PIMENTEL, HERSHEYKRIS G. BSCRIM3A CLJ15- EVIDENCE INSTRUCTOR: ATTY.PRIEL P.

BALNAO

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. EVIDENCE DEFINED

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact.

Four Component Elements:

1. Evidence as a means of Ascertainment -includes not only the procedure or manner of

ascertainment but also the evidentiary fact from which the truth respecting a matter of fact may
be ascertained.
2. Sanctioned by these Rules – not excluded but must be allowed by the Rules of Court or by law.

3. In a Judicial Proceeding contemplates an action or proceeding filed in a court of law and not a
mere dispute between two contending parties.

4. The Truth respecting a matter of Fact – refers to an issue of fact and is both:
a. Substantive- determines the facts to be established and;
b. Procedural – governs the manner of proving said facts

Purpose: To ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding.

Reason: There is a presumption that the court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a case.
Thus, it is incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue through the presentation of admissible
evidence.

General Rule: All facts in issue and relevant facts must be proven by evidence.

Exceptions: (JAPAKI)

1. Facts which are the subject of Judicial notice:

2. Facts which are Admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided they have been sufficiently
alleged

3. Facts which are legally Presumed:

4. Those which are the subject of an Agreed statement of facts between the parties as well as those
admitted by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case;

5. Facts peculiarly within the Knowledge of the opposite party, and

6. Allegations contained in the complaint or answer Immaterial to the issues

Basic Distinctions between Evidence and Other Concepts

Evidence Proof
It is the medium or means by which a fact is It is the effect or result of evidence. It is the
proved or disproved Probative effect of evidence and is the conviction
or persuasion of the mind resulting from the
consideration of the evidence.

Evidence Testimony
It is a comprehensive term that includes testimony It is only a part of evidence. It is a kind of evidence
presented in a trial by witnesses verbally.
Evidence
It is the means by which the tribunal is sought to
be persuaded as to some fact-in-issue. It merely
presents the elemental facts for the tribunal’s
appreciation
Argument
the invocation of counsel of ordinary rules of logic
and rhetoric in the combination of assumed facts
to enable the tribunal to draw the desired
inference.

Factum Probandum vs. Factum Probans

Factum Probandum-is the ultimate fact or proposition sought to be established.

Factum Probans- is the material evidencing the proposition. It is the evidentiary fact by which the
factum probandum is established.

Factum Probandum Factum Probans

Ultimate facts Intermediate or evidentiary facts
The fact or proposition to be established The fact by which the factum probandum is to be
established
Hypothetical existent

Classification of evidence as to its ability to establish the fact in dispute

Direct Evidence Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence which proves the fact
in dispute without the aid of
any inference or presumption.
Illustration:
X saw A attack B with a swiss
knife. The testimony of X is a
direct evidence against A for the
crime of homicide.
Evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference
drawn from the evidence established
As to probative value, the Court considers circumstantial evidence as
being of a nature identical to direct
evidence because no degree greater
of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when
it is direct
Illustration:

X testified that he saw A holding a knife while running from the place
where B was found lying on his own blood; that A's hands are full of
blood; and days after the incident, A fled from the Philippines. When
these facts are taken together, they will show that A is the one who
killed B.

As to the degree of its value in establishing disputed fact

Prima Facie evidence (on its face) Conclusive Evidence

That which, standing alone unexplained or
uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the
proposition affirmed. By itself, it is sufficient to
establish the factum probandum if no evidence to the
contrary appears.
Evidence which incontrovertible or one which
the law does not allow to be contradicted
Note: Those which are enumerated under Sec.2
Rule 31 are conclusive presumptions.

Note: Those which are enumerated under Rule 131, Illustration:

Sec. 3 are prima facie presumptions.
Illustration:
Entries in the course of business made by a person in
professional capacity or in the performance of duty
and in the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty are prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein
In an action to recover money paid settlement
of an account in stock transactions. plaintiff is
bound by his own testimony that the
transactions were gambling transactions so as
recovery by him.
 As to the similarity of character or nature of the additional evidence

Corroborative evidence Cumulative Evidence

Additional evidence of a different kind and Additional evidence of the same kind and
character from that already given, tending to prove character as that already given and tends to
the same point prove the same proposition.

Illustration:
The testimonies of the witnesses that the victims
died of gunshot wounds may be corroborated by
the death certificate of the victims.
Illustration:
The testimony of a as to who shot B is cumulative
to the testimony of C as to who he has
seen at the place where the crime is
committed.

As to its weight and acceptability

Primary or best Evidence Secondary or Substitutionary Evidence

Evidence which affords the greatest certainty of Evidence which is inferior evidence to primary and
the fact in question. admissible only in the absence of the latter.

Note: In an action on a written contract, the best Note: A photocopy of the written contract on which
evidence of its Contents is the original the action arises is a secondary evidence of its
instrument. contents.

As to its Nature

Object evidence Documentary Evidence Testimonial Evidence

Evidence directly addressed
to the senses of the court and
is capable of being exhibited
to, examined or viewed by
the court.
Illustration: A knife that is
alleged to be used in the
killing of B was produced in
the court. The knife is the
object evidence.
It consists of writings or any material Evidence which consists
containing letters, words, numbers, to, of the narration or
figures, or symbols or other modes of deposition by one who
written expressions offered as proof of has observed or personal
their contents has personal knowledge
of that to which he is
Illustration: The promissory note written testifying. It is furnished
by A to B was produced in evidence to by the testimony of man
prove that the amount stated thereon is which may be oral or
already due and demandable. written.

As to Quality

Admissible Evidence Material Evidence Credible Evidence

One that is relevant and
competent.
1.Relevant Evidence- evidence
which has a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non- existence
Evidence which tends to
prove or disprove a fact in
issue as determined by the
rules of substantive law and
pleadings
It is not only admissible evidence
but also believable and used by
the court in deciding a case.

2. Competent Evidence –evidence

not excluded by law or rules in
particular case.
Other Classifications of Evidence

1. Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal evidence

a. Rebuttal evidence- is that kind, which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in
evidence by the adverse party. It is evidence in denial of some affirmative case or fact which the adverse
party has attempted to prove.

b. Sur-rebuttal evidence- is a reply to rebuttal evidence (FRANCISCO, Evidence, (2017), p. 8 hereinafter

FRANCISCO

2. Positive and Negative Evidence

a. Positive Evidence - when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does exist or that
a certain event happened.
b. Negative Evidence - when the witness states that an event did not occur or that the state of facts
alleged to exist does not actually exist.

Note: Generally, the testimony of those who swear negatively that they did not see or hear is NOT to be
accorded with great weight as testimony of equally accorded credible persons, having the same E
opportunities of seeing and observing that a thing was or was not done.

Illustration:

A testified that he saw B set fire of the house of X on a specific date and time, this testimony is a positive
evidence. And, accordingly, the testimony of C that he was on that occasion at the place where the
house of X was burned and he did not see B set fire on said house is a negative evidence.

3. Expert Evidence - It is the testimony of one possessing, in regard to a particular subject or department
of human activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other person.

4. Substantial Evidence- is the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion

Rules of Evidence have been classified into:

1. Rules of Probative Policy; and

2. Rules of Extrinsic Policy.

Rules of Probative Policy

1. Exclusionary Rules - exclude certain kinds of evidence on grounds partly of relevancy and partly of
policy (e.g. character evidence is generally not admissible unless the character is the issue).

2. Preferential Rules- require one kind of evidence in preference to any other (e.g. under the Best
Evidence Rule, when the contents of document is the subject of inquiry, the best evidence is the original
document).

3. Analytic Rules subject certain kinds of evidence to rigid scrutiny, so as to expose its possible
weaknesses and shortcomings (eg. The rules require that an opportunity must be given to cross-examine
the witness, without opportunity, the testimony is hearsay and generally excluded).

4. Prophylactic Rules- apply beforehand to prevent risk of falsity or mistake (e.g. it is required that a
witness take an oath or affirmation before testifying).

5. Quantitative Rules - require certain kinds of evidence to be produced in specific quantity. These rules
require them to be associated with other evidence when presented (e.g an extrajudicial confession
made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti).

Rules of Extrinsic Policy

These rules seek to exclude useful evidence for the sake of upholding other policies considered mo
paramount and are either absolute or conditional

Under the total exclusionary rule, illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in any proceedings
Absence of Vested Rights in the Rules of Evidence
General Rule: No vested rights in the rules of evidence

Admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence determined in accordance with the law in force the time the
evidence is presented. 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 the time it is
presented.

Exception: In criminal cases, if the alteration of the rules of evidence would, for instance, permit the
reception of a lesser quantum of evidence than what the law required at the time of the commission of
the offense in order to convict, then the retroactive application of such amendatory law would be
unconstitutional for being ex post facto (Simon Chan, G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011)

Liberal Construction of the Rules on Evidence like all other provisions under the Rules of Court, the
rules of evidence must be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding (ROC, RULE 1, Sec. 6). However, to
justify the relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfilment of the
requirements have always been required (Barcenas Tomas G.R. No. 150321, March 31, 2005).

Waiver of the Rules of Evidence

General Rule: Rules of evidence that are merely for protection of the parties may be waived either
during trial or in a contract (FRANCISCO, supra 18).

A contract of insurance requiring the testimony of the eyewitness as the only evidence admissible
concerning the death of the insured person is valid.

Failure to object to the offered evidence makes it admissible (Advance Paper Corp v. ARMA Traders A
Cup, G.R. No. 176897, December 11, 2013) (eg B failure to object to the inadmissibility of secondary
evidence in documentary evidence) COLLEGE

Exception: If the rule waived by the parties has been established by law on grounds of public policy, the
Waiver is void. Accordingly, the waiver of the privilege against disclosure of secrets is void (FRANCISCO.
at 11).

The SECTION 2: SCOPE

Uniformity of Rules of Evidence in Judicial Proceedings

The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise
Provided by law or these rules, such as those Enumerated under Sec. 4. Rule 1 which are:
(NICOLE)
1.Naturalization proceedings;
2.Insolvency proceedings:
3.Cadastral proceedings:
4.Other cases as may be provided for by law;
5.Land registration cases; and
6. Election cases

Applicability of the Rules on Evidence:

1. In civil cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, where the parties are required to
submit position papers attaching Thereto affidavits of witnesses, thus obviating the application
of the Rules on Testimonial Evidence, the rest of the Rules on Evidence still apply. Therefore, any
document or object evidence presented by the parties in their respective position papers must
still conform to the Rules on Evidence.
2. In criminal cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, while the affidavits of the
parties and their witnesses constitute their direct testimony, they may still be subject to cross-
examination, redirect or re-cross examination. The Rules on Evidence still apply on any
document or object evidence presented .
3. Small Claims Cases-The small claims process is designed to function quickly and informally.
There are no lawyers, no formal pleadings and no strict legal rules of evidence (Orbe v.
Gumarang. A.M. No. MTJ-11-1792, September 26, 2011).
4. Administrative Cases - The rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before
administrative bodies. Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and
procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law (Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.,
Inc., G.R. No. 153660, June 10, 2003).
 While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the
technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases, this procedural rule should not be
construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules, such as the
requirement of at least substantial evidence to support its findings and the basic rule that mere
allegation is not evidence. The evidence presented must at least have a modicum of
admissibility for it to have probative value.

Quasi-judicial bodies are given the authority to make rules of procedure. However, they have no
power to make their own rules concerning quantum of evidence. Such power is vested in the
Supreme Court (CONST. Art. VIII, Sec. 5).

Evidence in civil cases Evidence in Criminal Cases

Quantum of Proof

The party having burden of proof must establish The prosecution must prove guilt beyond
his case by a preponderance of evidence reasonable doubt.

Offer of compromise

An offer of compromise is not an admission of General Rule: An offer of compromise by the

liability and is not an admissible in evidence accused may be received in evidence as an implied
against the offeror. admission of guilt.

Exceptions:
1. criminal cases involving quasi-offenses;
and
2. Criminal cases allowed by law to be
compromised.
General Denial

General Denial is not allowed General Denial is allowed

Withdrawal of plea or admission

Judicial Admission withdrawn becomes A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a
extrajudicial admission plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence
against the accused who made the plea or offer.

Presumption of Innocence

Generally, there exists no presumption in favor of The accused enjoys the presumption of innocence.
either party except in cases specifically provided
by law.

If there is an equiponderance of Evidence

The party who has the burden of proof loses. Accused is acquitted.

Presence of Circumstantial Evidence

Not Applicable Applicable only in criminal cases

Privileged communication (Doctor-Patient)

Applicable only in Civil cases Not Applicable

Compulsion of a witness

A party or defendant may be compelled to be a witness The accused cannot be compelled to be

provided written interrogaries have been served upon him. a witness.

Cross-Examination Summary procedure

Not Applicable Applicable

SECTION 3. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

Requisites for Admissibility of Evidence

Requisites for admissibility of Evidence

The evidence must be: (RC)
1. Relevant-such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence, and
2. Competent not excluded by the rules of evidence, the law, and the Constitution.

The rules of exclusion are rules of exception to the general admissibility of all that is rational are
probative.

A. Types of Admissibility
1. Multiple Admissibility of Evidence- when the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more
purposes, such evidence may admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is offered provided it
satisfies a requirements of law for its admissibility therefor.

Example:
A confession of an accused may not be competent as against his co-accused being a hearsay as to the
latter, or to prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy being established by other evidence
nonetheless, the confession of the accused may be admitted as evidence of his own guilt.

2. Conditional Admissibility of Evidence- where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be
immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such
evidence may received on the condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise
evidence given will be stricken out from the record.

Note: The offering counsel may be required by the court, as a condition precedent (1) to state the
supposed connecting facts, and (2) to promise to evidence them later. If a promise thus made is not
fulfilled, the court may strike out the evidence thus conditionally admitted, if the motion is made by the
opposite party.

The application of this doctrine is subject to the qualification that there should be no bad faith on the
part of the proponent (2 REGALADO, supra at 70

1. Curative Admissibility of Evidence (Fighting with fire)- Where improper evidence was admitted
over the objection of the opposing party, he should be permitted to contradict it with similar
improper evidence. This is evidence introduced to cure, contradict or neutralize improper
evidence presented by the other party.

Illustration:
A sues B for the latter's alleged refusal to pay for merchandise supplied by A. B denies having received
merchandise. In the course of the trial, A introduces evidence showing that B swindled C on similar
transaction before. This should not have been admitted. B now offers to explain that he entered into a
fair transaction with C. In fairness to B, this should admitted.
Admissibility Weight(Probative Value)

As to question resolved

It refers to the question of whether It refers to the question of whether or not the
or not the evidence is to be evidence proves an issue.
considered at all.

As to characteristic of evidence to which it pertains

It pertains to its relevance and It pertains to its tendency to convince and

competence persuade

As to basis

It depends on logic and law It depends on the guidelines provided in rule

133 and doctrines laid down by the supreme
court.
B. Rules of exclusion V. Exclusionary rules

1. Rules of exclusion- In the system of evidence, they are rules of execution to a general admissibility of
all that is rational and probative.

2. exclusionary rules- These are commonly used for evidence excluded by the constitution. In its
simplest form, these rules are applied to cases where the challenged evidence is quite clearly direct or
primary in its relationship to the prior arrest or search.

The following are rules that exclude certain types of evidence:

a. Best Evidence Rule - When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original document (ROC, RULE 130.Sec. 3);
b. Parol Evidence Rule-When the terms of the agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered
as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement (ROC) RULE 130,
Sec. 9);
c. Hearsay Evidence 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 (ROC, RULE 130, Sec, 36);
d. Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases - In civil case, an offer of compromise is not admission of any
liability and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 27);
e. Disqualification of Witness by Reason of Mental incapacity or Immaturity (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 21);
f. Disqualification by Reason of Death or Insanity of Adverse Party (ROC, RULE 130,Sec, 23);
g. Disqualification by Reason of Marriage (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 22);
h. Disqualification by Reason of Privileged Communications (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 24).

The following are the provisions of the Constitution and law that exclude evidence:

a. Right against unreasonable search and seizure (CONST. Art. III, Sec. 2);
b. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication (CONST. Art. III, Sec.3):
C. Right of a person under investigation for an offense (CONST. Art. III, Sec. 12):
d. Right against self-incrimination (CONST. Art. III, Sec. 17) (5 HERRERA, supra at 35);
e. Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result of torture shall be inadmissible in
evidence in any proceedings, except if the same is used as evidence against a person or persons accused
of committing torture.
f. Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or
spoken or written words, or any part or parts thereof, or any information or fact complained therein,
including their existence, content, substance, purport. effect, or meaning which have been secured in
violation of the provisions of the Human Security Act shall absolutely be inadmissible in any judicial.
quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry proceeding, or hearing (R.A. No. 9372.
Sec. 15):
g. Evidence obtained in violation of the Anti- Wiretapping Law (RA. No. 4200) shall not be admissible in
evidence in the following proceedings:
i. judicial:
ii. quasi-judicial;
iii. legislative; or
iv. administrative (See discussions on R.A. No. 4200, Sec. 4).

Doctrine of the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" Once the primary source (tree) is shown to have been
unlawfully obtained, any secondary evidence (fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated
otherwise. illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of
the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally
inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not
be used to gain other evidence because the originally obtained evidence C taints all evidence
subsequently obtained (People v. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995),

The fruit of the poisonous tree is likewise known as the "but for" test or "taint doctrine". The test is
whether or not the evidence could not have been obtained but for the illegal action of the police (5
HERRERA, supra at 38).

Exception: When the secondary evidence to which an objection is also made would have been inevitably
discovered by law enforcement authorities by sources or procedures independent of the illegal search
or seizure (People v. Alicando, supra).
Admissibility of Electronic Documents: (CA)
An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:

1. It complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws: and
2. It is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence (Rules on Electronic
Evidence, Rule 3, Sec. 2).

Admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405).

General Rule: All deposits with banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds
Issued by the Government of the Philippines are considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and
may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office.

Exception: Upon written permission of the depositor or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a
competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money
deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation (RA 1405. Sec. 2).

Note: Nothing in RA 1405 provides that unlawful examination of bank accounts will make the evidence
obtained thereby inadmissible Instead, Sec. 5 only states that any violation of this law will subject the
offender upon conviction, to imprisonment of not more than 5 years or fine, or both, in the discretion of
the court (Ejercito v Sandiganbayan, G.R. N 157294-95, November 30, 2006).

Admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of The Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603)
Article 7 of P.D. No. 603 only provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule on confidentiality
of birth records but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth records in violation of said article
would render said records inadmissible in evidence.

SECTION 4 RELEVANCY: COLLATERAL MATTERS

Relevancy:
The evidence is relevant when it is related to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence

The court will admit only evidence which is relevant to the fact in issue

Tests of Relevancy
1. Experience and the Rule of Logic- Whatever naturally and logically tends to establish a fact in issue is
relevant and that which fails to qualify in this respect is not relevant (5 HERRERA, supra at 57)

2. The Rational or Logical Relevancy Test- In determining a dispute concerning the relevancy of
proffered evidence, the question to be resolved is whether there is logical or rational connection
between the fact which is sought to be proved and a matter of fact which has been made an issue in-
the case.
3. The Logical Connection Test in Collateral Matters- The test of relevancy is logical connection where
the question is whether evidence is admissible to show collateral fact, or where proffered evidence is
relevant to a collateral issue.

Evidence on collateral matters shall NOT be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue (ROC, RULE 128, Sec. 4).

Collateral matters refer to matters other than the fact in issue. These are matters outside the
controversy, or are not directly connected with the principal matter or issue in dispute, as indicated in
the pleadings of the parties (FRANCISCO supra at 19).

Fact in issue vs. Fact relevant to the issue

Facts in issue are those which the plaintiff must prove in order to establish his claim and those facts
which the defendant must prove in order to establish a defense set up by him, but only when the fact
alleged by one party is not admitted by the other party.

Facts relevant to the issue are those facts which render probable the existence or non-existence of a
fact in issue, or some other relevant fact (FRANCISCO, supra at 23).
RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Matters that need not be proved: (JASPA)

1. Facts which are subject of Judicial notice.
2. Facts which are Admitted.
3. Matters are not Specifically denied in the answer.
4. Facts which are legally Presumed
5. Those which are the subject of an Agreed statement of facts between the parties.

Judicial Notice is not the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take an act on
without proof because they already know them.

The object of judicial Notice is to save time, labor and expense in securing and introducing evidence
on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not bona fide disputed, and the tenor
of which can safely be assumed from the tribunals general knowledge or a sight search on its part.

Applicability of Judicial Notice

The application of Judicial Notice is not confined to courts of record. Certain boards and special
tribunals which are not strictly courts but which partake of their nature and the findings of which
partake the nature of judgements may take judicial notice of certain matters.

Effect of judicial Notice upon the Burden of Proving a Fact

Relieves the parties from the necessity of introducing evidence to prove facts noticed.

Note: Stipulations and admissions of the parties or their counsel cannot prevail over the operation of
the doctrine of judicial notice, and such stipulations and admission are all subject to the operation of
the doctrine of judicial notice.

Material Requisites:
Matters of judicial notice have three material Requisites:
1. The matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
3. It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

Test of Notoriety
The principal Guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of
notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and
facts of general notoriety.

Judged Personal Knowledge

Judicial Notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial
knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not
generally or professionally known, the basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of those
matters which are “commonly” known.

Kinds of Judicial Notice:

1. Mandatory; and
2. Discretionary.

SECTION1. JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN MANDATORY

Mandatory Judicial Notice: (EP-NAPON-TG)

1.The Existence and territorial extent of states;
2. Their Political history, forms of government, and symbols of nationality;
3. The law of Nations;

The Law of Nations is the compilation of rules, which, by common consent of mankind, have been
acquiesced in as law. It is subject to mandatory judicial notice.

Reason: The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law
of the land. They are therefore, technically in the nature of local laws and hence, subject to mandatory
judicial notice.

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:

Matters relating to the legislative department

Courts are bound to take judicial notice of the dates when Congress begins and closes its session, the
number, functions and privileges of its members. Joint resolution of public character passed by the
legislature must also be judicially known.

Matters relating to the executive department:

These include the organization of the Executive Department and its principal officers, whether elected or
appointed.

Matters relating to the courts of justice

The Supreme Court (SC) has taken judicial notice of its record in a previous case in connection with the
conduct of the litigant or witness on a similar matter. But the SC does not take judicial notice of
proceedings in various courts of justice in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court is also bound to take notice of the lack of jurisdiction appearing upon the face of the
record and may hear arguments upon the question although no objection to the want of jurisdiction was
raised in the court below (Government of the Philippines v. American Surety Co. of New York, G.R. No.
4528, September 4, 1908).

7.The laws of Nature;

Example: The law on gravity , the flow of tides, the alternation of day and night, etc.

8.The measure of Time; and

Example: The subdivision of the year into months, weeks and days, the days of the week, the order of
succeeding days of the week, etc.

9. The Geographical divisions.

Example: That a certain barrio is within a certain municipality.

SECTION 2: JUDICIAL NOTICE,WHEN DISCRETIONARY

Discretionary Judicial Notice: (PDF)

1. Matters which are of Public knowledge:
Example: The courts may take judicial notice of the existence and location within the territory over
which they exercise jurisdiction of great rivers and lakes and their relation to provincial boundaries.
(Banatao v. Dabbay, GR No. 12264, September 23, 1918)

It may also take judicial notice of the practices of banks and other financial institutions. i.e that it is
their uniform practice, before approving a loan, to investigate, examine and assess would-be borrowers’
credit standing or real estate offered as security for the loan to be applied for (Solidbank Corporation v
Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation GR No. 153535 July 28, 2005)

The court may also take judicial notice that the scene of rape is not always necessarily isolated or
secluded for just is no respecter of time or place (People Tundag GR No. L-135695-96, October 12, 2000)

2. Matters capable of unquestionable Demonstration; or

Examples: Facts, theories, and conclusions which have come to be established and accepted by the
specialist in the areas of natural science, natural phenomena, chronology. technology, geography.
statistical facts, and other fields of professional and scientific knowledge (FRANCISCO, supra at 24).

3. Matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial Functions.

Example: In a case on trial, the court will take judicial notice of its records and of the facts which the
record establishes (People v. Rondina, G.R. No. L-47895, April 8, 1987).

Note: The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power I take
judicial notice is to be exercised by the courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite
notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be promptly resolved in the
negative (FRANCISCO, supra at 50).

Things of "common knowledge" of which courts take judicial notice, may be matters coming to the
knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters
which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned
demonstration. Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found in encyclopaedias,
dictionaries or other publications, are judicially noticed, provided they are of such universal notoriety
and so generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of
every person. (G.R. No. 221732. August 23, 2017)

The fact that a belief is not universal is not controlling for it is seldom that any belief is accepted by
everyone. It is enough that the matters are familiarly known to the majority of mankind or those
persons familiar with the particular matter in question (Republic of the Philippines v. CA, G.R. No. L-
54886, September 10, 1981).

Foreign Laws
General Rule: Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can a court take judicial notice of them. Like
any other fact, they must be alleged and proved (Garcia- Racio v. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2,
2001)

Exceptions: In certain decided cases however judicial notice has been taken of the laws of another
Country: (ACP-WS)
1. Foreign statute accepted by the government (Republic v. Guanzon, G.R No. L-22374 December 18,
1974);
2. Common law (5 HERRERA, supra at 84)
3. When a foreign law is part of a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is recognized
in his profession or calling as expert in the subject, the court, may take judicial notice of the treatise
containing the foreign law (ROC. RULE 130, Sec. 46);
4. Foreign law which is generally well known, is within the actual knowledge of the court, had been ruled
upon in previous case before it and none of the parties claim otherwise; and
5. Stipulation by the parties - 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 v Escolin, G.R.
No. L-27860 and L-27896, March 29, 1974).

Doctrine of Processual Presumption

Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign
law is the same as ours. This is otherwise known as the Doctrine of Presumed-Identity Approach.

Judicial Notice of Municipal Ordinances:

1. Inferior courts should take mandatory judicial notice of municipal or city ordinances in force in their
territonal jurisdiction (2 REGALADO, supra at 833).
2. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) should take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the
municipalities within their jurisdiction only when:
a. So required by law (City of Manila v. Garcia, GR No. L-26053, February 21, 1967); or
b. On appeal to it from the inferior court in which the latter took judicial notice of (U.S. v.
Hernandez. GR No. L-9699, August 26, 1915)

Judicial Notice of records of another case previously tried

General Rule: Courts are NOT authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other
cases, even when such cases have been tried or are A pending in the same court and pending before the
same judge (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172551, January 15,
2014)

Exceptions: (A³P²I²R)
1. When, at the initiative of the judge or of the parties and without objection of any party, the records of
the previous action are read and Adopted into the present action, or Admitted or Attached to the
records of the present action by court order (LBP v.Yatco G.R. No. 172551, January 15, 2014);
2. Where the interest of the Public in ascertaining the truth is of Paramount importance;
3. When the present action is closely Interrelated or Interwoven to another case pending between the
same parties (Laban v. Espina, G.R. No. 170049, March 14, 2008);

4. Where there is finality of a judgment in another case that was previously pending determination and
therefore. Res judicata (5 HERRERA, supra at 89).

The rules before appellate courts with regard to court records:

1. An appellate court is without authority to take notice or take into consideration the judicial records of
a case previously decided by the trial court upon which said court did not have the opportunity to pass;
2. An appellate court cannot consult the records in another case to ascertain a fact not shown by the
records of the case before it but could go to its other decisions for the law that is determinative of or
applicable to the case under review;
3. The Supreme Court can also take judicial notice of its record in a previous case in connection with the
conduct of litigant or witness in a similar matter; and
4. Lower courts, from the Court of Appeals down to the lowest level, must take judicial notice of
decisions of the Supreme Court, as they are in fact duty bound to know the rulings of the high tribunal
and to apply them in the adjudication of cases, they being part of the legal system (5 HERRERA, supra at
90).

Judicial Notice of other matters

1. General increase in rentals of real estate especially of business establishments (Catungal v. Hao, G.R.
No. 134972, March 22, 2001);
2. In the age of modern technology, that business transactions may be made by individuals through
teleconferencing. However, there is no judicial notice that one was conducted in a particular case
(Expertravel and Tours, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
152392, May 26, 2005)
3. The Filipina's inbred modesty and shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her
honor and virtue (People v. Tundag, G.R. No. 135696, October 12, 2000);
4. Persons have killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all (People v. Zeta, G.R No. 178541,
March 27, 2008);
5. Testimonies given during trial are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn
statements, usually being incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons, at times because of partial
and innocent suggestions or for want of specific inquiries (Estioca v. People, G.R. No. 173876, June 27,
2008);
6. Scientific findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the user. It is beyond question
therefore that any employee under the influence of drugs cannot possibly continue doing his duties
without posing a serious threat to the lives and property of his co-workers and even his employer.
(Bughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Island Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 173151, March 28, 2008);

Mandatory Discretionary
Judicial Notice Judicial Notice
As to the obligation of courts to take judicial notice

Court is compelled to take judicial notice Court is not compelled to take judicial notice

As to whom initiative falls

Takes place at court’s own initiative May be at court’s own initiative, or on
request of a party.
As to necessity of prior hearing and evidence
No hearing Needs hearing and presentation of evidence.

SECTION 3. JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN HEARING NECESSARY

Stages upon which the court may take judicial notice of a fact:
1. During trial;
2. After trial and before judgment; or
3. Appeal.

Purpose of Hearing
Not for the presentation of evidence, but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present
information relevant to the propriety of taking such judicial notice or the tenor of the matter to be
noticed (People v Preslie, 70 Cal. App. 3d 486).

Judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper, despite the defense counsel's admission, thereof
acceding to the prosecution's motion. As required by Sec. 3 of Rule 129, as to any other matters such as
age, a hearing is required before courts can take judicial notice of such fact (People v. Tundag, supraj
Note: A distinction is made between judicial notice taken during trial and taken after trial but before
Hudgment or on appeal.

During the trial, the court may announce its intention to take judicial notice of "any matter" and may
hear the parties thereon.

After trial but before judgment or on appeal, the Court may take judicial notice of any matter and allow
the parties to be heard thereon "if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case (FERIA,
Revised Rules on Evidence Annotated, Philippine Legal Studies, Series No. 4. pp. 3-4).

Extrajudicial
Judicial Admisssions Admissions
As to how made

An admission, verbal or written, made by the Act, declaration, omission or silence made out of
party in the course of the proceedings in the court, or in a judicial proceeding other than the
same case one in consideration.

As to how admitted in evidence

It does not require proof Should be formally offered in evidence
otherwise will not be considered.
As to conclusiveness
As a rule, it is conclusive upon the party making them They are generally disputed except when elements of
estoppel are present

General Rule: A judicial admission is conclusive on the party making it and does not require proof.

Exceptions: (PN)
1.When it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake, and
2. When it is shown that no such admission was in fact made (ROC, RULE 129, Sec. 4).

The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such an admission.
For instance, if a party invokes an admission by an adverse party, but cites the mission 'out of context,
then the one making the mission may show that he made no 'such' admission, or that his admission was
taken out of context. This may be interpreted as to mean 'not in the sense in which the admission is
made to appear. That is the reason for the modifier 'such' (Atillo II CA. GR. No. 119053, January 23,
1997).

Requisites of Judicial Admission: (PC²-No)

1. The same must be made by a Party to the case

Note: Extrajudicial admissions are not covered (AGPALO, Handbook on Evidence, p. 27) hereinafter
AGPALO, Handbook on Evidence].

2. The admission must be made in the Course of the proceedings in the same Case; and
3. There is No particular form for an admission - it may either be written or verbal (RIANO, supra at 170-
171).

What need not be proved

1.Admissions made in the course of the proceedings
It is settled that judicial admissions may be made:
a. In the pleadings filed by the parties;
b. In the course of the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or
c. In other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case (Republic V. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 152154, July 15, 2003).

All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in
writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused
ROC, RULE 118, Sec, 2).

A party’s testimony in open court may override admissions he made in his answer.
Failure to answer the complaint is not an implied admission of the allegations thereof (Heirs of de
Guzman v. Perona, G.R. No. 152266, July 2, 2010).

Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the parties and their counsels, they become
binding on the parties who made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or facts stipulated.
Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party may not be allowed to rescind them unilaterally, it
must assume the consequences of the disadvantage (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance
Corp., et al., GR No. 182864, January 12, 2015).

Not all allegations or admissions in pleadings in civil cases may be considered as judicial admission
because the Rules on Civil Procedure allow a litigant to make hypothetical admissions in his pleadings,
such as:

a. When a defendant sets up affirmative defense(s) in his answer (ROC, RULE 6, Sec. 5(b)); or
b. When a defendant files a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction (Time Inc. v. Reyes, GR No. L-
28882, May 31, 1971).

2. Admissions in Amended Pleadings

Once a pleading is amended, it loses its status as a pleading and ceases to be a judicial admission. What
constitute admissions are those stated in the amended pleadings (AGPALO, supra at 28).

An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded
pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not
incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived (ROC, RULE 10, Sec. 8). Such admissions
are considered as extrajudicial admissions in civil cases. The original pleading must be proved by the
party who relies thereon by formally offering it in evidence (Torres v. CA, G.R No. L- 37420-21, July 31,
1984).

3.Rule on Dismissed Pleadings

Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are merely extrajudicial admissions
(Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. CA. GR. No. 117728, June 26, 1996).

4. Rules on Pleadings not filed

a. If signed by the party, the admission contained in the pleading is considered as an extrajudicial
admission.
b. If signed by the attorney, it is not admissible, An attorney has authority to make statements on behalf
of his client only in open court or in a pleading actually filed .

5. Admissions made by counsel

General Rule: Admissions made by counsel are binding upon his client
Exception: In cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of
law, or when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property or where
the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's
gross or palpable mistake or negligence (Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 142920, February 6, 2002).

6. Implied Admissions of Actionable Documents

When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the
corresponding pleading, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to
be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to
be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original
Instrument is refused (ROC, RULE 8, Sec. 8).

7. Other Cases of Judicial Admissions:

a. When there is failure to specifically deny the allegations in the other party's pleading;or
b. Negative pregnant- it is a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading
responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the averments it was
directed at (Republic v Sandiganbayan, supra).

Specific Denial
By specific denial is meant that the defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of
which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon
which he relies to support his denial; otherwise the denial becomes a general denial, which amounts to
an admission of the allegations in the complaint and justifies a summary judgment (AGPALO, supra at
31).

Remedy of a party who gave a Judicial Admission:

1. In case of a written judicial admission: Motion to withdraw the pleadings, motion or other written
instrument containing such admission;
2. In case of an oral judicial admission: Counsel in open court may move for the exclusion of such
admission.

RULE 130
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

A. Object Evidence
1. Inherent limitations:

a. Irrelevant evidence; and

b. Illegally obtained evidence

2. Non-Inherent Limitations
Relevant evidence may be excluded on the ground the although relevant and authentic, its probative
value is exceeded by its prejudicial effect such as the following:

a. Indecency and impropriety:

b. Undue prejudice:
c. Offensiveness to sensibilities;
d. Inconvenience and unnecessary expenses
e. Confusing or misleading; or
f. The testimonial or documentary evidence presented in court already portrays the object such that a
view thereof is unnecessary (FRANCISCO, supra at 110-112).

Note: When the exhibition is necessary to the ends of justice, notions of decency and delicacy of feeling
will not be allowed to prevail (5 HERRERA, supra at 153-158)

B. Documentary Evidence
1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Parol Evidence Rule
3. Rules on Hearsay Evidence

C. Testimonial Evidence
1. Rules on Hearsay Evidence
2. Opinion Evidence
3. Character Evidence
4. Parol Evidence Rule

SECTION 1. OBJECT AS EVIDENCE

Object or Real Evidence

That which is addressed to the senses of the court. It is not limited to view of an object but extends to
what is perceived by the senses of hearing, taste, smell, or touch (REGALADO, supra at 717). It is the
most credible kind of evidence (MORAN, Comments on the Rules of Court).

Examples:
1. Singing of songs being material was permitted before the court (Reed v. Carusi, 20 Fed. Cas 11. 642
Taney 172).

2. Where it is necessary to ascertain whether or not a liquid is a fermented cider, the judge may taste
(People v. Kinney, 124 Mich. 486, 83 N.W. 147)

Physical Evidence

A mute but eloquent manifestation of truth and it ranks high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence-
where the physical evidence on record runs counter testimonial evidence, the physical evidence should
prevail (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. to the Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008).
Object evidence may be:

1. Direct-evidence can prove directly the fact for which it is offered (e.g. in a personal injury case, the
direct real evidence of disfiguring injury would be an exhibition to the court of the injury itself).

2. Circumstantial facts about the object are proved as the basis for an inference that other facts are true
(e.g. in a paternity case, a baby may be shown and the appearance will be compared with that of the
alleged father; if they look alike, the court may then draw an inference that the parental relationship
exists) (5 HERRERA, supra at 132).

Real Evidence Demonstrative Evidence

As to the nature and use in the case

Tangible object that played some actual Tangible Evidence that merely illustrates a matter
role in the matter that gave rise to the of importance in the litigation (e.g. picture,graph).
litigation (e.g. gun, product)
No probative value in itself but serve merely as a
visual aid to the court in comprehending verbal
testimony of a witness or other evidence.
As to how foundation is laid

The foundation that must be laid in order
to be admissible relates to proving that
the evidence is indeed the object used in
the underlying event.
Example: In a criminal proceeding against
D, the Police Officer presented the
marijuana leaves that he said was sold by
D. The foundation consists of evidence
tending to prove that the leaves are the
marijuana sold by D.
The foundation involves showing that the object
fairly represents or illustrates what is alleged to
illustrate.
Example: A photograph of the collision was
presented during the trial to shows the positions of
the vehicle and to determine who is at fault.

Types of Demonstrative Evidence

1. Selected Demonstrative Evidence- (e.g existing genuine handwriting specimens or exemplars used
as standards of comparison by a handwriting expert); and
2. Prepared or Reproduced Demonstrative Evidence
(e.g scale models, drawings, photographs) (5 HERRERA, supra at 159-160).

Requisites of Admissibility of Object Evidence:

1. The object must be relevant to the fact in issue:
2. The object must be authenticated before it is admitted;
3. The authentication must be made by a competent witness; and
4. the object must be formally offered in evidence (RIANO, supra at 101).

Authentication
The object sought to be offered must be shown to have been the very same thing in issue and or what
its proponent says it is. It is equivalent to identification insofar as object evidence is concerned.

Authentic" means what it is claimed to be even SE though it consists of false information (e.g. the
falsified books kept by the defendant, it is authentic in so far as it is introduced by the prosecution for
the purpose of showing falsity) (5 HERRERA supra at 133)

Purposes of Authentication:
1. To prevent the introduction of an object different from the one testified about; and
2. To ensure that there has been no significant changes in the object's condition (5 HERRERA, supra at
133-134).

Types of Authentication
1.By testimony- If the real evidence is of a type which can be readily identified by a witness, the witness
testimony will be sufficient authentication;
2. By chain of custody - If the real evidence is of a type which cannot easily be recognized or readily be
confused or tampered with, the proponent must present evidence of its chain of custody. It must be
shown that there was a strong probability of correct identification (5 HERRERA supra at 134.).

Doctrine of Chain of Custody

The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant
sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and the final
disposition (DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002. Section 1) (See People v. Ladip, G.R. No. 196146,
March 12. 2014)
Purpose of Establishing a Chain of Custody
To ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much that
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed (People v. Langcua, G.R. No. 190343,
February 6, 2013).
Accused cannot be liable for illegal possession of dangerous drugs when there is failure to observe the
chain of custody rule (People v. Bulawan, G.R. No. 204441, June 8, 2016).

A. Chain of Custody in Drugs-related Cases

The prosecution must account for the custody of the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure
and confiscation until the moment it is offered in evidence. That account goes to the weight of evidence.
It is not enough that the evidence offered has probative value on the issues, for the evidence must also
be sufficiently connected to and tied with the facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely because
it is available but that it has an actual connection with the transaction involved and with the parties
thereto. This is the reason why authentication and laying a foundation for the introduction of evidence
are important (People v. Belocura, G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012).
The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
and, thus, a condition sine qua non for conviction (People v. Martinez, G.R. No 191366, December 13,
2010).

Marking of the Evidence

The first stage in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs and related items. It is the affixing on the
dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or
signature or other identifying signs, and should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator
immediately upon arrest.
How Chain of Custody is Observed

Apprehending team shall make a physical inventory and photograph of the objects seized in the
presence of the (1) accused or his representative or counsel, (2) representative from the media, (3)
representative from the National Prosecution Service; and (4) any elected public official.

The objects seized must be submitted to the PDEA for qualitative and quantitative examination within
24 hours.

A certification of the results forensic laboratory within 24 hours after receipt.

If the volume does not allow completion of testing within the time frame, partial results may be issued.
Thereafter, the completed result must be issued within the next 24 hours.

Ocular inspection by the court within 72 hours after filing the criminal case. Destruction or burning of
the objects shall proceed through the PDEA.

Issuance by the Board of a sworn certificate of the fact of destruction or burning to be submitted to the
court.

The alleged offender, his representative or counsel is allowed to personally observe the proceedings.
Their presence is not an admission of guilt to the commission of the crime.

Non-compliance with the Doctrine of Chain Custody

It is not fatal and will not make the accused's arrest illegal or render inadmissible the items seized or
confiscated from him, provided: (JP)
1. There is justifiable ground for the non-
compliance; and

2.The integrity and evidentiary value of the items are properly preserved (Valencia v. People, G.R.
No. 198804, January 22, 2014; R.A. 9165, Sec.21).

B. Chain of Custody in DNA Evidence

The chain of custody rule also applies in the assessment of the probative value of DNA evidence. Issues
on how the biological samples were collected, handled, and the possibility of contamination will be
taken into consideration (Rule on DNA Evidence, Sec. 7[a]).

The court must ensure that the proper chain of custody in the handling of the samples submitted by the
parties is adequately borne in the records, i.e. that the samples are collected by a neutral third party;
that the tested parties are appropriately identified at their sample collection appointments; that the
samples are protected with tamper tape at the collection site; that all persons in possession thereof at
each stage of testing thoroughly inspected the samples for tampering and explained his role in the
custody of the samples and the acts he performed in relation thereto.

The Court has previously ruled that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 shall not necessarily
render the items seized as inadmissible if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved in compliance with the chain of custody rule (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 205414,
April 4 2016)

Non-compliance with the procedures in Section 21 of RA No. 9165 did not render void the seizures and
custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. As long as he chain of custody is unbroken, even
though the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 5 were not faithfully observed, the guilt of
the appellant will not be affected (People v. Enriquez, GR No. 214503, June 22, 2016).

Testimonial Foundation
Because there is some danger of fabrication, abuse or distortion with demonstrative evidence prepared
specifically for trial, the law seeks to minimize these dangers by requiring testimonial assurances of
accuracy (5 HERRERA, supra at 160)

Categories of Object Evidence

A. For purposes of presentation in court, an object evidence may be that which consists in:
1. The exhibition or production of the object inside or outside the courtroom;
2. The inspection of the object outside the courtroom, and
3. The making of an experiment (demonstrative evidence)

B. For purposes of authentication of an object object evidence may be classified into:

1. Unique objects - Objects that have readily identifiable marks (e.g. a caliber 38 revolver with a serial
number);
2. Objects made unique- are objects that are made readily identifiable (eg. a typical kitchen knife which
the witness can readily identify in court if he claims that he made the thing acquire a unique
characteristic by placing identifying marks thereon), and
3. Non-unique objects- these are objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked (eg drops of
blood or oil, drugs in powder form, fiber).

Under the third category, the proponent of the evidence must establish a chain of custody. The links to
the chain are the people who actually handled or had custody of the object. Each of them must show
how he received the object, how he handled it to prevent substitution and how it was transferred to
another (RIANO, supra at 108).

How object evidence presented:

Exhibited, Examined and Viewed

Ocular Inspection or "View"

The court can go to the place where the object is located, when the object evidence cannot be brought
to court because it is immovable or inconvenient to remove. Such inspection should be made in the
presence of the parties or at least with previous notice to them of the time and place set for the view (5
HERRERA, supra at 144-146)

Experiments
Courts permit experiments to be performed in court or out of it, when said experiments are made under
similar conditions and like circumstances to those existing in the case under inquiry, for the purpose of
proving facts in issue, In other words, one desiring to make an experiment made out of court should first
show that the experiment is to be made or was made, as the case may be, under conditions and
circumstances similar to those prevailing at the time E of the occurrence involved in the controversy
(FRANCISCO, supra at 129-130).

Illustration: A witness in a prosecution for murder, may be permitted to testify to experiments made
with a pistol used in the killing, for the purpose of showing how far it would powder-burn cloth, similar
to the shirt worn by the deceased (id)

Personal Appearance as Object Evidence

To determine whether a person is an alien or not, his personal appearance, ethnological and racial
characteristic, language, customs, dress and manners may be taken into consideration (De La Cruz v.
Insular Collector of Customs, GR No. 8120 December 12, 1913)

The age of a person may also be determined by his personal appearance (Braca v Insular Collector of
Customs, GR No. 13122. September 27, 1917)

The resemblance between a minor and his alleged father is competent and material evidence to
establish parentage. However, the absence of such resemblance would not be sufficient to show that
parentage does not exist (Chua Yeng v Insular Colector of Customs GR No. L-9853, December 4, 1914)

The body of the plaintiff as object evidence in personal injury case

Two Theories:
1. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to subject himself to an examination of his body.

Reason: "No right is more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of
every individual to the possession and control of his person free from all restraint or interference of
others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law (Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S.
250).

2. The plaintiff may be compelled on the theory that "if the court is powerless, in action for personal
injuries, to require a plaintiff to submit himself to a physical examination, then the law will permit him to
disclose just so much and such parts of the facts as, in his judgment would benefit his case, at the
expense of his adversary, and to invoke the court's aid to compensate him for the injury through a
partial and one-sided investigation. (Western Glass Mfg. Co. v. Schoeninger, 42Colo. 357, 126 Am. St. Re.
165).

The weight of authority is in favor of the second theory (FRANCISCO, supra at 47).

The body of the accused as object evidence in criminal cases

The accused may be compelled to submit himself to an inspection of his body for the purpose of
ascertaining identity or for other purposes. Thus, the accused may be compelled to discharge morphine
from his mouth, place his feet over bloody footprints and a woman charged with adultery to submit
herself to medical examination to determine whether she is pregnant (Villaflor v. Summers, G.R No.
16444 September 8, 1920).

The prohibition of compelling a man to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical
or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when
it may be material) (People v. Salveron, G.R. No. 102079, November 22, 1993).

SECTION 2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figure,
symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents (ROC, RULE 130, Sec.
2).

A document may constitute as object (real) and as documentary evidence depending on the purpose for
which the document is offered. If it is produced without regard to the message which it contains, it is
treated as real evidence. In such case, the Best Evidence rule does not apply. If a document is offered to
prove what is written on it, its contents, then the document will be treated as documentary evidence.

Illustration:
If a promissory note is produced in evidence to show that the signature thereon is forged, then it is real
evidence. But when it is offered to prove that the amount provided thereon is due and demandable,
then it is a documentary evidence.

Our rule on evidence provides the procedure on how to present documentary evidence before the
court, as follows: (AIMO)
1. it should be Authenticated and proved manner provided in the rules of court
2. it should be Identified and Marked; and
3. it should be formally Offered to the court and shown to the opposing party so that the latter may
have the opportunity to object thereto (Ramca Inc. v. Hi-Power Marketing. G.R. No. 157075 Jy 17, 2006).
in the

BEST EVIDENCE RULE

SECTION 3. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MUST BE PRODUCED, EXCEPTIONS

Best Evidence Rule- is that which requires the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed
fact (Wharton's Criminal Evidence), in requiring the production of the best evidence applicable to each
particular fact, it means that no evidence shall be received which is merely substitutionary in nature, so
long as the onginal evidence can be had (Arroyo v. HRET. G.R. No 118697, July 14, 1995).

General Rule: Best Evidence Rule (BER) states that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, the best evidence is the original document itself and no other evidence (such as a
reproduction, photocopy or oral evidence) is admissible.

Reason: Before the onset of liberal rules of discovery, and modem technique of electronic copying, the
BER was designed to guard against incomplete or fraudulent proof and the introduction of altered
copies and the withholding of the originals. But the modern justification for the rule has expanded from
the prevention of fraud to a writings occupy a central position in the law. The importance of the precise
terms of writings in the recognition that world of legal relations, the fallibility of the human memory as
reliable evidence of the terms, and the hazards of inaccurate or incomplete duplicate are the concerns
addressed by the BER (National Power Corp., G.R. No. 170491; April 4, 2007)

Exceptions: (PLAN)
1. When the original is a Public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office;
2. When the original has been Lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on
the part of the offeror
3.When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party Against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice (those in custody of the adverse party):
4.When the original consists of Numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in
court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general
result of the whole (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 3)

Note: Non-production of an original document unless falling within the exceptions under Sec. 3 of Rule
130 will give rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence adverse to the party who withholds it
(Valarta v. CA, G.R. No, 36543, July 27, 1988)

Note: The term "best" has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value in relation to other types
of evidentiary rules. It is not intended to mean the “most superior” evidence. More accurately, it is the
original document rule or the primary evidence rule (RIANO, supra at 133)

Applicability
BER applies only when the terms of writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced
concerns external facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to
its terms, the BER cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence may be admitted even without
accounting for the original (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Clave, GR No. 170604, September 2 2013).

Under Sec. 3(c) Rule 130, the proponent must lay a Proper foundation for the admission of the original
documents on which the summary is based. The proponent must prove that the source documents
being summarized are also admissible if presented in court. In concrete terms, the source documents
must be shown to be original and not secondary (Republic v. Mupas, G.R. Nos, 18192; 209917, 209696
20973, September 8, 2015).

Limitations upon Best Evidence Rule:

1. Proof of collateral facts not within the rule-
Testimony as to fact of execution or the existence of writings or references to written instruments as
mere inducements are not within the rule (2 Jones, Sec. 7:5).

A document is collaterally in issue when the purpose of introducing the document is not to establish its
Terms but to show facts of its existence, condition, execution or delivery (RIANO, supra at 238)

2. The BER requiring production of the original instrument itself does not apply to the proof of facts
evidenced by the writing rather than to the language or terms of the writing. The rule does not apply
where the subject of inquiry is not the content but an act or fact occurred which in itself is relevant
although such fact or act may have been written down (e.g. fact of ownership of land or chattels,
identity of documents).

3. The BER has no application to prove a fact which has an existence independently of any writing. The
rule excludes testimony designed to establish the terms of a document but does not exclude testimony
which concerns the document without aiming to establish its terms

4. The BER refers merely to proof of what are the contents of a writing and not as proof of the truth of
the facts asserted therein.

5. The BER does not apply where there is no bona fide dispute on the contents of documents and no
useful purpose would be served by its production (5 HERRERA, supra at 171-176).

Purposes of the Best Evidence Rule:

1. The primary purpose of the BER is to ensure that the exact contents of a writing are brought before
the court, considering that:
a. the precision in presenting to the court the exact words of the writing is of more than average
importance, particularly with respect to operative or dispositive instruments, such as deeds, wills and
contracts, because a slight variation in words may mean a great difference in rights:
b. there is a substantial hazard of inaccuracy in the human process of making a copy by handwriting or
typewriting; and
c. with respect to oral testimony purporting to give from memory the terms of a writing, there is a
special risk of error, greater than in the case of attempts at describing other situations generally.

2. The rule protects against misleading inferences resulting from the intentional or unintentional
introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings (Heirs of Margarita Prodon v. Heirs of
Maximo S, Alvarez and Valentina Clave, supra).

Voluminous Writings
A summary of the general result of the examination maybe given in evidence by the person who has
examined the documents and who is skilled in such matters.

Requisites: (PAG)
1. There must be Proof of voluminous character of the records.
2. Such records must be made Accessible to the adverse party so that their correctness may be tested
on cross-examination.
3. The General result sought to be proved is one capable of being ascertained by calculation (5
HERRERA, supra at 201).

Best Evidence Rule in Criminal Cases:

1. Falsification of Document-it is indispensable that the judge have before him the document alleged to
have been simulated, counterfeited, or falsified, in order that he may find, pursuant to the evidence
produced at trial, whether or not the crime of falsification is actually committed

2. Libel Based on Defamatory Article-

the newspaper containing said article is the best evidence (Fiscal v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-3536 August 5,
1931).

SECTION 4. ORIGINAL OF DOCUMENT: (ITR)

1. One the contents of which are 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 (duplicate 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

Before secondary evidence can be presented, all duplicates and/or counterparts must be accounted
for, and no excuse for the non-production of the original document itself can be regarded as established
until all its parts are unavailable (Heirs of Dela Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 117384, October 21, 1998)

Reason: All the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing itself to be proved (De Vera v. Aguilar,
G.R. No. 83377, February 9, 1993).

Document Amended or Altered by the Parties:

Where the duplicate or a copy is amended or altered by the party or parties, it becomes the original
(FRANCISCO, supra at 62)

The Rule on Duplicate Original

When a document is in two (2) or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals. A duplicate original may be introduced in
evidence without accounting for the non-production of the other copies (5 HERRERA, supra at 182)

Rules on Copies of a Document

1. Carbon copy is a duplicate original and admissible as best evidence.
2. Letter Press Copies are produced by obtaining repeated ink traces from a single writing so prepared
to furnish such traces by pressure or by chemical operation. Because of the repeat failure of this method
to properly reproduce, courts have generally refused to grant letter press copies the status of duplicates.
Also, they are not duplicate originals as they are not produce simultaneously with the original and the
copies.
3. Photographs and photographic copies are secondary evidence because they are produce at a later
period in time than the original and not by the same impression as the original, they could easily be
tampered with, and the courts lacked understanding and trust in the accuracy of early photographing
process (Weinstein's Evidence
4. Blueprints and tracings are considered originals.
5. Telegraph messages - if the fact in issue is the telegram as received, the original is the telegram thus
received. But if the issue is the telegram sent, then the original is the telegram delivered for
transmission (FRANCISCO, supra at 358)

Best Evidence Rule as applied to Electronic Documents

Original of an Electronic Document

An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the BER if it
is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately (Rules on
Electronic Evidence, RULE 4, Sec. 1).

Copies as equivalent of the originals

When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents,
or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction or by other equivalent techniques
which accurately reproduces the original, such copies of duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent
of the original.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the
original if:
1. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
2. In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original (Rules on
Electronic Evidence, Rule 4, Sec. 2)

Note:A facsimile (faxed) copy of an original document is not considered as an electronic document and
is therefore, not treated as equivalent in the original.

SECONDARY EVIDENCE

SECTION 5. WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS UNAVAILABLE

When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror,
upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part
may prove its contents: (CORT)
1. by a Copy
2. by a Recital of its contents in some authentic document; or
3. by the Testimony of witnesses.

The order stated must be followed.

Predicates of Secondary Evidence

The offeror of the secondary evidence is burdened to satisfactorily prove the predicates thereof,
namely: (BOLD)
1. the unavailability of the original is not due to Bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror;
2. the execution or existence of the Original;
3. the Loss and destruction of the Original or its non-production in court; and
4. Proof of the Due execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute the basis for
the introduction of secondary evidence (Dantis v. Maghinang, Jr., G.R. No. 191696, April 10, 2013)

Production of the original may be dispensed with in The trial court's discretion whenever the opponent
does not bona fide dispute the contents of the documents and no other useful purpose will be served by
requiring production (Gaw v. Chua, G.R No. 160855, April 16, 2006).

Order of Proof
The correct order of proof is as follows: (EELC)
1. Existence
2. Execution.
3. Loss, and
4. Contents.

But this order may be changed if necessary, at the Sound discretion of the court (Citibank, NA
Mastercard v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905, September 23, 2008).

A. The execution of a document may be proven by any person/s. (E-CASA)

1. Who Executed the document,
2. To whom the parties to the instrument had previously Confessed the execution thereof,
3. Before whom its execution was Acknowledged,
4. Who was present and Saw it executed and delivered;
5. Who After its execution and delivery saw it and recognized the signatures (E. Michael & Co. Inc., v.
Enriquez, G.R. No. L-10824, December 24, 1915).

B. The loss/destruction of a document may be proven by:

1. Any person who knew the fact of loss;
2. Anyone who has made a sufficient examination in the place/s where the document or papers of
similar character are usually kept by the persons in whose custody the document lost was and has been
unable to find it;
3. Anyone who has made investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is
indeed lost (Michael & Co. v. Enriquez, supra).

It is not necessary to prove the loss of the original document beyond all possibility of mistake. A
reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient and this may be shown by a bona fide and diligent search,
fruitlessly made, for it in places where it is likely to be found (Paylagó v. Jarabe, G.R. No. L-20046, March
27, 1968)

Note: Proof of loss of the original document may be dispensed with where both parties admit that an
Instrument has been lost. The contents of an instrument may be proved against a party by his admission
in writing without accounting for non- production of the original document (Tria v. Ortiz, G.R. No. 5244,
December 2, 1909).

C. The contents of a document may be proven by any person who:

1. Signed the document,
2. Read it:
3. Who heard it being read, knowing or it being proved from other sources that the document so read
was the one in question;
4. Was present when the contents of the document were talked over between the parties thereto to
such an extent as to give him reasonably full information as to its contents,
5. To whom the parties to the instrument have confessed or stated the contents thereof (Michael & Co.
v. Enriquez, supra).

Note: Secondary evidence of the contents of a writing cannot be introduced where it appears that the
writing if produced would not be admissible even if its absence is satisfactorily explained. If the fact to
which the writing relates can be proved independently of the writing, it may be proved by parol
evidence event though the writing if produced could not be received as evidence of the fact
(FRANCISCO, supra at 78).

SECTION 6. WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN ADVERSE PARTY'S CUSTODY OR CONTROL Requisites:

(ONSF)

1. Opponent's possession of the original:

2. Reasonable Notice to opponent to produce the original;
3. Satisfactory proof of its existence; and
4. Failure or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court.

A.Possession of the Original by Adverse Party

Regarding the first element, it is not necessary for a party seeking to introduce secondary evidence to
show that the original is in the actual possession of his adversary. It is enough that the circumstances are
such as to indicate that the writing is in his possession or under his control. Neither is it required that
the party entitled to the custody of the instrument should, on being notified to produce it, admit having
it in his possession (Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Ferrer GR No. E L-23893, October 29, 1968).

B. Notice
The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custody or control of the party against whom it is
offered does not warrant the admission of secondary evidence. The offeror must prove that he has done
all in his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to the said party to produce the document.

The notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made in open court in
the presence of the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in custody of
the original has sufficient time to produce the same. When such party has the original of the writing and
does not voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted
(Edsa Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. BF Corporation, G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008).

Even in criminal cases, there must still be a request for production of document even if it be in the
possession of the accused and if he refuses to produce it invoking his constitutional right against self-
incrimination, then the secondary evidence may be introduced (People v. Tan Bomping. G.R. No. L-
24187, March 15, 1926).

C. Failure to Produce Original

If there is failure to produce the original despite reasonable notice, the adverse party is afterwards
forbidden to produce the document in order to contradict the other party's copy or evidence of its
contents or it may also be regarded as judicial admission in advance of the correctness of the first
party's evidence (5 HERRERA, supra at 200)

SECTION 7. EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS A PUBLIC RECORD

When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
content may be proved by Secondary Evidence which may consist of:
1. Certified true copy issued by the public office in custody thereof; or
2. Official publication (5 HERRERA, supra at 203)

"Certify" means to affirm or to assert in writing the correctness or identity of the designated instrument.

When the public record is outside the jurisdictions of the court, as when it is in a foreign country,
secondary evidence is admissible.
If the party against whom the secondary evidence offered does not object thereto when the same is
offered in evidence, the secondary evidence becomes primary evidence (Heirs of Dela Cruz CA supra)

Affidavits
While affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are acknowledged before a notary
public, these affidavits are still classified a hearsay evidence. The reason for this rule is that they are
not generally prepared by the affiant, but by another one who uses his or her own language in writing
the affiant's statements, parts of which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing
them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. For this
reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are placed on
the witness stand to testify thereon (Republic Marcos-Manotoc, GR No. 171701, February & 2012).

Irremovability of Public Record Any public record, an official copy of which admissible in evidence, must
not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of court where the inspection of
the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case (ROC RULE 132, Sec. 26).

SECTION 8. PARTY WHO CALLS FOR DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT

A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer the
same as evidence.

Production of Documents: For purposes of Evidence vis-à-vis as a mode of Discovery

Rule 130, sec.8 Production or Inspection of Documents or
thing (Rule 27)
Procured by mere notice to the Made by proper motion in the trial court
adverse party, which is a and is permitted only upon good cause
condition precedent for the shown
subsequent introduction of
secondary evidence by the
proponent.
Presupposes that the Contemplates a situation wherein the
document to be produced is document is either assumed to be
intended as evidence for the favourable to the party in possession
proponent who is presumed to thereof or that the party seeking its
have knowledge of its contents. production is not sufficiently informed of
the contents of the same.

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

SECTION 9. EVIDENCE ON WRITTEN AGREEMENTS

Parol Evidence Rule (PER)

The Parol Evidence Rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written agreement by
testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different terms were agreed upon by the parties,
varying the purport of the written contract. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have
been waived and abandoned (Edrada v. Ramos, G.R. No. 154413, August 31, 2005).

Parol Evidence means something oral or verbal but, with reference to contracts, it means extraneous
evidence or Evidence aliunde (Black's law Dictionary, 5th Ed., pp. 1005, 1006). It is any or evidence
aliunde which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement
embodied in a document.

Evidence Aliunde (Extrinsic Evidence)

It may refer to a testimonial, real or documentary evidence.
The Parol Evidence Rule is part of the law on contracts. It is substantive and not procedural in character.

General Rule: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
Containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. The term
"agreement" includes wills.

Exceptions:
A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts
in issue in his pleading: (VISA)
1. Validity of a written agreement;
2. The failure of the written agreement to express the true Intent of the parties thereto,
3. Subsequent agreements or the existence of other term
4. Ambiguity (intrinsic), imperfection or mistake in the written agreement (ROC, RULE 130, Sec. 9).s
agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement; or

Purpose of the Rule:

1. To give stability to a written agreement;
2. To remove the temptation and possibility of perjury; and
3. To prevent possible fraud (5 HERRERA, supra at 207)

Requisites for Applicability (VW-PIT):

1. There must be a Valid contract,
2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced into writing
3. The dispute is between Parties and their successors in interest;
4. Ground(s) for applicability must be put in Issue in the pleadings; and
5. There is dispute as to the Terms of the agreement (supra at 208).

Applicability:
1. Integrated Agreements
PER applies only to integrated (finalized) agreements, intended by both parties as the final and exclusive
written memorial of their agreement (5 HERRERA, supra at 207).
2. Collateral Oral Agreement -PER may also apply to collateral oral agreements. A contract made prior
to or contemporaneous with another agreement and if oral and not inconsistent with the written
contract is admissible within the exception to parol evidence rule.

Requirements:
a. It is not a part of the integrated written agreement in any way:
b. It is not inconsistent with the written agreement in any way, including both the express and implied
provisions of the written agreement; and
c. It is not closely connected with the principal transaction as to form part and parcel thereof. (5
HERRERA, supra at 217)

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 (id.).

Inapplicability of PER
1. The PER does not apply when the subsequent collateral oral agreement refers to separate and distinct
subjects.
2. PER is not applicable to a mere receipt, unless that receipt can qualify as a valid and enforceable
contract. Hence, as to a receipt being given for the payment of rent due on the lease, parol evidence is
admissible to show that the payment was made by note (PERALTA, Jr., Perspectives of Evidence (2005))
[hereinafter PERALTA, Evidence].
3. PER may not be invoked where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party
to the written document in question, and does not base his claim on the instrument or assert a right
originating in the instrument (Marquez v. Espejo, G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010).
4. Parol evidence cannot be used to ratify or supplement a void contract.

Waiver of Parol Evidence Rule:

When no timely objection or protest is made to the admission of parol evidence, and when the motion
to strike out said evidence came too late and if the other party against whom such evidence was
presented cross-examined the witness who testified in respect to the contract, said party will be
understood to have waived the benefits of the law. Parol evidence under those facts is competent and
admissible (Abrenica. v. Gonda, G.R. No. 10100, August 15, 1916)

Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule

A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in
issue in his pleading:
1. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement

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. It is curable by evidence aliunde or extraneous
evidence.
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 introduced for the purpose of aiding the court in
arriving at the meaning of the language used. This kind of ambiguity results from the use of words
susceptible of two interpretations. It is curable by evidence aliunde or extraneous evidence

Extrinsic or Patent Ambiguity

Ambiguity is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order
ascertain the meaning of the words used. It cannot be cured by evidence aliunde.

Reason for the Exclusion of Parol Evidence to Explain Extrinsic Ambiguity

If the language be too doubtful for any settled construction, by the admission of parol evidence you
create and do not merely construe the contract. You attempt to do that for the party which he has not
chosen to do for himself, and the law very properly denies such an authority (Peisch v. Dickson, Fed Cas.
No. 100, 911, 1 Mason 9).

Mistake
Some unintentional act, omission or error arising from Ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaced
confidence. Parol evidence is admissible to prove mistake in the execution of a written agreement.

Reason: It would be unjust and inequitable to allow the enforcement of a written instrument which does
not reflect or disclose the real meeting of the minds of the parties (5 HERRERA, supra at 231-232)

Elements of Mistake: (M²AP)

1. It should be a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law;

Mistake of fact - A mistake not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making
the mistake.
Mistake of law-This mistake happens when a party having full knowledge of the facts, comes to an
erroneous conclusion as to their legal effect.

2. It should be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument; and

3. It should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence (Maagad v. Maagad, G.R No.
171762, June 5, 2009).

Imperfection includes an inaccurate statement in the agreement or incompleteness in the writing, or

the presence of inconsistent provisions therein.

Where a writing, although embodying an agreement. is manifestly incomplete, and is not intended by
the parties to exhibit the whole agreement, but only to define some of its terms, the writing is
conclusive as far as it goes. But such parts of the actual contract as
not embraced within its scope may be established i parol evidence (5 HERRERA, supra at 235)

2. Failure of the written agreement to express true intent

This ground can only be invoked when the contract is literally ambiguous or obscure in its terms and
that contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from the mere reading of the
instrument.

The court may order the reformation of the instrument when it does not convey the true intention of
the parties because of the ignorance, lack of skill or bad faith of the drafter of the instrument, or the
clerk or the typist (Azarraga, Annotation: The Parol Evidence Rule Revisited, 512 SCRA 700, January 25,
2007).
Even if the deed of sale stated that the buyers had paid the consideration, the seller may prove
otherwise. This is an exception to the parol evidence nrule, that is, the failure of the written agreement
to express the true intent of the parties (Spouses Lequin v. Spouses Vizconde, G.R. No. 177710, October
12, 2009)

3. Validity of the written agreement.

The rule making a writing the exclusive evidence of the written agreement stated therein is not
applicable when the validity of such agreement is the fact in dispute (5 HERRERA, supra at 231-232),
The operation of the parol evidence rule requires the existence of a valid written agreement. It is, thus,
not applicable in a proceeding where the validity of such agreement is the fact in dispute, such as when
a contract may be void for lack of consideration (Heirs of Ureta, Sr. v. Heirs of Ureta, G.R. No. 165748,
September 14, 2011).

While the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be enforced since it is deemed inexistent, the
contract is admissible as evidence to prove matters that occurred in the course of executing the contract
(Tan v. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016).

4. Existence of other terms agreed upon by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written (subsequent agreements) agreement
The rule forbidding the admission of parol or extrinsic evidence to alter, vary, or contradict a written
instrument does not apply so as to prohibit the establishment by parol of an agreement between the
parties in writing, entered into subsequent to the time when the written instrument was executed,
notwithstanding such agreement may have the effect of adding to, changing, modifying, or even
altogether abrogating the contract of the parties as evidenced by the writing: for the parol evidence
merely goes to show that the parties have exercised their right to change or abrogate the same, or to
make a new and independent contract (Canuto vs Mariano, G.R. No. 11346. March 21, 1918)

Conditional Agreements
Conditions qualifying the operation of a clear and complete written agreement is not allowed, for they
would tend to vary, alter or contradict terms of written agreement
1. Conditions Precedent-may be established by parol evidence because there is no varying of the terms
of the written contract by extrinsic agreement for the reason that there is no contract in existence; there
is nothing to which to apply the excluding rule.
2. Conditions Subsequent- may not be established by parol evidence (5 HERRERA supra at 240-244)

Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose
of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at
all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake (Seaoil v. Autocorp, G.R. No. 164326 October
17, 2008).

Parol Evidence Rule Applicable to Wills

General Rule: No evidence on the terms of the will and its attestation clause is admissible other than
the contents of the will.

Exception: Under Art. 789 of the Civil Code, when there is an imperfect description in the will, or when
no person or property exactly answers the description, mistakes and omissions must be corrected if the
error appears from the contexts of the will or from extrinsic evidence, excluding the oral declarations of
the testator as to his intention; and when an uncertainty arises upon the face of the will, as to the
application of any of its provisions, the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the
will, taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made, excluding such oral
declaration (5 HERRERA, supra at 223).

A photostatic copy of a lost or destroyed will is admissible because comparison can be made with the
standard writing of the testator.

Parol Evidence Rule Best Evidence Rule

 Availability of Original Document
Presupposes that the original is available Contemplates a situation where the
in court original is not available in in court and/or
there is a dispute as to whether said
writing is the orginal.

What the Rule Prohibits

Prohibits the varying of the terms of a Prohibits the introduction of substitionary

written agreement. evidence in lieu of the original document
regardless of whether or not it varies the
contents of the original.

Who may invoke the rule

Can be invoked only when the Can be invoked by any party to an action
controversy is between the parties to the regardless of whether such party
written agreement. Their privies, or any participated or not in the writing involved.
party directly affected thereby.

Applicability

With the exception of the wills, applies Apply to all kind of writing
only to written agreements.

SECTION 10 SECTION 19. INTERPRETATION - OF DOCUMENTS

1. The language of writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its
execution, unless parties intended otherwise.

2. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions.

3. The intention of the parties is to be pursued in the construction of an instrument

4. When general and particular provisions are inconsistent, particular provision governs

5. The circumstances under which the instrument was made, including the situation of the subject
thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown so that the judge may be placed in the position of those
whose language he is to interpret.

6. The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation; but
evidence may be offered to show that they have local, technical or otherwise peculiar signification.

7. Written words control printed.

8. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings when the characters in which an
instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by court.

9. When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to
it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it.

10. When the different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken
which is most favorable to the party in whose favor the provisions are made.

The interpretation of obscure words stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the
obscurity (CIVIL CODE, Ant 1377).

Contra Proferentem Rule

The doctrine provides that in the interpretation of documents, ambiguities are to be construed against
the drafter. By its very nature, the precept assumes the existence of an ambiguity in the contract, which
is why contra proferentem is also called the ambiguity doctrine. In this case, the Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage clearly establishes that the improvements found on the real properties listed therein are
included as subject-matter of the contract. It covers not only the real properties, but the buildings and
improvements thereon as well (Cahayag v Commercial Credit Corporation, G.R. No. 168078& 168357,
January 13, 2016)

Provisions, conditions or exceptions tending to work a forfeiture of insurance policies should be

construed
most strongly against those whose benefit they are inserted, and most favorably toward against whom
they are intended to operate (Trinidad v. Orient Protective Assoc., G.R.No. L-45517, April 5, 1939
Serrano v. CA, G.R. No. L-35529, July 16, 1984).

11. Construction in favor of natural right.

12. An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character

QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES

Testimonial Evidence
Testimonial or oral evidence is evidence elicited from the mouth of a witness as distinguished from real
and documentary evidence (Black's Law Dictionary, Ed., 1323).

Based on jurisprudence, testimonial evidence has the least weight, if incredible.

Reason: Man's memory is being relied upon. Moreover, both parties and their witnesses will recall only
those favorable to them and deliberately forget those which are adverse to them (People v. Pasco GR
No. L-68520, January 22, 1990).

SECTION 20. WITNESSES; THEIR QUALIFICATIONS

Witness refers to a person who testifies in a case or gives evidence before a judicial tribunal.

General Rule: All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to
others, may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime shall NOT be a
round for disqualification.

Note: There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default from taking the witness
stand in the same action (Cavili v. Florendo, G.R. No. 09 October 9, 1987)

Exceptions: Unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules such as in the following:
1. Those disqualified under Sections 21 to 24 of Rule 130.
2. Article 821 of the Civil Code disqualifies those:
a. not domiciled in the Philippines; or
b. convicted of falsification of documents, perjury or false testimony from being a witness to a will.
3. Section 17, RULE 119 of the Rules of Court requires that the accused sought to be discharged to be
state witness has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. The same
requirement is provided for a state witness under R.A. 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and
Benefit Act.

A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client.except. (FS)

1. On Formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like; or
2. on Substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event
he must, during his testimony. entrust the trial of the case to another counsel (CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY Rule 12.08).

Citizen's Testimonial Duty

General Rule: Every competent person under the process of subpoena by the duly constituted courts of
the country may be compelled to appear and testify.

Exception: The following are not bound even if subpoenaed:

1. Chief Executive;
2.Judges of Superior Courts:
3.Members of Congress during sessions:
4. Ambassadors;
5. Consuls and other diplomatic officials when there is a treaty holding them exempt (5 HERRERA, Supra
at 277-278):
6. Witness who resides more than 100 kilometers away from his residence to the place where he is to
testify by the ordinary course of travel, or
7. A detention prisoner if no permission of the court in which his case is pending was obtained (ROC,
RULE 21, Sec. 10).

Qualifications of Witnesses
A prospective witness must show that he has the following abilities: (OR³)

1. To Observe the testimonial quality of perception;

2. To Remember the testimonial quality of memory.
3. To Relate the testimonial quality of narration; and
4. To Recognize a duty to tell the truth the testimonial quality of sincerity (5 HERRERA. supra at 278).

Competency of witness means the legal fitness or ability of a witness to be heard on the trial of a cause
(Bouvier's Law Dictionary)

Presumption of Competency
General rule: When a witness takes the witness stand, the law, on ground of public policy, presumes
that he is competent. The court cannot reject the witness in the absence of proof of his incompetency
The burden is, therefore, upon the party objecting to the competency of a witness to establish the
ground of incompetency (People v. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471. ECOctober 10, 2002).

Exception: Prima facie evidence of incompetency in the following:

1. The fact that a person has been recently found of unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction:
2. That one is an inmate of an asylum for the insane (Torres v. Lopez, G.R. No. L-24569, February
26,1926)

When is competency determined?

The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are determined as of the time they are produced for
examination in court or at the taking of their depositions. (RIANO, supra at 189).

Who determines the competency of a witness?

The decision of competency of a witness rests primarily with the trial judge who sees the proposed
witness, notices his manner, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and may resort to any
examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the
obligations of an oath (U.S. v. Buncad, G.R. No. L- 7638, October 10, 1913).

The decision of the trial judge on the competency of the witness will not be disturbed on appeal unless
from that which is preserved it is clear that it was erroneous (U.S. v. Buncad, supra).

Reason: The observations of the trial court judge cannot be photographed into the record of the case.
(U.S. v. Buncad, supra).
Competency of Witness Credibility of witness
It is a matter of law and/or rule It has nothing to do with the law or the rules.
It has reference to the qualifications of a witness as his It refers to the of the witness, weight of trustworthiness
capacity to perceive and to communicate his or reliability of the testimony of the witness.
perception.

It includes the absence of any disqualification.

SECTION 21. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY

The following cannot be witnesses because they are suffering from:
1. Mental Incapacity-
Those whose met condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are
incapable o intelligently making known their perception others to, and
2. Mental Immaturity or Disqualification by reason of Infancy- Children whose mental maturity is such
as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating
them truthfully.

A. Mental Incapacity
Rules on time of insanity:
1. At the time of trial-incompetent
2. At the time of the transaction-competent but may affect the witness' credibility
3. At some other period- no effect

Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time the fact to be testified occurred affects only his
credibility. As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent
answers to questions propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is feeble-minded (People v.
De Jesus, G.R No. L-39087, April 27 1984)

A mental retardate is NOT by reason of such handicap alone, be disqualified from testifying Court.
Mental retardation per se does not affed credibility. A mentally retarded may be a credible witness. The
acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make
them known to the court. If the testimony of a mental retardate is coherent, the same admissible in
court (People v. Monticalvo, G.R. N 193507. January 30, 2013).

Note: It is generally accepted that if the witness is a lawful inmate of an asylum for the insane, he will
not be presumed to be competent and before he can testify, his competency should be made to appear
by the party offering him (Pittburg & WR Co. Thomson, 27 CAA 333, 82 Fed 720). The reason is that,
insanity is presumed to continue as a mental state, if once existed, until the contrary is shown.

Feeble-minded persons are still qualified as long as they can convey ideas by words or signs and give
sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded by the court and the counsels (People
Palma, G.R. No. L-69152, September 23, 1986).

Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses when they:

1.Can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath;
2. Can comprehend facts they are going to testify to; and
3. Can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter (People v. Aleman, G.R. No. 181539, July
24, 2013).

B. Immaturity

Competency of a Child Witness

As a general rule, every child is presumed qualified be a witness (Rules on Examination of a Child
Winess. A.M. 004-07-SC, Sec. 6).

That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for disqualification. The dismissiveness with which
the testimonies of child witnesses were treated in the past has long been erased. Under the Rule on
Examination of Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC 15 December 2000), every child is now presumed
qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of 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 will the court, motu propio or on motion of a party
conduct a competency examination of a child (People Esugon, G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015).

No precise minimum age can be fixed at which children shall be excluded from testifying. The
Intelligence, not the age, of a young child is the test of the competency as a witness. It is settled that a
child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive and, in perceiving, can make
known his perception to others and that he is capable of relating truthfully the facts for which he is
examined (People v. Pruna, supra).

(For further reference, see the Rules on the Examination of a Child Witness under Special Laws)

SECTION 22: DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE (SPOUSAL IMMUNITY)

Rule on Marital Disqualification
General Rule: During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse.

Nature
It is an absolute prohibition against the spouse's testifying to any fact affecting the husband or the wife
however the knowledge of these facts may have been acquired.

Reasons:
1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife,
2. If one were to testify for or against the other, thereis consequent danger of perjury,
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one spouse through the
hostile testimony of the other (Alvarez v. Ramirez. G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005).

Requisites:
1. That the spouse for or against whom the testimony is offered is a party to the case;
2. That the spouses are legally married (valid until
annulled):
3. Testimony is offered during the existence of marriage, and
4. The case is not one of the exceptions provided in the rule (5 HERRERA, supra at 302)

Exceptions:
The rule on disqualification does not apply in the following:
1. Where the testimony was made outside the marriage
2. In a civil case by one spouse against the other,
3. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants:

The disqualification does not apply where an offense directly attacks or directly and vitally impairs the
conjugal relations.

It does NOT also apply in the case of estranged spouses, where the marital and domestic relations are so
strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be
disturbed (Alvarez v. Ramirez. supra).

4. Where the spouse-party gives his or her consent; and

5. Where the spouse-party fails to raise the disqualification seasonably (waiver).

Reason: Identity of interest disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is
non-existent. (5 HERRERA, supra at 302).

It is an absolute prohibition against the spouse's testifying to any fact affecting the husband or the wife
however the knowledge of these facts may have been acquired.

Who may object

Only the spouse-party and not the other spouse who is offered as a witness (5 HERRERA, supra at 307).

Duration of the Privilege

The privilege lasts only during the marriage. It terminates upon divorce or annulment or death, in which
event, the surviving spouse may testify on any matter not learned in confidence (id)

Note: The disqualification is between husband and wife, the law not precluding the wife from testifying
when it involves other parties or accused (People v. Quidato. Jr., GR. No 117401, October 1, 1998).
Disqualification by reason of marriage Disqualification by reason of marital privelege
When invokes
Can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a Can be claimed whether or not the other spouse is a
party to the action party to the action.
Period for prohibition
Applies only if the marriage is existing at the Can be claimed even after the marriage is dissolved.
time the testimony is offered.
Scope of prohibition
Constitute a total prohibition for or against the Applies only to confidential communication between
spouse of the witness spouses
Objection raised
The objection would be raised on ground of The married person is on the stand but the objection
marriage. The married witness would not be of privilege is raised when confidential marital
allowed to take the stand at all because of the communication is required into.
disqualification. Even if the testimony is, for or
against the objecting spouse, the spouse-
witness cannot testify.

Note: However, res gestae declarations of husband and wife are admissible for or against each other,
even though each is incompetent to testify (5 HERRERA, supra at 306).

Form of the testimony covered by rule on marital disqualification

This rule does not only apply to testimony of the spouse as against the other but also applies to the
production of document (58 Am. Jur. 139).

Marrying the witness

An accused can effectively “seal the lips” of a witness by marrying the witness. As long as a valid marries
is in existence at the time of the trial, the witness-spouse cannot be compelled to testify even the crime
charged is against the witness’ person, and even though the marriage was entered into for the express
purpose of suppressing the testimony.