SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
EVIDENCE
SOURCES:
Rules of Court, Rule 128-133
Constitution
Special Laws (e.g.Anti-Wiretapping Act)
Revised Penal Code, Civil Code, etc.
Jurisprudence
Rule 128
GENERAL PROVISIONS
EVIDENCE is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of
Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.
Every evidential question involves the relationship
between the factum probans and the factum
probandum.
FACTUM PROBANDUM - the ultimate fact sought to
be established.
It may be ascertained in:
1. pleadings submitted by the parties
2. pre-trial order
3. issues which are tried with the express or implied
consent of the parties. (Sec. 5, Rule 10)
NOTE: If fact is admitted, there is no more factum
probandum because there is no fact in issue.
FACTUM PROBANS - the material evidencing the
proposition. It is the fact by which the factum
probandum is established.
Admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence is
determined in accordance with the law in force at the
time the evidence is presented. Therefore, there is no
vested right of evidence. Evidence otherwise
inadmissible under the law at the time the action
accrued, may be received in evidence provided that it
is admissible under the law in force during the trial.
On the necessity of invoking a rule of evidence:
While it is true that the confessions of appellant were
made without benefit of counsel, they are still
admissible in evidence because of appellant‘s failure
to make timely objections before the trial court
(People vs. Samus GR No. 135957-58, Sept. 27,
2002).
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE:
A. Depending on its ability to establish the fact in
dispute, evidence may be:
1. Direct evidence—evidence which proves the fact
in dispute without the aid of any inference or
presumption.
2. Circumstantial evidence— evidence of relevant
collateral facts.
B. Depending on the degree of its value in
establishing a disputed fact, evidence may be:
1. Prima Facie Evidence—evidence which suffices
for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted
and overcome by other evidence.
As to the prima facie evidence in Section 2 of
B.P. 22:
If notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is
not sent to the maker or drawer of the bum check,
or if there is no proof as to when such notice was
received by the drawer, then the presumption of
knowledge as provided in Section 2 of B.P. 22
cannot arise, since [there] would simply be no way
of reckoning the crucial five-day period (Rico vs.
People, GR No. 137191, Nov. 18, 2002).
2. Conclusive evidence—evidence which is
incontrovertible or one which the law does not
allow it to be contradicted. It is insurmountable
evidence.
3. Corroborative evidence—evidence which is of a
different kind and character as that already given
and tends to prove the same proposition.
3. Cumulative evidence—evidence which is of the
same kind and character as that already given
and tends to prove the same proposition.
C. Depending on its weight and acceptability,
evidence may be:
1. Primary or best evidence—evidence which
affords the greatest certainty of the fact in
question.
2. Secondary or Substitutionary evidence—
evidence which is inferior to primary evidence,
and admissible only in the absence of the latter.
1
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
D. Depending on its nature, evidence may be:
1. Object evidence — evidence addressed to the
senses of the court and is capable of being
exhibited to examined or viewed by the court.
Also known as autoptic preference or real or
physical evidence.
Physical evidence speaks more eloquently than a
hundred witnesses (People vs. Pabillo, GR No.
122103, Nov. 4, 2003).
2. Documentary evidence —evidence which
consists of writings, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expressions
offered as proof of their contents.
3. Testimonial evidence — is verbal or oral
evidence. It is evidence which consists of the
narration or deposition by one who has observed
or has personal knowledge of that to which he is
testifying.
E. Depending on its quality, evidence may be:
1. Relevant evidence—if it has a relation to the fact
in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence.
2. Admissible evidence—if it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by law or the Rules of
Court.
3. Credible evidence—if it is not only admissible
evidence but also believable and used by the
court in deciding a case.
GENERAL RULE: The rules of evidence are
applicable to both civil and criminal cases due to
Section 2, Rule 128 and Section 3, Rule 1, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
EXCEPTION: When the law specifically provides
otherwise such as Section 4, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.
INSTANCES WHERE RULES OF EVIDENCE DO
NOT APPLY TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
1. In a civil case covered by the 1991 Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure since there is no trial;
The rule on burden of proof was applied in
ejectment cases – Since ejectment is a preliminary investigation, even if made without
possessory action, the plaintiff must show a right
of possession that is present or immediate in the
property sought to be recovered. Unless
established, the defendant will prevail. (C&S
Fishfarm Corp. vs. CA, GR No. 122720, Dec.
16, 2002).
2. Rules of Summary Procedure in criminal cases,
where the witnesses submit their affidavits and
counter-affidavits, subject only to cross-
examination;
3. Agrarian cases ; and
4. Rules regarding the testimony of witnesses from
examinations, etc., in cases under the MTC
(where the parties merely submit their position
papers and their witnesses‘ affidavits and
counter-affidavits.)
Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE:
The evidence must be—
1. Relevant — has a logical connection with the fact
in issue.
2. Competent — not excluded by the law or the
rules.
Any objection, defect or irregularity attending an
arrest or its consequences should be made
before an entry of plea in the arraignment;
otherwise, the objection would be deemed
waived. (People vs. Llavore, GR No. 133892,
Aug. 12, 2003)
In regard to an investigative report prepared by a
police officer where the defendant supposedly
admitted the victim‘s rape when the defendant
was interviewed by media, the Supreme Court
ruled that: ‗The admission was not in writing and
there is no showing that appellant was assisted
by a competent and independent counsel of his
choice when he made such statement in
accordance with Section 2 (d) of Republic Act
No. 7438 [An Act Defining Certain Rights of
Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial
Investigation as well as the Duties of the
Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers
and Providing Penalties for Violations thereof], in
relation to Section 12 (1) Article III of the
Constitution‘.(People v. Mole, GR No. 137366,
Nov. 27, 2003).
The Constitution bars the admission in evidence
of any statement extracted by the police from the
accused without the assistance of competent and
independent counsel during custodial
investigation. However, a counter-affidavit
voluntarily presented by the accused during the
the assistance of counsel, may be used as
2
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
evidence against the affiant. (Ladiana vs.
People, GR No. 144293, Dec. 4, 2002)
TWO AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY:
1. Axiom of Relevancy -- None but facts having
rational probative value are admissible; and
2. Axiom of Competency -- All facts having rational
probative value are admissible unless some
specific rule forbids their admission.
KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY:
1. MULTIPLE — evidence will be received if it
satisfies all the requirements prescribed by law in
order that it may be admissible for the purpose for
which it is presented, even if it does not satisfy the
other requisites for its admissibility for other
purposes.
2. CONDITIONAL — A fact offered in evidence may
appear to be immaterial unless it is connected
with other facts to be subsequently proved. In
such case, evidence of that fact may be received
on condition that the other facts be afterwards
proved; otherwise, such fact already received will
be stricken from the record at the initiative of the
adverse party.
3. CURATIVE — If incompetent evidence is offered
and admitted by the court over the objection of the
adverse party, the adverse party is likewise
entitled to introduce a similar improper evidence
to counteract that already given.
TWO CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Whether the incompetent evidence is
seasonably objected to.
2. Whether regardless of the objections, the
admission of such evidence will cause a plain
and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it
was admitted.
RULE 129
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
The following facts need NOT be proved:
1. Those which the courts may take judicial
notice of (Rule 129);
2. Those which are judicially admitted (Rule 129);
3. Those which are conclusively presumed
(Rule 131);
4. Those which are disputably presumed but
uncontradicted (Rule 131).
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Cognizance of certain facts which judges may
properly take and act upon without proof. They are
based on considerations of expediency and
convenience. It may be mandatory or discretionary.
MANDATORY when the facts pertain to:
1. the existence and territorial extent of states;
2. their political history, form of government, and
symbols of nationality;
3. the law of nations;
4. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals;
5. the political constitution and history of the
Philippines;
6. the official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines;
7. the laws of nature;
8. the measure of time; and
9. the geographical divisions
THE LAW OF NATIONS - The law of nations which is
the subject of judicial notice is the law which regulates
the relations of the dominant powers of the earth. It is
the compilation of rules which by common consent of
mankind have been acquiesced in as law.
Foreign municipal law must be proved as any other
fact.
DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION:
It is that doctrine which lays down the presumption
that the foreign law is the same as the law of the
forum. It arises if the foreign law, though properly
applicable, is either not alleged, or if alleged, is not
duly proved before a competent court.
NOTE: When parties in a case agree on what the
foreign law provides, these are admissions of fact
which the other parties and the court are made to rely
and act upon, hence they are in estoppel to
subsequently take a contrary position (Phil.
Commercial & Industrial Bank, vs. Escolin, et. al.)
The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the
judicial knowledge of the court; judicial cognizance is
taken only of those matters which are ―commonly‖
known. A fact may be of judicial notice and not of
judge‘s personal knowledge and vice versa. The rule
refers to facts which ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.
JUDICIAL NOTICE IS DISCRETIONARY WITH
RESPECT TO MATTERS WHICH ARE:
1. of public knowledge; or
2. capable of unquestionable demonstration; or
3
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
3. those that judges ought to know by reason of
their judicial functions.
WHEN JUDGE MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
RECORDS OF ANOTHER CASE PREVIOUSLY
TRIED:
1. When, either at the initiative of the judge or that of
the parties, and without objection of any party, the
record of the previous action are read and
adopted into the present action.
2. When, without objection on the part of any party,
the records of the previous case are actually
withdrawn from the archives and attached to the
records of the present action, by court order.
Judicial Notice of Municipal Ordinances
Inferior courts should take judicial notice of municipal
or city ordinances in force in their territorial
jurisdiction.
The RTC should take judicial notice of municipal
ordinances only when:
1. they are expressly authorized by statute;
2. on appeals of decisions by the inferior court when
such courts had taken notice of a municipal
ordinance.
Section 4. Judicial Admission
JUDICIAL ADMISSION - the admission made in the
course of the proceedings in the same case by a
party.
NOTE: Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
cannot be admitted because jurisdiction over the
subject matter is conferred by law and not by
stipulation of parties. [also see Section 27, Rule 130
as to admissibility of an offer to compromise, Article
2035, New Civil Code as to matters which cannot be
compromised]
Judicial Admissions May Be Made in:
1. the pleadings filed by the parties;
2. in the course of the trial either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations; or
3. in other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the
pre-trial of the case;
4. admissions obtained through depositions, written
interrogatories or requests for admissions.
Judicial admissions may be contradicted only
when it is shown that:
1. it was made through palpable mistake; or
2. that no such admission was made.
Judicial admissions in pleadings later amended
In civil cases, an amended pleading becomes a
judicial admission and the contents of the pleading it
amends not included in the amended pleading
becomes extrajudicial admissions which must be
offered in evidence for it to be considered by the trial
court.
Judicial admissions are always conclusive upon the
admitter and does not require formal offer as
evidence, unlike in the case of extra-judicial
admissions.
Admissions in affirmative defenses are merely
hypothetical.
Judicial admissions made in one case are admissible
at the trial of another case provided they are proved
and are pertinent to the issue involved in the latter,
UNLESS:
1. the said admissions were made only for purposes
of the first case, as in the rule of implied
admissions and their effects under Rule 26;
2. the same were withdrawn with the permission of
the court therein; or
3. the court deems it proper to relieve the party
therefrom.
IS SELF-SERVING RULE APPLICABLE TO
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS? NO. The self-serving rule
which prohibits the admission of declaration of a
witness in his favor applies only to extra-judicial
admissions. If the declaration is made in open court,
such is raw evidence, it is not self-serving. It is
admissible because the witness may be cross-
examined on that matter. However, whether it will be
credible or not, is a matter of appreciation on the part
of the court.
RULE 130
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. OBJECT EVIDENCE
Always accompanied by testimonial evidence to
support the object presented.
Not a rule of exclusion thus other kinds of evidence
may be presented even if there is an object evidence.
Requisites of object evidence to be admissible:
1. the object must be relevant to the fact in issue; and
2. the object must be authenticated before it is
admitted.
4
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
In the sale or delivery of prohibited drugs, the
consummation of the crime may be sufficiently
established even in the absence of an exchange of
money. There is no rule that requires a simultaneous
exchange of money and prohibited drug between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher. Accordingly, the
presentation of buy-bust money is not indispensable
to the prosecution of a drug case (People v. Eugenio,
GR No. 146805, Jan. 16, 2003).
OCULAR INSPECTION OR “VIEW”—the court can
go to the place where the object is located, when
object evidence cannot be brought to court. [also See
Section 21 (4) to (6), Republic Act No. 9165, or The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
concerning the ocular inspection by the Court of drugs
seized. Unless bulky, the ocular inspection can be
conducted in court where the evidence is brought (5
Herrera, Remedial Law, 1999 edition, page 144, citing
2 Wigmore on Evidence, Sec. 1152).
VIEW PART OF THE TRIAL—The inspection or view
outside the courtroom should be made in the
presence of the parties or at least with previous notice
to them in order that they may show the object to be
viewed. Such inspection is a part of the trial,
inasmuch as evidence is thereby being received. The
parties are entitled to be present at any stage of the
trial, and consequently they are entitled to be at least
notified of the time and place set for the view.
REAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATIVE
EVIDENCE
Tangible object that Tangible evidence
played some actual that merely illustrate
role in the matter a matter of
that gave rise to the importance in the
litigation. litigation.
GROUNDS FOR EXCLUDING OBJECT EVIDENCE:
1. Inherent Limitations:
a) irrelevancy / immateriality
b) illegally obtained evidence
2. Non-inherent Limitations:
a) Undue prejudice
b) Indecency or impropriety
c) Offensiveness to sensibilities
d) Inconvenience and unnecessary expense of
litigation.
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Best Evidence Rule – No evidence shall be received
which is merely substitutionary in its nature so long as
the original evidence can be had. It is mandatory that
the original copy be presented in court.
EXCEPTIONS: Those under Rule 130, Sec.3.
NOTE: Where the transactions have been recorded in
writing but the contents of such writing are not ―the
subject of inquiry,‖ the best evidence rule does not
apply. The best evidence rule is not involved if the
contents of affidavits or depositions are not the issues
in the case but are only intended as evidence to
establish the issue in controversy. The use of said
affidavits is regulated by the hearsay evidence rule.
PURPOSES:
1. TO PREVENT FRAUD - If a party is in possession
of such evidence and withholds it, and seeks to
substitute inferior evidence in its place, the
presumption naturally arises that the better
evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes
which its production would expose and defeat.
2. TO EXCLUDE UNCERTAINTIES IN THE
CONTENTS OF A DOCUMENT - The best
evidence rule accepts the document itself as the
best evidence of its contents, because it is certain;
and rejects a copy thereof, because of the
uncertainty of its contents caused by the hazards
of faulty duplication, or an oral description thereof,
because of the uncertainty caused by the frailties
of human recollection.
THREE CONCEPTS OF “ORIGINAL” UNDER THE
BEST EVIDENCE RULE (Sec. 4)
1. One the contents of which is the subject of
inquiry;
2. When a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time with identical
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
originals;
3. When an entry is repeated in the regular course
of business, one being copied from another at or
near the time of the transaction, all the entries
are equally regarded as originals.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
In case of loss or destruction of the original document,
and AFTER PROVING EXECUTION or EXISTENCE,
CAUSE OF ITS UNAVAILABILITY without bad faith
on the part of the offeror, and REASONABLE
EFFORT: in search for or attempt to produce the
5
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
original document, the following are admissible in the
order stated:
1. a copy;
2. a recital of the contents in some authentic
document; or
3. the testimony of witnesses.
The order does not apply where the law specifically
provides for the class or quantum of secondary
evidence to establish the contents of the document
(DEFINITE EVIDENTIARY RULE).
Original document is indispensable in crimes of
falsification because the court requires the
presentation of the corpus delicti to prove the guilt of
the accused (US vs. GREGORIO).
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
PURPOSE OF THE RULE:
To give stability to written agreement and remove the
temptation and possibility of perjury, which would be
afforded if parol evidence was admissible.
REQUISITES FOR APPLICABILITY OF PAROL
EVIDENCE RULE:
1. There must be a valid contract;
2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to
writing;
3. The dispute is between parties and their
successors in interest; and
4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement.
Rule applies only to INTEGRATED AGREEMENTS,
thus, unless the written instrument was intended by
both parties as the final and exclusive memorial of
their dealings, the rule does not apply.
THEORY OF INTEGRATION OF JURAL ACTS—
Under this theory, previous acts and
contemporaneous transactions of the parties are
deemed integrated and merged in the written
instrument which they have executed. When the
parties have reduced their agreement to writing, it is
presumed that they have made the writing the ONLY
REPOSITORY and MEMORIAL OF THE TRUTH, and
whatever is not found in the writing must be
understood to have been waived and abandoned.
EXCEPTION:
COLLATERAL ORAL AGREEMENT - A contract
made prior to or contemporaneous with another
agreement and IF ORAL and NOT INCONSISTENT
with written contract IS ADMISSIBLE within the
exception to parol evidence rule.
An Agreement is ―COLLATERAL‖ if it meets the
following requirements:
1. it is not a part of the integrated written
agreement in any way;
2. it is not inconsistent with the written agreement
in any way, including both the express and
implied provisions of the written agreement; and
3. it is not closely connected with the principal
transaction as to form part and parcel thereof.
The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply when
COLLATERAL ORAL AGREEMENT refers to
SEPARATE and DISTINCT SUBJECTS.
REASON: The parties to a contract cannot be
presumed to have embodied in a single writing all the
agreements which they had on different subjects.
Intrinsic or Latent Ambiguity—when the writing on
its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are
collateral matters or circumstances which make the
meaning uncertain.
Extrinsic or Patent Ambiguity—ambiguity is
apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires
something to be added in order to ascertain the
meaning of the words used.
Parol evidence cannot be used to ratify or supplement
a void contract
Intermediate Ambiguity—Where the ambiguity
consists in the use of equivocal words designating the
person or subject matter, parol evidence of collateral
or extrinsic matter may be introduced for the purpose
of aiding the court in arriving at the meaning of the
language used.
INTRINSIC and INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITIES are
curable by evidence aliunde or extraneous evidence.
PATENT AMBIGUITY cannot be cured by evidence
aliunde.
Under the Parol Evidence Rule, the evidence aliunde
is either testimonial evidence or documentary
evidence.
Principle of “Falsa Demonstratio non nocet cum
de corpore constat”
False description does not injure or vitiate a
document, provided that the thing or person intended
has once been sufficiently described.
RULE ON CONDITIONAL AGREEMENTS:
1. Conditions Precedent— may be established by
parol evidence because there is no varying of the
terms of the written contract by extrinsic
6
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

agreement for the reason that there is no contract ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT (RA 4200)
in existence; there is nothing to which to apply the
excluding rule. Unlawful Acts:
2. Conditions Subsequent— may not be established A. Any person, who, without authority from all the
by parol evidence. parties to the private communication or spoken
word does any of the following:(Sec.1, par. 1)
RULE ON SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS 1. to tap any wire or
Parol Evidence Allowed. The rule forbidding the 2. to secretly overhear or intercept such
admission of parol evidence to alter or contradict a communication or spoken word by using any
written instrument does not apply so as to prohibit the other device or arrangement;
establishment by parol evidence of an agreement 3. to record such private communication or
between the parties in writing, entered into spoken word by using a device commonly
subsequent to the time when the written instrument known as dictaphone, or dictagraph or
was executed, notwithstanding such agreement may detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder
have the effect of changing the contract of the parties or however otherwise described.
as evidenced by the writing; for parol evidence merely
goes to show that the parties have exercised their B. Any person, whether participant or not in the
right to change the same, or to make a new and above penalized acts, who, (Sec1,par. 2)
independent contract, provided such contract is not 1. knowingly possesses any tape record, wire
invalid under the statute of frauds or otherwise. record, disk record or any other such record
or copies thereof, of any communication or
PAROL EVIDENCE BEST EVIDENCE spoken word secured either before or after the
RULE RULE effective date of this Act on the manner
Presupposes that the Contemplates a prohibited by law; or
original is available in situation when the 2. to replay the same for any other person
court; original is not available or persons; or
in court and/or there is
a dispute as to 3. to communicate the contents thereof, either
whether said writing is verbally or in writing; or
the original. 4. to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
Prohibits the varying of Prohibits the complete or partial, to any other person.
the terms of a written introduction of
agreement; substitutionary C. Any person who shall aid, permit, or cause to be
evidence in lieu of the done any of the acts declared to be unlawful:
original document (Sec.2)
regardless of whether
or not it varies the D. Any person who shall violate the provisions of
contents of the Section b of the exempted acts below or of an
original; order issued thereunder, or aids, permits or
Can be invoked only Can be invoked by any causes such violations (Sec.2)
when the controversy party to an action
is between the parties regardless of whether Exempted Acts:
to the written such party participated A. Use of such record or any copies thereof as
agreement, their or not in the writing evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial
privies, or any party involved. of offenses mentioned below; (Sec.1, par.2)
directly affected B. Any peace officer, who is authorized by the written
thereby. order of the court, to execute any of the acts
With the exception of Applies to all kinds of declared to be unlawful in cases involving the
wills, applies only to writing. crimes of (Sec.3, par.1)
documents which are 1. treason;
contractual in nature. 2. espionage;
3. provoking war and disloyalty in case of war;
4. piracy;
5. mutiny in the high seas;
6. rebellion;
7. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion;
8. inciting to rebellion;
7
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
9. sedition;
10. conspiracy to commit sedition;
11. inciting to sedition;
12. kidnapping as defined by the RPC;
13. violations of CA 616 punishing espionage and
other offenses against national security.
Admissibility:
Any communication or spoken word, or the existence,
contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the
same or any part thereof, or any information therein
contained, obtained or secured by any person in
violation of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence
in any judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative hearing
or investigation.
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications.
WHO MAY BE WITNESSES—Except as otherwise
provided in the rules, all persons who can perceive,
and perceiving, and can make known their perception
to others, may be witnesses.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the following shall
NOT be a ground for disqualification:
1. Religious or political belief;
2. Interest in the outcome of the case; or
3. Conviction of a crime.
EXCEPTION: Art. 821 of the New Civil Code
disqualifies those who have been convicted of
falsification of a document, perjury or false
testimony from being witnesses to a will.
THE FF. CANNOT BE WITNESSES:
Those persons who, under the law, labor under:
1. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity;
2. Disqualification by reason of marriage;
3. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of
adverse party;
4. Disqualification on ground of privileged
communication.
TEST OF COMPETENCY:
Whether the individual has sufficient understanding to
appreciate the nature and obligation of an oath and
sufficient capacity to observe and describe the facts in
regard to which he is called to testify.
A witness is presumed to be competent. The
objection to the competency may be raised at any
time during the examination or cross-examination; but
it should be made as soon as the facts tending to
show incompetency are discovered.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION—a preliminary
examination conducted by the trial judge where the
witness is duly sworn to answer as to his competency.
THE RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC): Effectivity:
December 15, 2000
Unless otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the
examination of child witnesses who are victims of
crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to crime. It
shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-
criminal proceedings involving child witnesses (Sec.
1)
Competency under this rule - every child is presumed
qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall
conduct a competency examination of a child, motu
proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that
substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the
child to perceive, remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the
duty to tell the truth in court (Sec. 6).
Examination of a child as to his competence shall be
conducted only by the judge. Counsel for the parties,
however, can submit questions to the judge that he
may, in his discretion, ask the child (Sec.6(d))
Definitions:
Child Witness—is any person who at the time of
giving testimony is below eighteen (18) years. In child
abuse cases a child includes one over eighteen (18)
years but is found by the court as unable to fully take
care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition (Sec. 4 (a)).
Facilitator—means a person appointed by the court
to pose questions to a child (Sec. 4 (c)). The
facilitator may be a child psychologist, psychiatrist,
social worker, guidance counselor, teacher, religious
leader, parent or relative.
Support Person—is a person chosen by the child to
accompany him to testify at or attend a judicial
proceeding or deposition to provide emotional support
for him (Sec. 4(f)).
Best Interests of the Child - The totality of the
circumstances and conditions as are most congenial
to the survival, protection and feelings of security of
the child and most encouraging to his physical,
8
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

psychological and emotional development. It also
means the least detrimental available alternative for
safeguarding the growth and development of the child.
The public may be excluded from the courtroom when
they do not have a direct interest in the case. Such an
order may be made to protect the right to privacy of
the child or if the court determines on the record that
requiring the child to testify in open court would cause
psychological harm to him, hinder the ascertainment
of truth, or result in his inability to effectively
communicate due to embarrassment, fear, or timidity.
The court may also, on motion of the accused,
exclude the public from trial, except court personnel
and the counsel of the parties.
1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim
engaged in other sexual behavior; and
2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition
of the alleged victim.
Exception: Evidence of specific instances of sexual
behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person
other than the accused was the source of the semen,
injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.
It is likewise settled jurisprudence that testimonies of
child-victims are given full weight and credit. When a
woman or a child says that she has been raped, she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape
was indeed committed.‘ (People v. Pulanco, GR No.
141186, Nov. 27, 2003)

The court may: Section 22. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF

1. allow the child witness to testify in a narrative form; MARRIAGE
2. allow leading questions in all stages of the
examination of a child if the same will further the Reason for the Rule:
interests of justice. To obviate perjury and to prevent domestic disunity
and unhappiness.
Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of
a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be Disqualification by Disqualification by
sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or REASON OF REASON OF
judgment subject to the standard of proof required in MARRIAGE MARITAL PRIVILEGE
criminal and non-criminal cases. (Sec. 23) (Sec. 24(a) )
Can be invoked only if Can be claimed
Exception to the hearsay rule: one of the spouses is whether or not the
A statement made by a child describing any act or a party to the action; other spouse is a party
attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible to the action;
under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence Applies only if the Can be claimed even
in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to marriage is existing at after the marriage is
the following rules: the time the testimony dissolved;
(a) Before such hearsay statement maybe admitted, is offered;
its proponent shall make known to the adverse Constitutes a total Applies only to
party the intention to offer such statement and its prohibition for or confidential
particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to against the spouse of communications
object. the witness. between the spouses
The objection would The married person is
If the child is available, the court shall, upon be raised on the on the stand but the
motion of the adverse party, require the child to ground of marriage. objection of privilege is
be present at the presentation of the hearsay The married witness Raised when
statement for cross-examination by the adverse would not be allowed confidential marital
party. to take the stand at all communication is
When the child is unavailable, the fact of such because of the inquired into.
circumstance must be proved by the proponent. disqualification. Even
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay if the testimony is, for
statement, the court shall consider the time, or against the
content and circumstances thereof, based on objecting spouse, the
various factors provided by the law, which provide spouse-witness cannot
sufficient indicia of reliability. testify.
SEXUAL ABUSE SHIELD RULE
The following evidence is not admissible in any Marrying the witness - An accused can effectively
criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual ―seal the lips‖ of a witness by marrying the witness.
abuse: As long as a valid marriage is in existence at the time
9
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

of the trial, the witness-spouse cannot be compelled descendants or

to testify—even where the crime charged is against
the witness‘ person, and even though the marriage
was entered into for the express purpose of
suppressing the testimony.
WHO MAY OBJECT? Only the spouse-party and not
the other spouse who is offered as a witness.
ascendants.
Purpose of the Rule:
To guard against the temptation to give false
testimony on the part of the surviving party, and to put
the parties to the suit upon the terms of equality in
regard to opportunity to produce evidence.

Section 23. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF Facts favorable to the deceased are NOT
DEATH OR INSANITY OF ADVERSE PARTY (DEAD prohibited:
MAN „S STATUTE). Inasmuch as the statutes are designed to protect the
interest of a deceased or insane person, they do not
Requisites: exclude testimonies which are favorable to the
1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a representative of such person (ICARD vs. MASIGAN)
case or persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted.
2. The action is against an executor or administrator The Dead Man‟s Statute or the Survivorship Rule
or other representative of a deceased person or a does not apply in the following cases:
person of unsound mind; 1. Testimony of mere witnesses who are neither
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or party plaintiffs, nor their assignors, nor persons in
demand against the estate of such deceased whose behalf a case is prosecuted;
person or against person of unsound mind; 2. If the plaintiff is the executor or administrator or
4. The testimony refers to any matter of fact which other representative of a deceased person, or the
occurred before the death of such deceased person of unsound mind;
person or before such person became of unsound 3. In an action against a partnership;
mind. 4. If the person or persons mentioned under
the rule files a counterclaim;
―Assignor‖-means assignor of a cause of action 5. When the testimony refers to fraudulent
which has already arisen and not the assignor of a transactions committed by the persons mentioned
right before any cause of action accrued. in the rule (Ong Chua v. CARR);
6. When there is waiver;
7. When the testimony of a plaintiff refers to the non-
MARITAL occurrence of a fact, because in that case, the
DEAD MAN‟S
DISQUALIFICATION plaintiff does not testify on the occurrence of a fact
STATUTE
RULE but on its non-occurrence;
Only a partial It is a complete and 8. In cadastral cases;
disqualification as absolute disqualification; 9. Testimony on the possession by witness of a
the witness is not written instrument made by the deceased, as
completely such fact exists even after the decedent‘s demise.
disqualified but is
only prohibited from
testifying on the Section 24. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
matters therein PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
specified;
Applies only to a Applies to a civil or WHO MAY ASSERT PRIVILEGE?
civil case or special criminal case, subject 1. Holder of privilege;
proceeding over the only to the two 2. Authorized persons; and
estate of a exceptions provided 3. Persons to whom privileged communication were
deceased or insane therein: (1)except in a made
person. civil case by one against
The other; or (2) in a We apply the privileged communication to both civil
criminal case for a crime and criminal cases EXCEPT as to the doctor-patient
committed by one privilege, which is applicable only in civil cases.
against the other or the
latter‘s direct
10
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
Unless waived, the disqualification under Sec. 24
remains even after the various relationships therein
have ceased to exist.
A. Privileged Communication Between Husband
and Wife
Requisites:
1. there was a valid marital relation;
2. the privilege is invoked with respect to a
communication between the spouses during said
marriage; and
3. the spouse against whom such evidence is being
offered has not given his or her consent to such
testimony
There is a presumption of confidentiality on all
communication between husband and wife:
Communications overheard by third persons without
knowledge of spouses is still confidential but the third
party is not disqualified to testify
Where there is collusion and voluntary disclosure to
third party, the latter becomes an agent and cannot
testify.
Communication in furtherance of fraud and crime is
not privileged.
B. Privileged Communication Between Attorney
and Client
Requisites:
1. There is an attorney and client relationship;
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a
confidential communication between them in the
course of professional employment; and
3. The client has not given consent to the attorney‘s
testimony thereon; or if the attorney‘s secretary,
stenographer or clerk is sought to be examined,
that both the client and the attorney have not
given their consent thereto.
Preliminary communication made for the purpose of
creating the attorney-client relationship are within the
privilege.
The disqualification based on the attorney-client
privilege does NOT apply to communications
which are:
1. intended to be made public;
2. intended to be communicated to others;
3. received from third persons not acting in behalf or
as agents of the client;
4. intended for an unlawful purpose;
5. made in the presence of third parties who are
strangers to the attorney-client relationship.
It must be stressed, however, that the privilege
against disclosure of confidential communications or
information is limited only to communications which
are legitimately and properly within the scope of a
lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to
those made in contemplation of a crime or
perpetration of fraud (If the unlawful purpose is
avowed, as in this case, the complainant‘s alleged
intention to bribe government officials in relation to his
case, the communication is not covered by the
privilege as the client does not consult the lawyer
professionally. It is not within the profession of a
lawyer to advise a client as to how he may commit a
crime as a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Thus, the
attorney-client privilege does not attach, there being
no professional employment in the strict sense
(Genato vs. Silapan, Adm. Case No. 4078, Jul. 14,
2003).
GENERAL RULE: A lawyer may not invoke the
privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of
his client.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. where a strong possibility exists that revealing
client‘s name would implicate the client in the very
activity for which he sought the lawyer‘s advice;
2. where disclosure would open the client to civil
liability; and
3. where the prosecutors have no case against the
client unless by revealing the client‘s name, the
said name would furnish the only link that would
form the chain of testimony necessary to convict
an individual for a crime (Regala v.
Sandiganbayan, 262 SCRA 122).
C. Privileged Communication Between Doctor and
Patient
Requisites:
1. The physician is authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics;
2. The information was acquired or the advice or
treatment was given by him in his professional
capacity for the purpose of treating or curing the
patient;
3. The information, advice or treatment, if revealed,
would blacken the reputation of the patient; and
4. The privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the
patient is a party thereto or not.
11
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
When privilege does NOT apply:
1. Where the communication was not given in
confidence;
2. The communication is irrelevant to the professional
employment;
3. The communication was made for an unlawful
purpose;
4. The information was intended to be made public;
5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by
provisions of contract or law.
D. Privileged Communication Between Priest and
Penitent
Requisites:
1. The confession must have been made to the priest
in his professional character in the course of
discipline enjoined by the church to which he
belongs.
2. The communications made were confidential and
penitential in character.
E. Privileged Communication to Public Officers
Requisites:
1. The holder of the privilege is the government,
acting through a public officer;
2. The communication was given to the public officer
in confidence;
3. The communication was given during the term of
office of the public officer or afterwards;
4. The public interest would suffer by the disclosure
of the communication.
F. Other Privileged Matters
1. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any
proceeding concerning any information, statement,
or opinion received from the child in the course of
serving as a guardian ad litem, unless the court
finds it necessary to promote the best interests of
the child (Sec. 5 (e) of the Rule on Examination
of a Child Witness).
2. Editors may not be compelled to disclose the
source of published news.
3. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom
they voted.
4. Trade secrets.
5. Bank Deposits.
Section 25. PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other
direct descendants.
Reason: To preserve family cohesion.
NOTE: Article 215 of the Family Code provides:
No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case,
to testify against his parents and grandparents,
EXCEPT when such testimony is indispensable in a
crime against the descendant or by one against the
other.
Rule 130, Sec. 25 of the Rules of Court does not
provide for an exception, whereas, Art. 215 of the
Family Code does. Which should be applied in case
of conflict? It was suggested that the Rules of Court
should apply because it took effect in 1989 as
compared to the Family Code which took effect in
1988. It may be argued that the former is procedural
and the latter is substantive; however, it was further
suggested that although the Family Code provision is
substantive, it is procedural in character. So, of these
two provisions, the Rules of Court, which was made
by the Supreme Court, should prevail.
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Sections 26 to 33 speak of EXTRAJUDICIAL
admissions and confessions.
Section 26. Admissions of a party.
ADMISSION – any statement of fact made by a party
against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion
for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts
alleged by him.
RULE ON ADMISSIONS—The act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him.
Therefore, if the act, declaration or omission is in his
favor, it is NOT an admission.
SELF-SERVING DECLARATION—one which has
been made extrajudicially by the party to favor his
interest. It is not admissible in evidence because they
are inherently untrustworthy and would open the door
to fraud and fabrication of testimony.
ADMISSION vis-a-vis CONFESSION—Every
confession is an admission, but not all admissions are
confessions.
ADMISSION CONFESSION
statement of fact which statement of fact which
does not involve an involve an
acknowledgment of acknowledgment of
guilt or liability; guilt or liability;
may be made by third can be made only by
persons and in certain the party himself and,
cases, are admissible in some instances, are
against a party; admissible against his
co-accused;
12
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
express or tacit always express
DECLARATIONS ADMISSIONS
AGAINST INTEREST
Made by a person who made by a party
is either deceased or himself, and is primary
unable to testify evidence and
competent though he
be present in court and
ready to testify;
must be made ante may be made any
litem motam time.
The unexplained flight of an accused may be taken as
evidence having tendency to establish his guilt.
(Adame vs. CA, GR No. 139830, Nov. 21, 2002)
In an administrative complaint against a lawyer for his
negligence in the performance of duties as counsel :
‗…Respondent‘s failure to file an answer to the
complaint despite notice from the IBP amounts to an
admission of the allegations therein…‘ (Pilapil vs.
Carillo, AC No. 5843, Jan 14, 2003).
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible.
In CIVIL CASES, an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror.
EXCEPT: When such offer is clearly not only to buy
peace but amounts to an admission of liability the
offered compromise being directed only to the amount
paid (El Varadero de Manila vs. Insular Lumber).
REASON: It is the policy of the law to favor the
settlement of disputes, to foster compromises and to
promote peace.
In CRIMINAL CASES, an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Those involving quasi-offenses or criminal
negligence;
2. Under the Katarungang Pambarangay law;
3. Plea of guilty later withdrawn;
4. An unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser
offense;
5. An offer to pay or the payment of medical,
hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
injury;
6. Tax cases.
An offer of compromise that may be considered an
implied admission need NOT be made by the accused
himself, it may be made by his lawyer or relatives,
provided it is made with the consent of the accused or
with his knowledge and he does not stop it.
OFFER OF COMPROMISE vs. ORDINARY
ADMISSION:
In an offer of compromise, the proposal is tentative
and any statement made in connection with it is
hypothetical—to buy peace and, in contemplation of
mutual concessions, whereas in an ORDINARY
ADMISSION, the intention is apparently to admit
liability and to seek to buy or secure relief against a
liability recognized as such.
Although a judicial or an extra-judicial amicable
settlement does not bear the court‘s approval, ‗…the
agreement can become the source of rights and
obligations of the parties.‘(Iloilo Traders Finance Inc.
vs. Heirs of Soriano, GR No. 149683, June 16,
2003)
PRINCIPLE OF RES INTER ALIOS ACTA
ST
1 PART: The rights of a party CANNOT be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
another, except as hereinafter provided (Sec. 28);
nd
2 PART: Similar acts as evidence (Sec. 34).
EXCEPTIONS TO PART ONE:
A. Admissions by Co-Partner or Agent (Sec.29)
REQUISITES:
1. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the
party must be within the scope of his authority;
2. During the existence of the partnership or agency;
and
3. After the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration;
The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a
joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly
interested with the party (Sec. 29).
B. Admission by Conspirator (Sec. 30):
It refers to an extrajudicial declaration of a conspirator,
and not to his testimony given on the stand which is
subject to cross-examination.
REQUISITES:
1. That the conspiracy be first proved by evidence
other than the admission itself;
2. That the admission relates to the conspiracy itself;
3. That it has been made while the declarant was
engaged in carrying out the conspiracy; and
4. That the object of the conspiracy has not yet
been consummated.
13
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
C. Admission by Privies
PRIVIES – those who have mutual or successive
relationship to the same rights of property or subject
matter such as personal representatives, heirs,
devisees, legatees, assigns, voluntary grantees, or
judgment creditors or purchasers from them with
notice of the facts
REQUISITES:
1. There must be privity between the party and the
declarant;
2. The declarant as predecessor in interest made the
declaration while holding the title to the property;
and
3. The admission relates to the property.
D. Admission by Silence
REQUISITES:
1. He must have heard or observed the act or
declaration of the other person;
2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it;
3. He must have understood the statement;
4. He must have an interest to object, such that he
would naturally have done so, if the statement was
not true;
5. The facts were within his knowledge; and
6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn
from his silence is material to the issue.
DOCTRINE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION
An adoptive admission is a party‘s reaction to a
statement or action by another person when it is
reasonable to treat the party‘s reaction as an
admission of something stated or implied by the other
person (Estrada vs. Desierto 356 SCRA 108).
Section 33. Confession
CONFESSION - a categorical acknowledgment of
guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, without
any exculpatory statement or explanation.
If the accused admits having committed the act in
question but alleges a justification therefore, the same
is merely an admission.
There can also be a confession of judgment in a civil
case where the party expressly admits his liability.
JUDICIAL CONFESSION—is one made by the
accused before a court in which the case is pending
and in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by
itself, can sustain a conviction even in capital
offenses.
EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION—is one made in
any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a
conviction UNLESS its voluntariness is proven and
UNLESS corroborated by evidence of the corpus
delicti.
REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSION TO BE ADMISSIBLE:
1. It must be express (Sec. 33, Rule 130 Rules of
Court);
2. Voluntary (1987 Constitution);
3. With assistance of competent and independent
counsel (1987 Constitution);
4. Must be in writing (R.A.7438).
GENERAL RULE: an EXTRA-JUDICIAL
CONFESSION is admissible against the confessor
only. It is incompetent evidence against his co-
accused for being hearsay and because of the res
inter alios acta rule.
EXCEPTIONS: When admissible against the co-
defendants:
1. If the co-defendants impliedly acquiesced in or
adopted said confession;
2. If the accused persons voluntarily and
independently executed identical confession without
collusion, and corroborated by other evidence—
INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS
3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the
confessant after being apprised by such confession;
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime
which was confessed by one of the accused and
said confession is used only as corroborating
evidence;
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial
evidence to show the probability of participation by
the co-conspirator;
6. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant;
7. Where the co-conspirator‘ extrajudicial confession is
corroborated by other evidence of record.
In line with the 1987 Constitution, illegal confessions
and admissions are inadmissible against the
confessant or the admitter BUT are admissible against
14
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
the persons who violated the constitutional prohibition
in obtaining such illegal confessions or admissions.
Section 34. Similar acts as evidence
This is the second part of the res inter alios acta.
General Rule: 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.
Exceptions:
It may be received to prove:
1.specific intent or knowledge;
2.identity;
3.plan;
4.system;
5.scheme;
6.habit;
7.custom or usage; and
8.others of the like.
TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
GENERAL RULE: A witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that
is, which are derived from his own perception, except
as otherwise provided in these rules.
REASON FOR EXCLUDING HEARSAY:
not subject to the test of truth because there is no
opportunity for cross-examination. Also, this will be a
violation of the constitutional right to confrontation.
HEARSAY RULE
CLASSIFICATION OF OUT-OF-COURT
STATEMENTS:
1. HEARSAY-- Those which are considered as
hearsay and therefore inadmissible, this occurs
when the purpose for introducing the out-of-court
statement is to prove the truth of the facts asserted
therein;
2. NON-HEARSAY— Admissible. This occurs when
the purpose for introducing the statement is not to
prove the truth of the facts asserted therein but only
the making of the statements and are admissible in
evidence when the making of the statement is
relevant. These are so-called INDEPENDENTLY
RELEVANT STATEMENTS.
3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE—Those
which are hearsay but are considered as exceptions
to the hearsay rule and are therefore admissible.
These are from Sections 37 to 47 of Rule 130.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE:
1. Dying Declaration;
2. Declaration Against Interest;
3. Act or declaration about pedigree;
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree;
5. Common reputation;
6. Res Gestae;
7. Entries in the ordinary course of business;
8. Entries in official records;
9. Commercial lists;
10. Learned treatises;
11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
They are admissible by reason of NECESSITY and
TRUSTWORTHINESS.
Hearsay evidence not objected to may be admissible
but, whether objected to or not, has no probative
value and as opposed to direct and primary evidence,
the latter always prevails.
Section 37. Dying declaration
REQUISITES:
1. That death is imminent and the declarant is
conscious of that fact;
2. That the declaration refers to the cause and and
surrounding circumstances of such death;
3. That the declaration relates to the facts which the
victim is competent to testify to;
4. That the declaration is offered in a case wherein
the declarant‘s death is subject of the inquiry (the
victim necessarily must have died);
5. That the statement is complete in itself (People
vs. De Joya, 203 SCRA 343)
To be complete in itself does not mean that the
declaration must recite everything that constituted the
res gestae of the subject of his statement, but that his
statement of any given fact should be a full expression
of all that he intended to say as conveying his
meaning in respect of such fact.
A dying declaration may be oral or written or made by
signs which could be interpreted and testified to by a
witness thereto.
Dying Declarations favorable to the accused are
admissible.
Dying declaration may also be regarded as part of the
res gestae as they were made soon after the startling
occurrence without the opportunity for fabrication or
concoction.
15
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

or exists. It means the general or substantially

Dying declaration is not considered a confidential undivided reputation, as distinguished from a partial or
communication between spouses. qualified one, although it need not be unanimous.

A dying declaration may be attacked on the ground

that any of the requisites for its admissibility are not
present and the same may be impeached in the same
manner as the testimony of any other witness on the
stand.
As a general rule, the reputation of person should be
that existing in the place of his residence, it may also
be that existing in the place where he is best known.

EVIDENCE OF NEGATIVE GOOD REPUTE:

Where the foundation proof shows that the witness
Section 38. Declarations against interest. was in such position that he would have heard reports
derogatory to one‘s character, the reputation
REQUISITES: testimony may be predicated on the absence of
1. That the declarant is dead or unable to testify; reports of bad reputation or on the fact that the
2. That it relates to a fact against the interests of the witness had heard nothing against the person.
declarant;
3. That at the time he made said declaration the
declarant was aware that the same was contrary Section 42: Part of res gestae
to his aforesaid interest; and
4. That the declarant had no motive to falsify and he RES GESTAE – literally means things done; it
believed such declaration to be true. includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations
incidental to the main fact or transaction necessary to
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. illustrate its character and also includes acts, words or
declaration which are closely connected therewith as
Section 40. Family reputation or tradition to constitute part of the transaction.
regarding pedigree.
TWO TYPES OF RES GESTAE:
1. SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS -Statements
Section 39 Section 40 made by a person while a startling occurrence is
Act or declaration Family reputation or taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
about PEDIGREE; tradition regarding thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof ;
pedigree; 2. VERBAL ACTS - Statements accompanying an
Witness need not be a Witness is a member equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a
member of the family; of the family; legal significance .
Testimony is about Testimony is about
what declarant, dead family reputation or REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF
or unable to testify, tradition covering SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS:
has said concerning matters of pedigree. 1. there must be a startling occurrence
the pedigree of the 2. the statement must relate to the circumstances of
declarant‘s family. the starling occurrence
3. the statement must be spontaneous

Section 41: Common reputation REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF VERBAL

The following may be established by common ACTS:
reputation: 1. the act or occurrence characterized must be
1. matters of public interest more than 30 yrs. old; equivocal
2. matters of general interest more than 30 years 2. verbal acts must characterize or explain the
old; equivocal act
3. matters respecting marriage or moral character 3. equivocal act must be relevant to the issue
and related facts 4. verbal acts must be contemporaneous with the
4. individual moral character equivocal act

COMMON REPUTATION - is the definite opinion of

the community in which the fact to be prove is known
16
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

RES GESTAE in DYING OPINION RULE

connection with a DECLARATIONS
homicidal act GENERAL RULE: Opinion of a witness is not
Maybe made by the Can be made only by admissible.
killer himself after or the victim
during the killing OR EXCEPTIONS:
rd
that of a 3 person 1. On a matter requiring SPECIAL knowledge, skill,
May precede, Made only after the experience or training which he is shown to
accompany or be homicidal attack has possess (Sec. 49);
made after the been committed 2. The identity of a person about whom he has
homicidal attack was adequate knowledge (Sec. 50[a]);
committed 3. A handwriting with which he has sufficient
Justification in the Trustworthiness familiarity (Sec. 50 [b]);
spontaneity of the based upon its being 4. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
statement given in awareness of sufficiently acquainted (Sec. 50 [c]);
impending death 5. The witness‘ impressions of the emotion,
behavior, condition or appearance of a person
(Sec. 50 [d]).
SPONTANEOUS
VERBAL ACTS Expert evidence is admissible only if :
STATEMENTS
a) the matter to be testified requires expertise; and
The res gestae is the The res gestae is the
b) the witness has been qualified as an expert.
equivocal act startling occurrence
Verbal act must be Statements may be
Hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert to
contemporaneous with made prior, while or
elicit his opinion. Courts, however, are NOT
or must accompany immediately after the
necessarily bound by the expert‘s findings.
the equivocal act startling occurrence
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Section 44. Entries in official records. GENERAL RULE: character evidence is not
admissible in evidence under Sec. 51 of Rule 130 of
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OFFICIAL the Revised Rules on Evidence.
ENTRIES:
1. that it was made by a public officer or by another EXCEPTIONS:
person specially enjoined by law to do so CRIMINAL CASES:
2. that it was made by a public officer in the 1. Accused may prove his good moral character
performance of his duty, or by another person in which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law offense charge.
3. the public officer or the other person had sufficient
knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must 2. The prosecution may not prove bad moral
have been acquired by him personally or through character of the accused unless in rebuttal when
official information the latter opens the issue by introducing evidence
of his good moral character.
Probative value: only prima facie evidence of the fact
stated therein 3. As to the offended party, his good or bad moral
character may be proved as long as it tends to
It is well settled that entries in the police blotter should establish the probability or improbability of the
not be given due significance or probative value as offense charged
they are not conclusive evidence of the truth of their Exceptions:
contents but merely of the fact that they were 1. proof of the bad character of the victim in a
recorded Hence, they do not constitute conclusive murder case is not admissible if the crime was
proof. (People vs. Cabrera. Jr. GR No. 138266, April committed through treachery and
30, 2003) premeditation; and
2. in prosecution for rape, evidence of
complainant‘s past sexual conduct, opinion
thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be
admitted unless, and only to the extent that
17
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

the court finds that such evidence is material 1. To sustain conviction -

and relevant to the case (Rape Shield, RA
8505 Sec. 6).
CIVIL CASES:
The moral character of either party thereto CANNOT
be proved UNLESS it is pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the case.
AS TO WITNESSES:
Both criminal and civil - the bad moral character of a
witness may always be proved by either party (Sec.
11, Rule 132) but not evidence of his good moral
character, unless such character has been
impeached. (Sec. 14)
Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
2. Preliminary investigation -
Engender a well founded belief of the fact of the
commission of a crime.
3. Issuance of warrant of arrest -
Probable cause, i.e. that there is reasonable
ground to believe that the accused has committed
an offense.
HEIRARCHY OF EVIDENCE:
1. proof beyond reasonable doubt
2. clear and convincing evidence
3. preponderance of evidence
4. substantial evidence

RULE 131 BURDEN OF EVIDENCE—logical necessity on a

BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS: party during a particular time of the trial to create a
prima facie case in his favor or to destroy that created
against him by presenting evidence.
BURDEN OF PROOF/RISK OF NON-
PERSUASION—the duty of a party to present In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish evidence lies on the party who asserts an affirmative
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence allegation.
required by law.
BURDEN OF
BURDEN OF PROOF
EVIDENCE
UPON WHOM BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS: Does not shift Shifts from party to
party depending upon
A. Civil Cases the exigencies of the
1. the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show the case in the course of
truth of his allegations if the defendant raises a the trial;
negative defense Generally determined Generally determined
2. the defendant has the burden of proof if he raises by the pleadings filed by the developments
an affirmative defense on the complaint of the by the party of the trial, or by the
plaintiff provisions of
substantive law or
B. Criminal Cases procedural rules which
The burden of proof is with the prosecution by reason may relieve the party
of the presumption of innocence. from presenting
evidence on the facts
NOTE: Under the Speedy Trial Act, if the accused is alleged.
NOT brought to trial within the time required, the
information shall be dismissed on the motion of the
accused. In this case, the BURDEN OF PROOF of
supporting such motion is with the accused (Sec. 13, UPON WHOM BURDEN OF EVIDENCE RESTS:
RA 8493).
A. Civil Cases:
The plaintiff has to prove his affirmative allegations in
DEGREE OF PROOF THAT SATISFIES THE the complaint and the defendant has to prove the
BURDEN OF PROOF: affirmative allegations in his counterclaim and his
affirmative defenses.
A. CIVIL CASES
Preponderance of evidence B. Criminal Cases:
The PROSECUTION has to prove its affirmative
B. CRIMINAL CASES allegations in the information regarding the elements
18
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

of the crime as well as the attendant circumstances; without an express direction from the law to that
while the DEFENSE has to prove its affirmative effect.
allegations regarding the existence of justifying or
exempting circumstances, absolutory causes or
mitigating circumstances. PRESUMPTIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS OF
LAW FACT
Certain inference must A discretion is vested
PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVING AVERMENTS be made whenever the in the tribunal as to
GENERAL RULE: Negative allegations need not be facts appear which drawing the inference
proved, whether in a civil or criminal action. furnish the basis of the
inference
EXCEPTION: Where such negative allegations are Reduced to fix rules Derived wholly and
essential parts of the cause of action or defense in a and form a part of the directly from the
civil case, or are essential ingredients of the offense in system of circumstances of the
a criminal case or defenses thereto. jurisprudence particular case by
means of the common
HOWEVER, in civil cases, even if the negative experience of mankind
allegation is an essential part of the cause of action or
defense, such negative allegation does not have to be
proved if it is only for the purpose of denying the PRESUMPTION IS JURIS may be divided into:
existence of a document which should properly be in
the custody of the adverse party. 1. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION (juris et de
jure)—which is a presumption of law that is not
In criminal cases, it is not incumbent upon the permitted to be overcome by any proof to the
prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a contrary; and
negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated
by established circumstances and which, if untrue, 2. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS (juris tantum)—
could readily be disproved by the production of is that which the law permits to be overcome or
documents or other evidence probably within the contradicted by proofs to the contrary; otherwise,
defendant‘s possession or control. Example: It is not the same remains satisfactory.
incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the
accused is driving without a license. The accused can
always produce his license to disprove the allegations
of driving without a license. CLASSES OF CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
under RULE 131:
1. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131, Sec. 2(par. a)—
whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act
PRESUMPTIONS or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
another to believe a particular thing to be true and
An inference of the existence or non-existence of a to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be
of other facts. permitted to falsify it.
2. ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131, Sec. 2 (par.
Presumptions are evidence according to the law, b)—the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of
which considers and regulates them as such. As they his landlord at the time of the commencement of
constitute evidence, presumptions are irrelevant and the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
therefore inadmissible when they do not correspond to
the allegation and the facts at issue in the pleadings. After recognizing the validity of the lease contract
for two years, the petitioner spouses are barred
CLASSIFICATION OF PRESUMPTIONS: from alleging the automatic cancellation of the
contract on the ground that the respondents lost
1. PRESUMPTION IS JURIS OR OF LAW— ownership of the house after another acquired title
deduction which the law expressly directs to be of the lot. (Alcaraz vs. Tangga-an, et.al, GR No.
made from particular facts. 128568, April 9, 2003)
2. PRESUMPTION IS HOMINIS OR OF FACT—
deduction which reason draws from facts proved

19
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
WHEN PRESUMPTION OF “EVIDENCE WILLFULY
SUPPRESSED WOULD BE ADVERSE IF
PRODUCED” will NOT apply:
1. If the evidence that is withheld is merely
corroborative or cumulative;
2. If the evidence is at the disposal of or equally
available to both parties;
3. If the suppression is an exercise of a privilege.
For the presumption that “A LETTER DULY
DIRECTED AND MAILED WAS RECEIVED IN A
REGULAR COURSE OF THE MAIL” to arise, it must
be proved that the letter was properly addressed with
postage pre-paid and that it was actually mailed.
RULE 132
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court.
HOW ORAL EVIDENCE GIVEN—It is usually given
orally, in open court. Therefore, generally, the
testimonies of witnesses cannot be presented in
affidavits.
One instance when the testimonies of witnesses may
be given in affidavits is under the rule on summary
procedure.
PURPOSE: to enable the court to judge the credibility
of the witness by the witness‘ manner of testifying,
their intelligence and their appearance.
Questions propounded to a witness must:
 not be indefinite or uncertain;
 be relevant;
 not be argumentative;
 not call for conclusion of law;
 not call for opinion or hearsay evidence;
 not call for illegal answer;
 not call for self-incriminating testimony;
 not be leading;
 not be misleading;
 not tend to degrade reputation of witness;
 not be repetitious;
 not call for a narration.
Section 3: Rights and obligations of a witness.
RIGHTS OF A WITNESS:
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
provided by law;
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
his reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue
or to a fact from which the fact at issue would be
presumed. But a witness must answer to the
fact of his previous final conviction for an
offense.
The exception under no. 4 refers to IMMUNITY
STATUTES wherein the witness is granted immunity
from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted in his
testimony, e.g. under Sec. 8, R.A. 1379, the law
providing for the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
property; and under P.D. 749, in prosecutions for
bribery and graft.
CLASSIFICATION OF IMMUNITY STATUTES:
1. Use Immunity – Only prohibits the use of witness‘
compelled testimony and its fruit in any manner in
connection with the criminal prosecution of the
witness. It does not render a witness immune from
prosecution despite invocation of right against self
incrimination
2. Transactional Immunity - grants immunity to the
witness from prosecution for an offense to which his
compelled testimony relates.
NOTE: For purposes of evidence, Right against self
incrimination refers only to testimonial compulsion.
Right against self-incrimination is granted only in favor
of individuals, hence, a corporation cannot invoke that
privilege as the question testimony can come only
from a corporate officer or employee who has a
personality distinct from that of the corporation.
Right against self-incrimination extends to
administrative proceedings with a criminal or penal
aspect.
WITNESS PROTECTION, SECURITY, AND
BENEFIT ACT RA 6981:
SEC 10. STATE WITNESS – person who has
participated in the commission of a crime and desires
to be a witness for the state shall be admitted into the
program whenever the following circumstances are
present:
20
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
1. the offense in which his testimony will be used is a
grave felony as defined under RPC or its
equivalent under special laws;
2. absolute necessity for his testimony;
3. there is no direct evidence available for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed;
4. his testimony can be substantially corroborated on
its material points;
5. he does not appear to be the most guilty; and
6. he has not at any time been convicted of any crime
involving moral turpitude (Sec. 10).
SWORN STATEMENT – Before any person is
admitted into the program he shall execute a sworn
statement describing in detail the manner the offense
was committed and his participation therein (Sec. 11).
If his application is denied, said sworn statement and
other testimony given in support of said application
shall not be admissible in evidence.
Admission into the program shall entitle such state
witness to immunity from criminal prosecution for the
offenses in which his testimony will be given and used
(Sec. 12).
Failure without just cause when lawfully obliged to do
so, shall be prosecuted for contempt. If he testifies
falsely or evasively, he shall be liable for perjury. His
immunity shall be removed and he shall be subject to
contempt or criminal prosecution (Sec.13).
Section 4. Order in the examination of an
individual witness.
ORDER:
1. direct examination;
2. cross-examination;
3. redirect examination;
4. re-cross examination.
PURPOSES OF CROSS-EXAMINATION:
1. To discredit the witness;
2.To discredit the testimony of the witness;
3.To clarify certain matters;
4.To elicit admissions from a witness.
SCOPE OR LIMITS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION:
1. ENGLISH RULE—where a witness is called to
testify to a particular fact, he becomes a witness for
all purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon
all matters material to the issue, the examination not
being confined to the matters inquired about in the
direct examination.
2. AMERICAN RULE—restricts cross-examination to
facts and circumstances which are connected with
the matters that have been stated in the direct
examination of the witness.
Under Philippine jurisdiction, we follow the two
rules, specifically under the following instances:
In CIVIL CASES, we follow the English Rule, which
allows the cross-examination to elicit all important
facts bearing upon the issue (Sec. 6), but this does
not mean that a party by doing so is making the
witness his own in accordance with Section 5.
We follow the American Rule as to the ACCUSED or
a HOSTILE WITNESS, who may only be cross-
examined on matters covered by direct examination,
DOCTRINE OF INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY:
When cross-examination cannot be done or
completed due to causes attributable to the party who
offered the witness, the incomplete testimony is
rendered incompetent and should be stricken from the
record. Except where the prosecution witness was
extensively cross-examined on the material points and
thereafter failed to appear and cannot be produced
despite a warrant for his arrest (People vs. Gorospe)
GENERAL RULE: A party who voluntarily offers the
testimony of a witness in the case is bound by the
testimony of said witness.
EXCEPTIONS:
A party is not bound when calling the following:
1. adverse party
2. hostile witness;
3. unwilling witness;
4. witness required by law to be presented.
HOSTILE WITNESS- A witness may be considered as
unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court
upon adequate showing of:
his adverse interest; or
unjustified reluctance to testify; or
his having misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand.
21
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
Section 9. Recalling witness.
GENERAL RULE: After the examination of a witness
by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot
be recalled without leave of court.
EXCEPTION: Recall has been expressly reserved
with the approval of the court
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions.
LEADING QUESTION—Question which suggests to
the witness the answer which the examining party
desires. It is generally NOT ALLOWED.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. On preliminary matters;
2. On cross-examination;
3. To adverse party witness;
4. To the officers of the adverse party who is a
juridical person;
5. To hostile witness;
6. To unwilling witness;
7. To children of tender age;
8. To deaf-mutes;
9. To those who are ignorant;
10. To those who are of weak minds.
MISLEADING QUESTION- one which assumes as
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is
NOT allowed.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. when waived;
2. asking hypothetical questions to an expert witness.
Only one counsel should be allowed to examine a
witness in a single stage. However, the other counsel
may make objection to testimony.
Reasons:
1. To protect the witness from undue and confusing
interrogation; and
2. To secure system and brevity by giving the control
of the interrogation to a single hand.
WHEN QUESTION PRELIMINARY—when the
question does not touch on any issue.
A question that merely suggests a subject without
suggesting an answer or a specific thing is not a
leading question. Example: ―State whether anything
occurred between you and the defendants on the
evening of January 9, 2003‖.
WAYS OF IMPEACHING ADVERSE PARTY‟S
WITNESS:
1. By contradictory evidence;
2. By evidence that the general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity of the witness is bad; or
3. By prior inconsistent statements. (Sec. 11)
PROCEDURE FOR IMPEACHING WITNESS BY
EVIDENCE OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENTS (LAYING THE PREDICATE)
1. The statement must be related to him with the
circumstances of the times and places and the
persons present;
if the statement be in writing they must be shown
to the witness before any question is put to him
concerning them; and
2. He must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to EXPLAIN them.
NOTE: Where the previous statements of a witness
are offered as evidence of an admission, and not
merely to impeach him, the rule on laying the
predicate does not apply.
Section 16. When witness may refer to
memorandum.
PRESENT RECOLLECTION REVIVED / REVIVAL
OF PRESENT MEMORY - A witness may be allowed
to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything
written or recorded by himself or under his direction at
the time when the fact occurred, or immediately
thereafter, or later so long as the fact was fresh in his
memory and he knew that it was correctly recorded.
PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED / REVIVAL OF
PAST RECOLLECTION - A witness may also testify
from such writing or record, though he retains no
recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to
swear that the writing or record correctly stated the
transaction when made, but such evidence must be
received with caution.
22
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

tribunals, and public officers, whether of the

Philippines, or of a foreign country;
PRESENT PAST 2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public
RECOLLECTION RECOLLECTION except last wills and testaments; and
REVIVED RECORDED 3. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
Memory is obscure Recollection is zero documents required by law to be entered therein.
but there is still
memory;
The main evidence is The main evidence is PUBLIC WRITING DISTINGUISHED FROM
the testimony of the the memorandum. PRIVATE WRITING:
witness
The witness simply Witness must swear PUBLIC PRIVATE
testifies that he knows that the writing WRITING WRITING
that the memorandum correctly states the As to a public a private writing
is correctly written by transaction. authenticity document is must be proved
admissible relative to its due
him or under his
evidence, execution and
direction; no need to without further genuineness-its
swear. proof of its authenticity-
genuineness before it may be
and due received in
The memorandum from which the witness may be execution evidence.
permitted to refresh his memory need NOT be an As to a public a private writing
original writing. It is sufficient if it is shown that the persons instrument is binds only the
witness knows the copy to be a true one, and his bound evidence even parties who
against third executed them or
memory refreshed thereby enables him to testify from
persons, of the their privies,
his own recollection of the facts, independent of his fact which gave insofar as due
confidence in the accuracy of the copy. rise to its due execution and
execution and date of the
to the date of document are
Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or the latter; concerned.
record given in evidence, the remainder As to Certain
admissible. validity of transactions
certain must be in a
RULE ON COMPLETENESS: transactions public
1. When part of an act, declaration, conversation, document,
otherwise they
writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the
will not be given
whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the any validity.
other; and
2. When a detached act, declaration, conversation,
writing, or record is given in evidence, any other act, The following are private writings which may be
declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary admitted in evidence without previous proof of its
may also be given in evidence. authenticity and due execution:
1. When the genuineness and due execution of the
document is admitted by the adverse party;
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS 2. When such genuineness and due execution are
immaterial to the issue;
AUTHENTICATION—PROVING the due execution 3. When the document is an ANCIENT DOCUMENT;
and genuineness of the document.
NOTE: Ancient Document Rule applies only if there
CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS: are no other witnesses to determine authenticity.
For the purpose of their presentation in evidence,
documents are either in PUBLIC or PRIVATE (Sec. ‗It is necessary that a party to any document notarized
19). by a notary public appear in person before the latter
and affirm the contents and truth of what are stated in
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS: the document. The importance of this requirement
1. The written official acts, or records of the official cannot be gainsaid. By it a private document is
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
23
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
converted to a public document, making it admissible
in court without further proof of its authenticity. For
this reason, it behooves every notary public to see to
it that this requirement is observed and that formalities
for the acknowledgment of documents are complied
with.‘ (Protacio vs. Mendoza, AC No. 5764, Jan. 13,
2003)]
E-COMMERCE LAW
R.A. 8792
Electronic Document – It refers to information or
representation of information, date, figures, symbols
by which a right is established or an obligation
extinguished, or which a fact may be proved and
affirmed which is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically.
Electronic Data Message – refers to information
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic,
optical or similar means.
Electronic Signature – refers to any distinctive mark,
characteristic and/or sound in electronic form,
representing the identity of a person and attached to
or logically associated with the electronic data
message or electronic document or any methodology
or procedures employed or adopted by a person and
executed or adopted by such person with the intention
of authenticating or approving an electronic data
message or electronic document.
REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT:
a. Where the law required a document to be in
writing, the requirement is met by an electronic
document if the said electronic document
maintains its integrity and reliability and can be
authenticated so as be usable for subsequent
reference.
(i) The electronic document has remained
complete and unaltered, apart from the
addition of any endorsement and any
authorized change or any change which
arises in the normal course of
communication, storage and display; and
(ii) The electronic document is reliable in the
light of the purpose for which it was
generated and in the light of all relevant
circumstances.
b. Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement
therein is in the form of an obligation or whether
the law simply provides consequences for the
document not being presented or retained in its
original form.
c. Where the law requires that the document be
presented or retained in its original form, that
requirement is met by an electronic document if
(i) There exist a reliable assurance as to the
integrity of the document from the time it was
first generated in its final form; and
(ii)That document is capable of being displayed
to the person to whom it is to be presented;
provided that no provision of this act shall
apply to vary any and all requirements of
existing laws on formalities required in the
execution of documents for their validity.
For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document
shall be the functional equivalent of a written
document under existing laws.
BURDEN OF PROOF: The person seeking to
introduce an electronic data message or electronic
document in any legal proceeding has the burden of
proving its authenticity by evidence capable of
supporting a finding that the electronic data message
or electronic document is what the person claims it to
be.
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(August 1, 2001)
Manner of Authentication of electronic
documents:
1. By evidence that it has been digitally signed by the
person purported to have signed the same;
2. By evidence that other appropriate security
procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
Supreme Court or by law for authentication of
electronic documents were applied to the
document.
3. By other evidence showing its integrity and
reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
Authentication of Electronic Signatures:
1. The electronic signature is that of the person to
whom it correlates;
2. By any other means provided by law;
3. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as
establishing the genuineness of the electronic
signature.
Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay
Rule:
A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of
acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses, made
by electronic, optical, or other similar means at or near
the time of or from transmission or supply of
information by a person with knowledge thereof, and
kept in the regular course or conduct of business
activity, and such was the regular practice to make the
24
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

memorandum, report, record or data compilation by
electronic, optical, or similar means, all of which are
shown by the testimony of the custodian or other
qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on
hearsay evidence.
This presumption may be overcome by evidence of
the untrustworthiness of the source of information or
the method or circumstances of the preparation,
transmission or storage thereof.
Why purpose of offer must be specified — to
determine whether that piece of evidence should be
admitted or not.
Because such evidence may be admissible for several
purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility,
or may be admissible for one purpose and not for
another, otherwise the adverse party cannot
interpose the proper objection. Evidence submitted for
one purpose may not be considered for any other
purpose by the judge.

METHOD OF PROOF: NOTE: Where the evidence is inadmissible for the

All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary
weight of electronic document may be established by
an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge
of the affiant or based on authentic records . The
affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of
the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein.
Cross Examination: The affiant shall be made to
affirm the contents of the affidavit in open court and
may be cross-examined as a matter of right by the
adverse party.
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION
Section 34. Offer of evidence.
Formal offer of evidence
purpose stated in the offer, it must be rejected, though
the same may be admissible for another purpose.
The reason is that the adverse party is prevented from
objecting to the admissibility thereof on grounds other
than those available to meet the stated purpose.
In Mata Vda. De Onate vs. CA, the Court allowed
evidence not formally offered to be admitted and
considered by the trial court provided the following
requirements are present:
1. the same must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded;
2. the same must have been incorporated to the
records of the case.
Section 35. When to make offer.

WHEN OFFER OF TESTIMONIAL/ORAL EVIDENCE

Objection: grounds MADE—at the time the witness is called to testify.
General – immaterial or irrelevant
IMPLIED OFFER - Every time a question is asked of a
witness, there is an implied automatic offer of the
Sustained Overruled evidence sought to be elicited by the question. If
Evidence offered Evidence will be there is any objection to the question, the same must
will not be allowed allowed to be be raised immediately, otherwise, there is a waiver.
to be presented in presented in court
court THEREFORE, oral evidence is always being offered
twice:
1. before the witness testifies; and
Presentation of 2. every time a question is asked of him.
Remedy of offeror evidence offered
Tender of excluded
evidence WHEN OFFER OF DOCUMENTARY AND OBJECT
EVIDENCE SHOULD BE MADE—after the party has
Objection; to deny presented his testimonial evidence. Before he rests,
presentation – he must make a formal offer of all his documentary
general/specific and object evidence and specify the purposes for
grounds which he is offering these evidence.
Sustained
Question posed will
not be permitted e.g. Overruled PROCEDURE BEFORE DOCUMENTARY AND
misleading; revise the Questions will be OBJECT EVIDENCE CAN BE CONSIDERED BY
question / tender of allowed THE COURT:
excluded evidence 1. marking;
25
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
2. identification;
3. authentication;
4. formal offer; and
5. if the evidence is excluded, an offer of proof.
Authentication and identification can be dispensed
with if there is a stipulation on the due execution and
genuineness of the private document.
If it is a public document, then there is NO NEED for
authentication.
STAGES IN THE PRESENTATION OF
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
1. IDENTIFICATION
By identification is meant proof that the document
being presented is the same one referred to by the
witness in his testimony.
2. MARKING
 All exhibits should be marked to facilitate their
identification. The marking may be made at the
pre-trial or during the trial.
 The plaintiff and the prosecution use capital
letters (―A‖, ―B‖, ―C‖, etc.) and the accused use
Arabic numbers (―1‖, ―2‖, ―3‖, etc.)
 If the exhibit is presented in connection with an
affidavit, like in support or in opposition to a motion
to dismiss, the words ―Motion to Dismiss‖ should
be added after the letter or number.
3. AUTHENTICATION
The proof of a document‘s due execution and
genuineness if the purpose is to show that it is
genuine, or the proof of its forgery, if the purpose is
to show that the document is a forgery.
4. INSPECTION
Under Section 18 of Rule 132, whenever a writing
is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the
adverse party.
5. FORMAL OFFER
After the termination of the testimonial evidence,
the proponent will then make a formal offer and
state the purpose for which the document is
presented (Rule 132, Sec. 34)
6. OBJECTIONS
The objection to the introduction or presentation of
the document shall be made when it is formally
offered in evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 36)
There is a distinction between identification of
documentary evidence and formal offer of
documentary evidence as an exhibit:
1. In identification of documentary evidence, the
same is done in the course of the trial and is
accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an
exhibit.
2. In formal offer of a documentary evidence as
an exhibit, the same is done when the party has
presented his testimonial evidence.
The mere fact that a particular document is identified
and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it will be
or has been offered as part of the evidence of the
party. The party may decide to formally offer it if it
believes this will advance its cause, or it may decide
not to do so at all.
Section 36. Objection
CLASSIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS:
1. General Objection – Does not go beyond
declaring the evidence as immaterial, incompetent,
irrelevant or inadmissible; and
2. Specific Objection – States why or how the
evidence is irrelevant or incompetent. Example:
Objection to the question for being leading.
MODES OF EXCLUDING INADMISSIBLE
EVIDENCE:
1. Objection - when the evidence is offered.
2. Motion to strike out or Expunge – proper in the
following cases:
a. when the witness answers prematurely
before there is reasonable opportunity for
the party to object (Sec. 39);
b. unresponsive answers;
c. answers that are incompetent, irrelevant,
or improper (Sec. 39);
d. uncompleted testimonies where there was
no opportunity for the other party to cross-
examine;
e. conditionally admitted evidence not later
substantiated.
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence
What is “tender of excluded evidence”?
Where the court refuses to permit the counsel to
present testimony which he thinks is competent,
material and necessary to prove his case, the method
of properly preserving the record to the end that the
26
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

question may be saved for the purpose of review, is WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE—probative value or credit
through the making of an offer of proof. that the court gives to particular evidence admitted to
prove a fact in issue.
Purposes:
1. to inform the court what is expected to be proved; PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE—evidence which
and is of greater weight or more convincing or superior
2. procuring exceptions to the exclusion of the offered weight of evidence than that which is offered in
evidence so that the appellate court may determine opposition to it.
from the record whether the proposed evidence is
competent. REASONABLE DOUBT — doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after
How made: such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the
a. As to documentary or object evidence: certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not
May have the same attached to or made part of demanded by the law to convict a person charged for
the record. the commission of an offense, but moral certainty is
b. As to oral evidence: required as to every proposition of proof requisite to
May state for the record the name and other constitute the offense.
personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony. EQUIPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE — The
evidence of both parties when placed on the division
OFFER OF OFFER OF scale is balance. In civil cases, this means that the
PROOF/TENDER OF EVIDENCE court will rule in favor of the party who has no burden
EXCLUDED of proof. In criminal cases, this means acquittal of the
EVIDENCE accused.
Only resorted to if Refers to testimonial,
admission is refused documentary or object POSITIVE TESTIMONY DISTINGUISHED FROM
by the court for evidence that are NEGATIVE TESTIMONY:
purposes of review on presented or offered in POSITIVE TESTIMONY—is when the witness affirms
appeal. court by a party so that that a fact did or did not occur;
the court can consider NEGATIVE TESTIMONY—is when a witness states
his evidence when it that he did not see or know of the occurrence of a
comes to the fact.
preparation of the
decision Positive testimony has greater weight than negative
evidence.
RULE ON CONTINUING OBJECTIONS – If the same
class of evidence is presented by a proponent and it is ALIBI - must be established by positive, clear and
objected to by the adverse party, and a court has satisfactory evidence.
already made a ruling on the objection, the adverse
party does not have to repeat the objection all over One of the weakest defenses because of the facility
again. The adverse party can just tell the court that he with which it can be fabricated, just like a mere denial
is giving a continuing objection to the line of question (People vs. Esperanza, G.R. No. 139217-24, June
propounded. The advantage of this, is on appeal, it 27, 2003).
will appear on the record of the case that there is an Requisites:
objection made in the trial court. It is always important 1. showing that not only is the accused somewhere
that the records indicate that an objection has been else
made because an objection that has not been made is 2. but also it was physically impossible for him to be
a waiver. at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission.
Evidence presented during the hearing of the motions
will also be considered evidence during trial of the OUT OF COURT IDENTIFICATION: The Supreme
case. Court has held that on the admissibility and reliability
of out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have
RULE 133 adopted the ―totality of circumstances‖ test which
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE utilizes the following factors:
1. the witness‘ opportunity to view the criminal at
the time of the crime;
27
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56
2. the witness‘ degree of attention at that time;
3. the accuracy of any prior description given by
the witness;
4. the level of certainty demonstrated by the
witness at the identification;
5. the length of time between the crime and the
identification; and
6. the suggestiveness of the identification
procedure
‗When the identity of the appellant is not established
beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal necessarily
follows. Conviction for a crime rests on the strength of
the prosecution‘s evidence, never on the weakness of
that of the defense…‘
‗In every criminal prosecution, the prosecution must
prove two things: (1) the commission of the crime and
(2) the identification of the accused as the perpetrator
of the crime Cursory identification does not suffice to
convict the accused. What is needed is positive
identification made with moral certainty as to the
person of the offender…‘ (People vs. Maguing, GR
No. 144090, June 26, 2003)
‗Eyewitness identification is often decisive of the
conviction or acquittal of an accused. Identification of
an accused through mug shots is one of the
established procedures in pinning down criminals
However, to avoid charges of impermissible
suggestion, there should be nothing in the photograph
that would focus attention on a single person (People
vs. Villena, GR No. 140066, Oct. 14, 2002).
A police line-up is merely a part of the investigation
process by police investigators to ascertain the
identity of offenders or confirm their identification by a
witness to the crime. Police officers are not obliged to
assemble a police line-up as a condition sine qua non
to prove the identity of an offender. If on the basis of
the evidence on hand, police officers are certain of the
identity of the offender, they need not require any
police line-up anymore. (Tapdasan, Jr. vs. People,
GR No. 141344, Nov. 21, 2002)
RES IPSA LOQUITUR (The thing speaks for itself)- a
maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an
injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may
permit an inference or raise a presumption of
negligence, or make out a plaintiff‘s prima facie case,
and present a question of fact for the defendant to
meet with an explanation. The doctrine is simply a
recognition of postulate that as a matter of common
knowledge and experience, the very nature of certain
types of occurrences may justify an inference of
negligence on the part of person who controls the
instrumentality causing the injury, in the absence of
some explanation by him. However, it does not
dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence.
RULE ON PARTIAL CREDIBILITY:
Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus (False in one
thing, false in everything)
If the testimony of the witness on a material issue is
willfully false and given with an intention to deceive,
court may disregard all the witness‘ testimony.
This is NOT a mandatory rule of evidence but is
applied by the courts in its discretion.
IMPORTANT:
a. Deals only with the weight of evidence and not a
positive rule of law.
b. The witnesses‘ false or exaggerated statements on
other matters shall not preclude the acceptance of
such evidence as is relieved from any sign of
falsehood.
c. The court may accept and reject portions of the
witness‘ testimony depending on the inherent
credibility thereof.
The credibility of witnesses is best determined by the
trial judge, who has the direct opportunity to observe
and evaluate their demeanor on the witness stand.
The trial court‘s findings of fact will not be disturbed on
appeal, unless there is a clear showing that it plainly
overlooked matters of substance which, if considered,
might affect the results of the review. (People vs.
Pacuancuan, GR No. 144589, June 16, 2003)
In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended
party, if free from serious and material contradictions,
is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction…‘
(People vs. Esperanza)
The sole, uncorroborated testimony of an accused
who turned state witness may suffice to convict his co-
accused if it is given unhesitatingly and in a
straightforward manner and is full of details which by
their nature could not have been the result of
deliberate afterthought, otherwise, it needs
corroboration, the presence or lack of which may
ultimately decide the case of the prosecution and the
fate of the accused. (People vs. Sunga, GR No.
126029, Mar 27, 2003)
Section. 3 Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient
ground for conviction.
28
SAN BEDA 2005 – SJ56

An extrajudicial confession is not sufficient ground for Direct evidence distinguished from circumstantial
conviction UNLESS corroborated by evidence of evidence.
corpus delicti.
Circumstantial
CORPUS DELICTI—the actual commission by Direct Evidence
Evidence
someone of the particular crime charged.
establishes the does not prove the
Two Elements: existence of a fact in existence of a fact in
1. the existence of a certain act or result which is the issue without the aid issue directly, but
basis of the criminal charge of any inference or merely provides for
2. the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of presumption. logical inference that
the act or result. such fact really exists.
the witnesses testify each proof is given of
NOTE: The identity of the accused is not a necessary directly of their own facts and
element of the corpus delicti. knowledge as to the circumstances from
main facts to be which the court may
Corpus delicti in its legal sense refers to the fact of the proved. infer other connected
commission of the crime, not to the physical body of facts which
the deceased or to the ashes of a burned building reasonably follow,
or—as in the present case—to the smuggled according to the
cigarettes. The corpus delicti may be proven by the common experience
credible testimony of a sole witness, not necessarily of mankind.
by physical evidence such as those aforementioned.
(Rimorin vs. People, GR No 146481, Apr.30, 2003)
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when
sufficient.
It is sufficient for conviction if:
a. There is more than one circumstance;
b. The facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; and
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt (People vs. Guihama, G.R. No. 126113,
June 25, 2003)

Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime

is not necessary to prove conspiracy as it may be
deduced from the acts of the perpetrators before,
during and after the commission of the crime which
are indicative of a common design, concerted action
and concurrence of sentiments. (Serrano vs. CA, GR
No. 123896, Jun. 25, 2003)

What is essential in a prosecution for the illegal sale of

prohibited drugs is proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place and the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti which has two elements: (1) proof of the
occurrence of a certain event and (2) a person‘s
criminal responsibility for the act (People vs. Corpuz,
GR No. 148919, Dec. 17, 2002).

29