punishable by a penalty exceeding one year imprisonment. REGARDLESS OF THE PENALTY. • The proposed rules merely clarify as to which rule section 10 belongs to. so instead of the party producing the witness. or the witness who is an adverse party. Party may not impeach his own witness. may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party. or 2) if it involves moral turpitude. or the witness who is an adverse party.e. It also replaces the word “produce” with “present”.” But in the case of US v. or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. unjustified reluctance to testify. – Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10 OF THIS RULE. it is the party presenting the witness that is not allowed to impeach his credibility. despite having little “impeachment value. Mercado. (n) the present rules. may be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party. The unwilling or hostile witness so declared. the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction needed to impeach a witness is that of a high crime. . Party may not impeach his own witness. But it expressly excludes those convictions subject of an absolute pardon or annulment of conviction. HOWEVER. OR (B) THE CRIME INVOLVED MORAL TURPITUDE. i.

– Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. – How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. the motion should always be . but such cross. it has been held that exclusion is a time-honored practice designed to prevent the shaping of testimony by hearing what other witnesses say. (6a. allowed to explain them. (2) A DULY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF A JUDICIAL ENTITY WHICH IS A PARTY TO • Under the present rules. Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other time statements inconsistent with his present testimony. Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other time statements inconsistent with his present testimony. Section 15. and if so. the judge may exclude form the court any witness not at the time under examination.examination must only be on the subject matter of his cross-examinationin-chief. (17) Section 15. and he must be asked whether he made such statements. (12a) Section 14. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. AT ITS OWN INITIATIVE OR AT THE REQUEST OF THE PARTY. He may also be impeached and crossexamined by the adverse party. so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. the judge has the discretion to exclude or not to exclude witnesses. Evidence of good character of witness. (13) • No change • This provision has been incorporated in Section 55 of Rule 130 under Character Evidence. Bishop. In the case of State v. with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present. He may also be impeached and crossexamined by the adverse party. with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present. and if so. THIS RULE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE EXCLUSION OF (1) A PARTY WHO IS A NATURAL PERSON. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. the statements must be related to him. and he must be asked whether he made such statements. SHALL ORDER WITNESSES EXCLUDED SO THAT THEY CANNOT HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF OTHER WITNESSES. – THE COURT. but such cross. When one party moves to exclude witnesses and the other party does not object. allowed to explain them.examination must only be on the subject matter of his cross-examinationin-chief. – On any trial or hearing.except by evidence of his bad character. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. – How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. (18) except by evidence of his bad character. (16) Section 14. 7a) Section 13. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. the statements must be related to him.

(3) A PERSON WHOSE PRESENCE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE PARTY’S CAUSE. declaration. who may. or immediately thereafter. So. – When part of an act. and may read it in evidence. conversation. 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. writing or Section 16. though he retain no recollection of the particular facts. writing or record given in evidence. also a witness may testify from such a writing or record. there are witnesses that should not be excluded precisely because they are relevant to the purpose of the trial. – A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact. but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. cross-examine the witness upon it. declaration. if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made. the remainder admissible. (10a) Section 17. but such evidence must be received with caution. cross-examine the witness upon it. though he retain no recollection of the particular facts. – When part of an act. When part of transaction. When witness may refer to memorandum. if he chooses. or immediately thereafter. When witness may refer to memorandum. So. but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. but such evidence must be received with caution. writing or • granted. (16) Section 17.THE CASE. writing or record given in evidence. OR (4) A PERSON AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE TO BE PRESENT. or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded. who may. (15) Section 16. if he chooses. and may read it in evidence. or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded. The proposed rules include an express enumeration of the witnesses that are not subject to exclusion from the courtroom for this very reason. When part of transaction. by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred. the remainder admissible. by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred. also a witness may testify from such a writing or record. – A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact. conversation. No change • No change . However. if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made.

– Whenever a writing is shown to a witness. whether of the Philippines. and tribunals. Public documents are: (a) The written official acts. or of a foreign country. – For the purpose of their presentation in evidence. and (c) Public records. – Whenever a writing is shown to a witness. official bodies. kept in the Philippines. it may be inspected by the adverse party. Right to inspect writing shown to witness. official bodies. and when a detached act. declaration. the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other. conversation. it may be inspected by the adverse party.record is given in evidence by one party. declaration. conversation. (19) • No change . declaration. – For the purpose of their presentation in evidence. of private documents required by law to be entered therein. declaration. writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. documents are either public or private. Public documents are: (a) The written official acts. or records of the sovereign authority. writing or record is given in evidence. Classes of documents. All other writings are private. and tribunals. All other writings are private. or of a foreign country. and (c) Public records. conversation. Classes of documents. (18) record is given in evidence by one party. and when a detached act. documents are either public or private. and public officers. writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments. and public officers. the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other. or records of the sovereign authority. kept in the Philippines. of private documents required by law to be entered therein. Right to inspect writing shown to witness. any other act. any other act. whether of the Philippines. (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments. Section 19. conversation. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS Section 19. (18) • No change B. (11a) Section 18. writing or record is given in evidence. (17) Section 18.

Proof of private documents.(20a) Section 20. (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. proper references to these rules were integrated into the general rules. (20a) Section 20. – Where a private document is more than thirty years old. Proof of private documents. such as the Rules on Electronic Evidence. no other evidence of its authenticity need be given.” The American Bar Association submitted a paper to the Sub-Committee revising the existing rules containing assessments and suggestions. – Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. (21) Section 22. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. “by other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity. OR (c) BY OTHER EVIDENCE SHOWING ITS DUE EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY. (20a) • The proposed rules add another means to prove the due execution and authenticity of private documents. its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written. Such task proved to be difficult and instead. and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. 20 is one instance of this. no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. One of the suggestions was the integration of other recently promulgated rules on evidence into the revised rules to avoid confusion and to create one cohesive set of rules. It recognizes other means of proving authenticity and due execution that may be found in more recent rules of evidence. How genuineness of Section 21. (22a) Section 22. its due execution and authenticity must be proved BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS: (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written. How genuineness of • • No change . When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signatures or handwriting of the maker. The addition in Sec. No change Section 21. – Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence. – Where a private document is more than thirty years old. is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine.

Proof of official record. Proof of official record. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.handwriting proved. when admissible for any purpose. may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the • No change Section 23. 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. – Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. – The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write. of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison. – The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19. All other public documents are evidence. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison. (23) Section 24. (24a) Section 24. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. (22) Section 23. Public documents as evidence. – The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19. Public documents as evidence. – The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write. made by the witness or the court. made by the witness or the court. even against a third person. – Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. when admissible for any purpose. (23a) handwriting proved. and • No change . or by his deputy. of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. even against a third person. may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record.

– Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence. Irremovability of public record. an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. (26) • No change Section 25. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. that the copy is a correct copy of the original. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation. – Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. vice consul. the attestation must state. or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record if kept. (26a) Section 26. if the record is not kept in the Philippines.accompanied. consul. consul general. (25a) record. or a specific part thereof. Irremovability of public record. – Any public record. or by his deputy. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. in substance. if there be any. that the copy is a correct copy of the original. (25) Section 26. or a specific part thereof. as the case may be. (24) Section 25. an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. If the office in which the record is kept is a foreign country. under the sea of such court. vice consul. consul. If the office in which the record is kept is a foreign country. under the sea of such court. – Any public record. as the case may be. except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. in substance. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. if there be any. and accompanied. or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record if kept. What attestation of copy must state. What attestation of copy must state. consul general. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation. except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. and authenticated by the seal of his office. (27a) • No change . must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. the attestation must state.

attested by the legal custodian of the record. or by a copy thereof. Proof of lack of record. or (c) fraud in the party offering the record. – A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office. attested by the legal custodian of the record. (28a) Section 28. may be presented in evidence without further proof. – Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law. in respect to the proceedings. (27) Section 28. Public record of a private document. is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (31a) • No change • No change . or (c) fraud in the party offering the record. Public record of a private document. in respect to the proceedings. Proof of notarial documents. (29) Section 27. (30a) Section 30.Section 27. (b) collusion between the parties. accompanied by a certificate as above provided. • No change • No change Section 29. (29) Section 30. accompanied by a certificate as above provided. or by a copy thereof. the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (28) Section 29. – Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law. – An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record. is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. How judicial record impeached. Proof of lack of record. may be presented in evidence without further proof. – Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer. – An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record. – A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office. with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (b) collusion between the parties. Proof of notarial documents. the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. How judicial record impeached. – Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer.

how to explain. the document shall not be admissible in evidence. To avoid interruption of proceedings. or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. (34) • No change • No change . in a part material to the question in dispute. – Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence. Seal. If he fails to do that. parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (32a) Section 31. – There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33) • No change Section 32. unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. He may show that the alteration was made by another. To avoid interruption of proceedings. Seal. – Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence. Alteration in document. If he fails to do that the document shall not be admissible in evidence. (32) Section 33. He may show that the alteration was made by another. must account for the alteration. – There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. – The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution. or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. without his concurrence. or was otherwise properly or innocently made. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it. unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. or was otherwise properly or innocently made. – The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution. (33a) Section 33. Alteration in document. or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it.(30) Section 31. (31) Section 32. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. must account for the alteration. without his concurrence. in a part material to the question in dispute. how to explain.

– The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The proposed rules add an express provision that the objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. unless THE COURT ALLOWS THE OFFER TO BE MADE in writing WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS. Objection. but not of those not formally offered. – Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. OBJECTION TO THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS FOR LACK OF A FORMAL OFFER MUST BE MADE AS SOON AS THE WITNESS BEGINS TO TESTFIY. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness MUST be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent. which only speaks of objections to evidence offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. the grounds for objections must be specified. (n) Section 36. Offer of evidence. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. the grounds for objections must be specified. When to make offer. it is unclear when objection should be made. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court. This is to give the court ample time and opportunity to rule on the admissibility of the evidence without needlessly delaying the proceedings. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. (34) Section 35.C. Objection. OFFER AND OBJECTION Section 34. (36a) the Section 34. – The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. In any case. if allowed by the court. In any case. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35a) Section 36. Such offer shall be done orally. Offer of evidence. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. OBJECTION TO A WRITTEN offer of evidence MAY be MADE within three (3) days FROM notice of the offer. Under the present rules. (35) Section 35. (36a) the • • No change • The proposed rules expressly provide that a written offer of documentary and object evidence may be made within five days from notice. – The offer OF THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS IN EVIDENCE must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. . Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. When to make offer. This is intended to fill a gap in the present rule. the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. – Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. – As regards the testimony of a witness.

– Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same. unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. • No change • No change • No change . the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record. and such objection is found to be meritorious. Ruling. The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record. it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection. The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. if the objection is based on two or more grounds. (38) Section 39. When repetition of objection unnecessary. (37a) Section 38. However. – The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made. – Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same. and such objection is found to be meritorious. it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection. However. Ruling. whether such objection was sustained or overruled. whether such objection was sustained or overruled. When repetition of objection unnecessary. unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. if the objection is based on two or more grounds. – When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made. Striking out answer. but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. – When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made.Section 37. (38a) Section 39. – The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made. Striking out answer. a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions. it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions. Section 37. (37) Section 38.

Tender of excluded evidence. the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. – If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies. If the evidence excluded is oral. the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. (n) On proper motion. (40) RULE 133 SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE • No change Section 1. or otherwise improper. irrelevant. the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. the witnesses' manner of testifying. the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent. the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. how determined. the witnesses' manner of testifying. how determined. the probability or improbability of their testimony. the probability or improbability of their testimony. (n) Section 40. the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying. Tender of excluded evidence. If the evidence excluded is oral. — In civil cases. the nature of the facts to which they testify. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies. the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. (39) Section 40. Preponderance of evidence. and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the Section 1. their interest or want of interest. irrelevant. the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. – If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court. their intelligence. — In civil cases. . and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the • No change. or otherwise improper.On proper motion. their intelligence. their interest or want of interest. the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent. the nature of the facts to which they testify. their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying. the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. Preponderance of evidence.

and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. • This new provision provides the guidelines that courts will use in . though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. — An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS. (4) Section 5. Extrajudicial confession. (1) Section 2. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstances. (2a) Section 3. not sufficient ground for conviction. excluding possibility of error. Circumstantial evidence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstances. when sufficient. shall not be sufficient ground for conviction. HOW • No change. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof. (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. — In a criminal case. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. produces absolute certainly. • No change. Moral certainly only is required. produces absolute certainly. (3) Section 4. — In a criminal case. not sufficient ground for conviction. unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. The court may also consider the number of witnesses. excluding possibility of error. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. The court may also consider the number of witnesses. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.trial. Extrajudicial confession. shall not be sufficient ground for conviction. (1a) Section 2. unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Moral certainly only is required. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (3) Section 4. the accused is entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof. (2) Section 3. though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. Circumstantial evidence. • No change. — An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. (5) trial. the accused is entitled to an acquittal. when sufficient.

or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. its clear object is to give great leeway to the courts in evaluating such opinions. It states certain factors that may be considered by the courts but ultimately. — The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. (6a) Section 8.DETERMINED. This power SHALL BE exercised with caution. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. AND (d) SUCH OTHER FACTORS AS THE COURT MAY DEEM HELPFUL TO MAKE SUCH DETERMINATION. This power should be exercised with caution. – IN ANY CASE WHERE THE OPINION OF AN EXPERT WITNESS IS RECEIVED IN EVDIENCE. — When a motion is based on Section 6. Evidence on motion. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. (n) Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. (6) Section 7. 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. • No change. Substantial evidence. (b) WHETHER IT IS THE PRODUCT OF RELIABLE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS. . No change. (c) WHETHER THE WITNESS HAS APPLIED THE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS RELIABLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence. (5) Section 7. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n) Section 5. • No change. — When a motion is based on • weighing the opinions of expert witnesses. Evidence on motion. a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence.

(7) . but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties. but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (7) facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful