No Sec. Evidence Learning Materials

Rules on Evidence 1
Rule 128
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. Evidence defined. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in
a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) (RBSI, p. 421,2011)
- Indicates that not every fact having a conceivable connection to the issue of a case or that
which provides a reasonable inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged, is
considered evidence (Riano, p. 2, 2013)
- Significantly not as an end in itself but merely as a “means” of ascertaining the truth of a matter
of fact. (Riano, p. 2, 2013)
- The truth must have must have to be determined by the rules for admissibility and proof. (Riano,
p. 2, 2013)
- The truth not necessarily the actual truth but one aptly referred to as the judicial or legal truth.
(Riano, p. 2, 2013)
- Respecting a matter of fact- the facts to be established or the point in controversy must be
capable of being proven or ascertained by the rules of evidence (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
The Truth (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
a). The ultimate objective of the rules of evidence is to render justice by arriving
at the truth of a matter in dispute i.e by knowing the facts and the meaning of
these facts.
b). Factual or moral truth- the truth which the court seeks to know
c) Judicial truth – the truth as found by the courts based on the evidence
presented to it.
d) ideal or perfect justice – when the judicial truth is likewise the factual truth.
The rules do not apply and cannot be used to answer questions or controversies
involving religion or faith; dogma, philosophy, literature, fantasy or fiction or those which are
purely speculative. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Distinction between Proof and Evidence
Proof Evidence
Is not the evidence itself The medium of proof
There is proof only because of evidence
It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is
the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting
from a consideration of evidence
The effect or the result of evidence (29 Am Jur 2d,
Evidence, 2
(Riano, p. 11, 2013)
Evidence from Proof(Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Strictly evidence is the medium of proof whereas proof is the result of evidence. Thus the
materials consisting of the weapon used, the confession of the accused, the testimony of the
complainant and witnesses, the result of the paraffin test, will constitute the evidence of guilt. Their
combined effect will be Proof of guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
BURDEN OF PROOF VS. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE (Ateneo, p. 372, 2019)
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence

The duty of a party to present evidence on the The duty of a party to go forward with the
facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or evidence to overthrow any prima facie
defense by the amount of evidence required by presumption against him. (Baustista v Sarmiento,
law. (Rule 131, Sec.1) G.R. No. L-45137, 1985)
2021 edition (vicdel)

Rules on Evidence 2
Upon Whom the Burden of Proof Rests (Ateneo, p. 372, 2019)
Civil Cases Criminal Cases

The plaintiff has the burden of proof to show the The burden of proof is on the prosecution by
truth of his allegations if the defendant raises a reason of presumption of innocence. (People v.
negative defense. Alicante, G.R. No. 182941,2009)
The defendant has the burden of proof if he In cases of self-defense, the burden of evidence
raises an affirmative defense on the complaint of shifts to the accused to show that the killing was
the plaintiff. (Jimenez v. NLRC, G.R. No. legally justified. (People v. Dagani, G.R. No
116960,1996) 153875,2006)
Factum Probandum and Factum Probans (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
a. Factum Probandum refers to the ultimate fact to be proven, or the proposition to be

established. That, which a party wants to prove to the court.
Examples:
- guilt or innocence
- existence of a breach of contract
- existence of an obligation
- the fact of payment
- the injury or damage incurred
b. Factum Probans refers to the evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum will be
proved.
Examples:
- the written contract
- the promissory note to prove the existence of an unpaid debt
Classification of Evidence (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
a. Direct Evidence
- that which proves a fact in issue or dispute without the aid of any inference or
presumption. It is evidence to the precise point.
Examples:
- the eye witness account
- the scar to show the wound
b. Circumstantial Evidence
- proof of facts or fact from which taken singly or collectively, the existence of the
particular fact in issue maybe inferred or presumed as a necessary or probable
consequence.
Important considerations on circumstantial evidence
a) This applies only in criminal cases and is governed under Rule 133(4) which
for purposes of supporting a finding of guilt, requires:
a.1. that there be more than one circumstance
a.2. that the facts from which the inference are derived are proven
a.3 the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
b) Per the Supreme Court: it is essential that the circumstantial evidence

presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and
reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others,
as the guilty person.

Rules on Evidence 3
c). Guidelines in the appreciation of the probative value of circumstantial
evidence
c.1. It should be acted upon with caution
c.2. All essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of
guilt
c.3. The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt
c.4. The facts must establishes such a certainty of guilt as to
convince the judgment beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused is the one who committed the offense
c. Positive Evidence
- evidence that affirms the occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as

when a witness declares that there was no fight which took place.
d. Negative Evidence
- negative when the evidence denies the occurrence of an event or existence

of a fact, as when the accused presents witnesses who testify that the
accused was at their party when the crime was committed. Denials and alibi
are negative evidences.
General Rule:
The general rule is that positive evidence prevails over negative evidence,
or that a positive assertion is given more weight over a plain denial.
e. Primary (Best) Evidence
- that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in
question.
Examples:
- the original of a contract is the best evidence as to its contents

- the marriage contract as to the fact of marriage
- a receipt as to the fact of payment
- the birth certificate as to filiation.
f. Secondary Evidence
- that which is necessarily inferior and shows on its face that better evidence
exists.
Examples:
- Xerox copies of documents
- narration of witnesses as to a written contract.
g. Conclusive Evidence
- may either be:
g.1. that which the law does not allow to be contradicted as in judicial
admissions or;
g.2. that the effect of which overwhelms any evidence to the contrary as the
DNA profile of a person as the natural father over a denial

Rules on Evidence 4
h. Prima Facie Evidence
- that which, standing alone and uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the

proposition affirmed. In the eyes of the law it is sufficient to establish a fact until
it has been disproved, rebutted or contradicted or overcome by contrary proof.
i. Cumulative Evidence
- additional evidence of the same kind bearing on the same point.
Example:
- testimonies of several eyewitnesses to the same incident
j. Corroborative Evidence
- additional evidence of a different kind or character but tending to prove the

same point. It is evidence which confirms or supports. Thus:
j.1. the medico legal certificate describing the injuries to have been caused by
a sharp pointed instrument corroborates the statement that the accused
used a knife to stab the victim
j.2. the positive results of a paraffin test corroborate the allegation that the
person fired a gun and;
j.3. the ballistics examination on the gun of the suspect corroborates the
statement that he fired his gun at the victim
Waiver of the Rules of Evidence
General Rule:
The rules of evidence may be waived. When an otherwise objectionable

piece of evidence is not objected to, the evidence becomes admissible
because of a waiver.
Exception:
When the waiver amounts to a transgression of the law, principles of

morality, good customs and public policy or when the rights of third persons are
violated, then there can be no waiver.
The failure to object to the illegality of a warrantless arrest does not

amount to a waiver the inadmissibility of evidence seized during such illegal
warrantless arrest. (Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 200748,2014) (Ateneo, p. 370, 2019)
SEC. 2. Scope. The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a) (RBSI, p. 421,2011)
Scope in the Applicability of the Rules on Evidence
1. General Rule:
It shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings
2. Exception:
When otherwise provided by law or the Rules ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.1, 2006)
2.1 Naturalization proceedings
2.2 Insolvency proceedings
2.3 Cadastral proceedings
2.4 Other cases as may be provided by law
2.5 Land Registration cases
2.6 Election cases (Ateneo, p. 370, 2019)

Rules on Evidence 5
When evidence is required
There is a need for the introduction of evidence when the court has to resolve a
question of fact. (Ateneo, p. 369, 2019)
When evidence is NOT Required
1. When no factual issue exist in a case or where the case presents only a
question of law.
2. When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact.
3. When parties to the action have agreed upon stipulated to the facts involved
in the litigation.
4. On matters of judicial notice; and
5. On matters judicially admitted. (Ateneo, p. 369, 2019)
QUESTION OF LAW AND QUESTION OF FACT
Question When doubt or controversy

of Law concerns the correct application of
law or jurisprudence to a certain
set of facts, or when the issue
does not call for an examination of
the probative value of the
evidence presented, the truth or
falsehood being admitted.
Question When doubt or difference arises
of Fact as to the truth or falsehood of
facts or when the query invites
calibration of the whole evidence
considering mainly the credibility
of the witnesses, the existence
and relevancy of specific
surrounding circumstances as
well as their relation to each other
and to the whole, and the
probability of the situation.
Equipoise Rule
where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, the case will be resolved
against the plaintiff, thus in criminal cases the accused must be acquitted and in civil
cases, the complaint must be dismissed. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
SEC. 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules. (3a) (RBSI, p. 42,2011)
Admissibility Weight
the character or quality which any material the value given or significance or impact,
must necessarily possess for it to be or importance given to the material after
accepted and allowed to be presented or it has been admitted; its tendency to
introduced as evidence in court. It answers convince or persuade. Hence a particular
the question: should the court allow the evidence may be admissible but it has no
material to be used as evidence by the weight. Conversely, an evidence may be
party? of great weight or importance but it is not
admissible.
(Libayan, batasnatin.com)
When Evidence is Admissible
1. When it is relevant to the issue, and
2. When it is NOT EXCLUDED by the law or the Rules (competent) ( Suarez & dela
Banda, p.1, 2006)

Rules on Evidence 6
Two Axioms of Admissibility
1. Axiom of Relevancy
- that none but facts having rational probative value are admissible
What constitutes RELEVANT evidence?
a. Material – evidence offered upon a matter properly in issue. It is

directed towards a fact within the range of allowable
controversy.
b. Probative – tendency of evidence to establish the proposition
that it is offered to prove. ( Ateneo, p. 374, 2019)
2. Axiom of Competency
- all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some
specific rules forbids their admission.
Competency – facts having rational probative value are admissible unless

some rule or law forbids their admission. If a rule or law excludes the
evidence. It is incompetent. (Ateneo, p. 374, 2019)
Importance of Admissibility in relation to offer and objection.
Any objection to the admissibility of evidence should be made at the time such
evidence is offered or as soon thereafter as the objection to the admissibility will be
considered waived and such evidence will form part of the records of the case as
competent and admissible evidence ( Chua v. CA, G.R. No. 109840, 1999) (Ateneo, p. 374,
2019)
Miscellaneous Doctrine
a. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
Literally means “false of one, false in everything” (Dawson v.

Bertolinin, 70 R.I. 325, 38 A.2d 765, 768). The doctrine means that if the
testimony of a witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with
an intention to deceive, the jury may disregarded all the witness’
testimony( Hargrave v. Stockloss, 127, N.J.L. 262, 21 A.2d 820, 823).
(Riano, p. 73, 2013)
It is not an absolute rule of law and is, in fact, rarely applied in

modern jurisprudence (People v. Batin, 539 SCRA 272) (Riano, p. 74, 2013)
b. Alibi; denial
Alibi is inherently weak and must be rejected when the identity of

the accused is satisfactorily and categorically established by the
eyewitnesses to the offense, especially when such eyewitnesses have no
ill-motive to testify falsely (People v. Viojela, G.R. No. 177140, October 17,
2012). (Riano, p. 75, 2013)
The defense of denial fails even more when the assailant, as in this
case, was positively identified by credible witnesses, against whom ulterior
motive could be ascribed. (People v. Asilan, 669 SCRA 405, 419, April 11,
2012). (Riano, p. 75, 2013)
The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-serving

negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive,

Rules on Evidence 7
and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who pointed to and
identified the accused-appellant as the malefactor. Indeed, alibi is easy to
concoct and difficult to disprove.” (People v. Adallom, 667 SCRA 652, 678,
679 March 7, 2012; See also further readings, People v Arriola, 665 SCRA
581, 590, February 8, 2012; See also People v. Peteluna, G.R. No.
187048, January 23, 2013). (Riano, p. 75, 2013)
c. Frame-up
The defense of frame-up is viewed with disfavor as it can easily be

concocted and is commonly used as a defense in most prosecution arising
from the violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The legal presumption
that official duty has been regularly performed exists (People v.Lee Hoi
Ming, 412 SCRA 550, People v. Barita, 325 SRA 22). (Riano, p. 79, 2013)
d. Delay and initial reluctance in reporting a crime
Delayed in reporting by witnesses of what they know about a crime

does not render their testimonies false or incredible, for the delay may
be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their
abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. But more than this, there
is always the inherent fear of reprisal, which is quite understandable,
especially if the accused is a man of power and influence in the
community. The natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a
criminal case, as well as to give information to the authorities is a
matter of judicial notice (People v. Navarro, 297 SCRA 331) (Riano, p. 81,
2013)
e. Flight or non-flight of the accused
Non-flight cannot be singularly considered as evidence or a manifestation

determinative of innocence ( People v. Amodia, 571, SCRA 444). (Riano, p.
87, 2013)
Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits
behave differently and even erratically in externalizing and manifesting
their guilt. Some may escape or flee- a circumstance strongly illustrative of
guilt- while others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a
semblance or regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other members
of the community (People v. Asila, 669 SCRA 405, 419, April 11, 2012).
(Riano, p. 87, 2013)
Rules of Exclusion- governed by the Rules or by Statute and Constitution (Ateneo, p. 374, 2019)
Principles which exclude relevant or material evidence:
a. The Exclusionary Rule Principle - the principle which mandates that evidence
obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in
violation of a particular law, must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted
as evidence.
a.1. The principle judges the admissibility of evidence based on HOW the
evidence is obtained or acquired and not WHAT the evidence proves.
a.2. The principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly provided for by the

constitution or by a particular law. Even if the manner of obtaining the
evidence is in violation of a certain law but the law does not declare that
the evidence is inadmissible, then such evidence will be admissible.

Rules on Evidence 8
b. The Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
b.1. Evidence will be excluded if it was gained through evidence uncovered in

an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive interrogation, or
violation of a particular exclusionary law.
b.2. It is an offshoot of the Exclusionary Rule which applies to primary

evidence. The doctrine applies only to secondary or derivative evidence.
There must first be a primary evidence which is determined to have been
illegally obtained then secondary evidence is obtained because of the
primary evidence. Since the primary evidence is inadmissible, any
secondary evidence discovered or obtained because of it may not also be
used.
b.2.1. The poisonous tree is the evidence seized in an illegal arrest,

search or interrogation. The fruit of this poisonous tree is
evidence discovered because of knowledge gained from the first
illegal search, arrest, or interrogation or violation of a law.
b.2.2. It is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the

state should not be used to gain other evidence because the
original illegally obtained evidence taints all those subsequently
obtained.
Illustrations:
A suspect was forced to make a confession where he revealed he

took shabu from the room of X. Based on this knowledge the police went
to the house of X and with the consent of X, searched his room and found
the shabu. The confession is inadmissible because of the exclusionary. It
is the poisoned tree. The shabu is inadmissible because knowledge of its
existence was based on the confession. It is the fruit. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Evidence Excluded by the Constitution
A. Under Article III of the Constitution the following evidence are inadmissible
a.1. evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable search

and seizure
a.2. evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of communication and
correspondence, except upon lawful order of the court or when public
safety or order requires otherwise
a.3. evidence consisting of extra-judicial confessions which are uncounseled,
or when the confessant was not properly informed of his constitutional
rights, or when the confession was coerced
a.4. evidence obtained in violation of the right against self-incrimination
Principles:
1. The exclusionary rule in all the foregoing provisions is TOTAL in that the
inadmissibility or incompetency applies to all cases, whether civil criminal or
administrative, and for all purposes.
2. The incompetency applies only if the evidence was obtained by law enforcers
or other authorized agencies of the government. It does not apply if the
evidence was obtained by private persons such as private security personnel
or private detectives even if they perform functions similar to the police
whenever a crime was committed.

Rules on Evidence 9
2.1. Thus evidence obtained by the following are not covered by the
constitutional provisions:
2.1.1. the security personnel or house detectives of hotels or

commercial establishments or schools
2.1.2. private security agencies even if they are guarding public
or government buildings/offices, employers and their agents.
2.2. However, by way of exception, the rule of incompetency applies if

what are involved are the private correspondence of an individual.
In Zulueta vs. CA ( Feb. 1986) it was held that pictures and love
Letters proving the infidelity of the husband, kept by him in his
private clinic, taken by the wife without the knowledge of the
husband, are inadmissible as evidence for being obtained in
violation of the husband’s privacy of communication and
correspondence.
B. Exclusion by Certain Rules of Evidence
b.1. The rule excluding secondary evidence when the primary or best
evidence is available
b.2. The rule excluding hearsay evidence
b.3. The rule excluding privilege communications (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Kinds of Admissibility
a. Multiple Admissibility: when a material is asked by a party to be admitted as

evidence, the party presenting must inform the court of the purpose which the
material is intended to serve and the court then admits the material as evidence.
Multiple admissibility may mean either

a.1. the evidence is admissible for several purposes, or
a.2. an evidence is not admissible for one purpose but may be
admitted for a different purpose if it satisfies all the requirements of
the other purpose
1. Examples of the first concept: (a) a knife may be admitted to

prove the accused was armed with a deadly weapon; to prove
the weapon is far deadlier than the weapon of the victim; to
prove it was the weapon of the accused which cause the
wounds and not some other instrument; to corroborate the
statement of a witness who claims he saw the accused holding
a bladed instrument.
2. Example of the second concept: (a). the extra judicial

confession of one of several accused may not be admitted to
prove there was conspiracy among them or to prove the guilt of
the other co-accused but it maybe admitted to prove the guilt of
the confessant (b) the statement of the victim may not be
admitted as a dying declaration but as part of the res gestae.
b. Curative admissibility or “fighting fire with fire” or “Opening the Door”
1. This applies to a situation when improper evidence was allowed to be

presented by one party, then the other party may be allowed to introduce or

Rules on Evidence 10
present similar improper evidence but only to cure or to counter the prejudicial
effect of the opponent’s inadmissible evidence.
2. The party presenting must have raised an objection to the improper evidence,
for if he did not, then it is discretionary for the court to allow him to present
curative evidence
3. The evidence sought to be countered should not refer to those which are
incompetent due to an exclusionary rule
Example: P vs. D for sum of money. P was allowed to introduce

evidence that D did not pay his debt as shown
by his refusal to pay his indebtedness to X, Y and Z.
Defendant may introduce evidence that he paid
his debts to A, B and C.
b. Conditional Admissibility: An evidence is allowed to be presented for the time being

or temporarily, subject to the condition that its relevancy or connection to other facts
will later be proven, or that the party later submit evidence that it meets certain
requirements of the law or rules. If the conditions are not later met, the evidence will
be stricken from the record.
1. Example: A Xerox copy of a document may be allowed to presented subject

to the condition that the original be later presented
2. Example: P vs. D to recover a parcel of land. P presents a document that the

land belonged to X. If D objects to it as being irrelevant, P can state that he
will alter show that X sold the land to Y who in turn sold it to Z and then to
P. The Court may admit the document conditionally. (Ateneo, p. 376, 2019)
Policy on the Admissibility of Evidence
Policy of Liberality: In case a question arises as to whether or not a particular

material should be admitted as evidence, Courts are given wide discretion what to admit and to
be liberal in admitting materials offered as evidence, unless the material is clearly incompetent.
The reasons are:

(i) so that it may have a substantial range of facts as basis for deciding the
case,
(ii) in case of appeal the appellate court may have before it all the evidence to
determine whether the decision appealed from is in accordance with the
evidence, and
(iii) to minimize any adverse effect of the non-admission upon the party
affected.
Limitations:
1. Evidence may be excluded even if relevant if its probative value is outweighed by

the risk that its admission will cause:
a). undue or unfair prejudice
b). confusion of the issues
c). misleads the court
d). undue delay or waste of time
2. The court has the power to limit the presentation of additional evidence which are
but cumulative, or to prove points which a party has already well presented.(Libayan,
batasnatin.com)

SEC. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters.—Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as
to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact
in issue.(4a) (RBSI, p. 421, 2011)
When Evidence is Relevant?
When it has such a relation to the fact in issue that induces belief in its existence of non-
existence. ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.6, 2006)
General Rule on Admissibility:
Only RELEVANT evidence is admissible, hence, collateral matters are not allowed. .
( Suarez & dela Banda, p.6, 2006)
Exceptions:
Evidence on COLLATERAL MATTERS may be allowed when it tends in any reasonable

degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. . ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.6, 2006)
What are COLLATERAL MATTERS?
Matters OTHER than the fact in issue. . ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.6, 2006)
In criminal cases, the collateral matters allowed to be proven, being relevant include:(Libayan,
batasnatin.com)
a. Antecedent Circumstances, or those in existing even prior to the commission of

the crime. They include such matters as habit, custom, bad moral character when
self defense is invoked; or plan design, conspiracy, or premeditation, agreement
to a price, promise or reward
c. Concomitant circumstances or those which accompany the commission of the

crime such as opportunity to do the act or incompatibility.
d. Subsequent circumstances or those which occur after the commission of the crime,
such as flight, escape, concealment,
offer of compromise
Example: Motive is generally irrelevant and proof thereof is not allowed except: when
the evidence is purely circumstantial, when there is doubt as to the identity
of the accused, or when it is an element of the crime.
Other examples:
a. Paraffin Test
b. DNA test
c. Blood test
d. Fingerprinting
e. Polygraph test . ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.7, 2006)
Rule 129
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
Types of Judicial Notice
Sec. 1. Mandatory
Sec. 2. Discretionary
Sec. 3 When Hearing Necessary ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.12, 2006)

Judicial Notice – cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on
without proof because they already known them. (Ateneo, p. 379, 2019)
Object of Judicial Notice
Judicial notice is based on convenience and expediency. It would certainly be

superfluous, inconvenient, and expensive both to parties and the court to require proof, in the
ordinary way, of facts which are already known to the courts. (Ateneo, p. 379, 2019)
Purpose:
To save time, labor and expenses. It is based on expediency and convenience.

(Libayan,batasnatin.com)
Direct effect of Judicial Notice
Judicial notice relieves the parties from the necessity of introducing evidence to prove
the fact noticed. It makes evidence unnecessary. (Ateneo, p. 379, 2019)
Judge’s Personal Knowledge of the Facts
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. (Spouses Omar and
Moshiera Latip v. Chua, G.R. No. 177809,2009) (Ateneo, p. 379, 2019)
Mandatory- takes place at the court’s own initiative and it needs no hearing. Ateneo, p. 379, 2019)
SEC. 1. Judicial notice when mandatory. ( RBSI, p. 422, 2011)
A court shall take judicial notice without the introduction of evidence of the following:
1. The existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of
government and symbols of nationality.
Examples:
1.1. The territorial extent of the nation and of the several states and the
division of states into towns, countries and other political
subdivisions are generally regulated by public laws and also
matters of general notoriety. Hence, the courts do not require proof
of such facts. ( Herrera, Remedial Law Vol V, 78-79) (Ateneo, p. 380,
2019)
1.2. Philippine Constitution-Article I. National Territory
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,

with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its
territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and
other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines. (officialgazette.gov.ph)
1.3. forms of government- monarchial, presidential, parliamentary,

royalty(Libayan,batasnatin.com)

1.4. symbols of nationality- flag, national costume,
anthem(Libayan,batasnatin.com)
2. The law of nations

It is the body of principles, usages, customs and unwritten precepts observed by,
and which governs, the relations between and among states.
Examples:
2.1. The Principle of Equality of States

2.2. Sovereign Immunity of visiting Heads of States and the protocol
observed for said visiting dignitary such as the 21 gun salute.
2.3. The Diplomatic Immunity of foreign diplomatic representatives
2.4. Recognition of piracy as a crime against humanity
3. The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals
4. The political constitution, and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the
legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines.
5. The laws of nature
Examples:
5.1 laws relating to science which are so well known such as that the
DNA of each person being distinct, or blood groupings as proof of
filiation; or of finger prints and dententures being distinct and
dissimilar from one person to another.
5.2. The law of gravity, mathematical equations, weights and
measurements
5.3. The solar system, the planets and stars
5.4. The composition and decay of matter
5.5. The birth and period of gestation of human beings
5.6. The occurrence of natural phenomenon provided these are
constant, immutable and certain, otherwise
these occurrences are “freaks of nature”
5.6.1.1. the changing of the season
5.6.1.2. the cycle of day and night
5.6.1.3. the difference in time between places on earth
5.6.1.4. the variation in vegetation(Libayan,batasnatin.com)
6. The measure of time, and
Into seconds, minutes, days, weeks months and years.
7. The geographical divisions.
Geographical Division of the World such as the number and location of the
continents, and the major oceans, the division into hemispheres; longitudes and
latitudes. (Libayan,batasnatin.com)
SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.
A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a)
( RBSI, p. 422, 2011)
Discretionary – may be at the court’s own initiative or request of a party. A hearing is

necessary. (Ateneo, p. 380, 2019)

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 to the tenor of the
matter to be noticed. (Ateneo, p. 380, 2019)
A judge hearing a case may or may not take judicial notice of the following:
1. Matters which are of public knowledge
“Commonly known”
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:
a. Encyclopedias
b. 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. (Spouses Omar and Moshiera Latip v. Chua, G.R. No. 177809, 2009)
(Ateneo, p. 381, 2019)
These are matters the truth or existence of which are accepted by the public
without qualification, condition or contention.
Requirements:
a. Notoriety of the Facts in that the facts are well and publicly known. The
existence should not be known only
to a certain portion of the community.
b. The matter must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
uncertain
c. The matter must be within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the
court
Examples:
c. The existence and location of hospitals, public buildings, plazas and

markets, schools and universities, main thoroughfares, parks, rivers
and lakes
d. Facts of local history and contemporary developments including
political matters.
Examples:
b.1. the creation of the city or town

b.2. previous and present political leaders or officials
b.3. the increase in population
b.4. traffic congestion in main streets
b.5. The existence and location of the PMA in Baguio City

2. Matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or
These are matters which, even if not notorious, can be immediately shown
to exist or be true so as to justify dispensing with actual proof.
Examples:
2.1.1. That poison kills or results to serious injury

2.1.2. That boiling water scalds
2.1.3. Striking the body with a sharp instruments results to rupturing
the skin and to bleeding
2.1.4. Shooting on the head kills
2.1.5. Hunger results to a weakened physical condition
2.1.6. Vehicles running at top speed do not immediately stop even
when the brakes are applied and will leave skid marks on the
road. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
3. Matters which ought to be known to him because of his judicial functions. ( Suarez & dela
Banda, p.18, 2006)
These are matters which pertain to the office of the Judge or known to them
based on their experience as judges
Examples:
3.1. The behavior of people to being witnesses such as their

reluctance to be involved in cases thus
requiring the issuance of subpoena to them; the varied
reaction of people to similar events, and
3.2. Procedures in the reduction of bail bonds(Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Generally, courts are not authorized to “take judicial notice of the contents
of the courts records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are
pending in the same court or before the same judge.” (Ateneo, p.381, 2019)
SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the court, on its own initiative,
or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request
of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such
matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n) ( RBSI, p. 422, 2011)
When Hearing is NECESSARY
Purpose:
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 to the tenor of the matter to be noticed. (Ateneo, p. 381, 2019)
Stages Where the Court May Take Judicial Notice of a Fact

1. During trial
2. After trial and before judgement; and
3. Appeal (Ateneo, p. 381, 2019)

Distinction Between Judicial Notice Taken During Trial and That Taken After Trial but
Before Judgment or on Appeal
STAGE DURING TRIAL AFTER THE TRIAL AND
BEFORE JUDGMENT, OR
ON APPEAL
How to take judicial notice? The court, on its own initiative, OR on the request of a party
Kind of matter Any matter Matter is decisive of a
material issue in the case
(Ateneo, p. 383, 2019)
Distinction between Mandatory Judicial Notice and Discretionary Judicial Notice

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE
Court is compelled to take judicial notice Court not compelled
By own initiative of the court At the court’s own initiative or on request of
any of the parties
No hearing Hearing required(Ateneo, p. 383, 2019)
SEC. 4. Judicial admissions.
Characteristics of Judicial Admission
1. It may be verbal or written
1.1. Oral
Examples:
1.1.1. Verbal waiver of proof made in open court
1.1.2. Admission made by a witness in the course of his testimony or deposition.
1.2. Written
Examples:
1.2.1. Pleading
1.2.2 Bill of Particulars
1.2.3 Stipulation of facts ( People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, 1996)
1.2.4. Request for Admission
1.2.5. Affidavit use in the case
1.2.6. Depositions
1.2.7. Written Interrogatories
1.2.8. Motion ( Republic v de Guzman, G.R. No. 175021, 2011) (Ateneo, p.
383, 2019)
2. It is made by a party in the course of the proceedings, which may be in any of the
following:
2.1. Pleadings, such as complaint, answer, reply, ect.
2.2. Motions
2.3. Modes of discovery with request for admission
2.4. Stipulation of facts; and
2.5. Statements made in the course of the trial
3. It is made in the same case and NOT in any other case. ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.33, 2006)
Judicial admissions may be made by either a party or his counsel.
When a defendant is declared in default for having failed to answer the complaint, such
a failure does not amount to an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint.

To be considered a judicial admission, the admission must be made in the same case;
otherwise, it is an extra-judicial admission.
Extra-Judicial Admissions- are in those made out of court, or in a judicial proceeding

other than the one under consideration.
Distinction between Judicial Admission and Extra-Judicial Admission

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSION
Rule 129, Sec. 4 Rule 130, Sec. 26
Admission must be made in the course of the Out of-court declarations, or in a judicial
proceeding in the same case proceeding other than the one under
consideration
Conclusive upon the admitter subject to some Rebuttable
exceptions.
Does not require proof Requires proof that the admission was made
(Ateneo, p. 383, 2019)

Legal Effects When Admission is Made
1. It does not require proof; and

2. It cannot be contradicted by the party who made it. ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.33, 2006)
A Judicial Admission is conclusive upon party making it and does not require proof. (Ateneo, p. 384,
2019)
Only Instances When a Party May Contradict His Own Admission

1. When he can show that the admission was made through palpable mistake; or
2. When he can show that no such admission was made. ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.33, 2006)
Distinction: Admission in Pre-trial
Admission in the Civil Case Admission in the Criminal Case

pre-trial is mandatory. Therefore, admissions in pre- The admission must be:
trial, as well as those made during the depositions,
interrogatories or requests for admissions because 1. Reduced in writing; and
they are made in the course of the proceedings of 2. Signed by both the accused and
the case. counsel
Admissions in Dismissed Pleadings
Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are merely extrajudicial
admissions. (Ateneo, p. 385, 2019)
Admissions by Counsel
Admission by a counsel are generally conclusive. (Ateneo, p. 385, 2019)
Rule 130
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
Section 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the
court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by
the court. (1a) (RBSI, p. 423, 2011)

It refers to the real thing itself and it consists of tangible things, not merely perceptions of the
witness and a recollection of those perceptions. (Ateneo, p. 387, 2019)
The definition covers any material that may be seen, heard, smelled, felt, or touched. They are
the “sensual evidence” and are grouped into:
A. Those exhibited to the Court or observed by it during the trial
1. The weapons used, the articles recovered or seized as subjects of an

offense, the effects of the crime, clothing apparels
2. The wound or scars in the body in physical injury cases
3. Inspection of the body of the accused and his personal appearance to
determine his body built, physique, height, racial characteristics, and
similarities with another, in paternity suits
4. Observations as to the demeanor of witnesses
5. Re-enactment or demonstrations of actions (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Limitations on the Use of Object Evidence
The court may refuse the introduction of object evidence and rely on the
testimonial evidence alone if:
1. The exhibition of such object is contrary to morals or decency;

2. To require its being viewed in court or in ocular inspection would result in
delays, inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the
evidentiary value of such subject.
3. Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading, as when the
purpose is to prove the former condition of the object and there is no
preliminary showing that there has been no substantial change in said
condition; or
4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly
portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary.
(Ateneo, p. 387, 2019)
Even if the object is repulsive or indecent, if a view of the same is

necessary in the interest of justice, such evidence may still be exhibited but the
court may exclude the public from such view. (Ateneo, p. 387, 2019)
B. Those which consists of the results of inspections of things or places

conducted by the court (ocular inspections) outside the court.
The observations made by the parties are duly recorded, pictures and other
representations may be made such as sketches and measurements
Examples: inspection of the crime scene; disputed boundaries; objects

which cannot be brought to court. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
View of an Object or Scene
A place or scene can fall under the classification of object evidence. The
court has to go to the object if the object cannot be produced in court due to its
immovability or the difficulty or inconvenience in removing it and producing it in
court. (Ateneo, p. 389, 2019)

Granted only if View is of Substantial Aid
As a general rule, a view or inspection should be granted only where it is

reasonably certain that it will be of substantial aid to the court in reaching a
correct verdict. (Ateneo, p. 389, 2019)
C. Those which consists of the results of experiments, tests or demonstrations,

which may be scientific tests/experiments, or practical tests/demonstrations
provided the conduct of experiments/tests is subject to the discretion of the
court.
1. Forensics or Microanalysis: the application of scientific principles to answer

questions of interest in the legal system. Applied most often in the
examination of Trace Evidence to solve crimes based on the Principle of
Contact.
1.1. Trace Evidence- evidence found at a crime scene in small but

measurable amounts such as hairs, fibers, soils, botanical materials,
explosive residue.
1.2. Principle of Contact: every person who is physically involved in a

crime leaves some minute trace of his/her presence in the crime
scene or in the victim and often takes something away from the crime
scene and/or victim. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY
Inherent Requirements:
Proof of
1. Relevancy; and
2. Competency (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Requisite for Admissibility
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;
4. The object must be formally offered in evidence. (Ateneo, p. 387, 2019)
Reason for Admissibility
The evidence of one’s own senses furnishes the strongest probability

of the existence of any sensible fact. (Ateneo, p. 387, 2019)
Categories of Object Evidence
1. Unique objects- objects that have readily identifiable marks.
Example:
Gun with a serial number
2. Objects made unique- objects with no unique characteristics but are made
readily identifiable.
Example:
A typical kitchen knife with identifying marks placed on it
by the witness.

3. Non-unique objects – Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be
marked.
Example:
A narcotic substance. A proponent offering evidence which
falls under the third category must establish a chain of custody.
(People v. Bardaje, G.R. No. L-29271, 1980) (Ateneo, p. 388, 2019)
Procedural Requirement: Proof of Authentication
1. The process of proving that the object being presented in court is the very
object involved in the event
2. The purpose is two fold:
2.1. to /ensure preserve the Identity of the Object which is to prevent

the introduction of a different object and
2.2. to ensure/preserve the Integrity of the Object which is to ensure
that there are no significant changes or alterations in the condition
of the object or that the object has not been contaminated
3. Important component elements of the process of Authentication:
3.1. Proof of Identity: Through the testimony of a witness as to objects

which are readily identifiable sight provided there is a basis for
the identification by the witness which may either be:
3.1.1 the markings placed by the witness upon the object, such as
his initials, his pictures in the digital camera, or
3.1.2 by the peculiar characteristics of the object i.e. by certain
physical features which sets it apart from others of the same
kind or class by which it is readily identified.
Example: a hole caused by burning in sweater; the broken hilt of

a knife
3.2. Proof of Identity and Integrity: By proving that there was no break in
the Chain-of-Custody in the event the object passed into the possession of
different persons. This means proving the chronological sequence through
which the object was handled only by persons who, by reason of their
function or office, can reasonably be expected to have the right or duty to
possess or handle the object. This is done by calling each of these
persons to explain how and why he came into the possession of the object
and what he did with the object.
3.2.1 When the object passed into the possession of a stranger,

then there is doubt as to the integrity, if not identity of the
object.
3.2.2 Proof of Integrity: By proving the Proper Preservation of the

object which consist of showing that the object was kept in a
secure place as to make contamination or alteration difficult,
and it has not been brought out until its presentment in court.
Chain of Custody of Evidence
Persons who actually handled or had custody of the object must show
through testimony that there is no possibility that the evidence was tampered with

and that the integrity of the evidence was preserved throughout the course of
gathering, collecting and storing the evidence. This is done to ensure that the
evidence presented in court is the same evidence seized from the defendant or
recovered from the crime scene or elsewhere.
Non-compliance with the Doctrine of Chain of Custody
General Rule: Non-compliance is fatal; the accused’s arrest becomes illegal.
Exception: Non-compliance is not fatal and will not make the accused’s
arrest illegal nor render the item seized as inadmissible, provided:
1. There is justifiable ground; and

2. The integrity and evidentiary value of the items are properly
preserved (R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 21; People v. Dela Cruz,
G.R. 205414, 2016) (Ateneo, p. 388, 2019)
4. Effect if there was improper authentication:
The object maybe excluded upon proper objection, or that it may

not be given any evidentiary value. Thus in a criminal case, reliance
thereon may be a ground for acquittal.
Example: there was conflicting testimony by the policemen as to the

description of the bag allegedly containing the drug. The conviction was
reversed. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
5. Authentication as applied to certain evidences:
5.1. As to pictures and photographs, maps, diagrams, the authenticity

refers to proving the accuracy of the things, persons, things or
places depicted in the photographs which may through the testimony
of :
5.1.1 the photographer; or

5.1.2 any one who is familiar with the persons, things, places
shown therein
5.2. As to tape recordings: ( Torralba vs. Pp., Aug. 22, 2005)
Admissibility of Tape Recordings
Before the tape recording is admissible in evidence and given

probative value, the following requisites must first be established:
1. A showing that the recording device was capable of taking

testimony;
2. A showing that the operator of the device was competent;
3. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the
recording;
4. Identification of the speakers; and
5. A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made
without any kind of inducement. (Ateneo, p. 387, 2019)
5.3. As to X-rays and cardiograms, motion pictures: same requirement as

to tape recordings.(Libayan, batasnatin.com)

LIMITATIONS to the admission of Objects as evidence in addition to the inherent
limitations of relevancy and competency. 10-28-2021
A. The admission must not cause undue prejudice to the court, such as those
intended
B. The admission is subject to the demands of decency and propriety, unless the
admission is extremely necessary.
1. Exhibition of the private parts in sex cases

2. Presentation of the corpse or body parts
3. Re-enactment of violent or offensive acts
Examples:
a) The case of the old man accused of rape who had to show his private
parts to prove he is incapable of committing the crime.
b). Case of William Alford charged of shooting a lawyer. He claimed self

defense in that he shot the victim who was beating him with a cane
while the accused was lying down on the ground. Prosecution witness
claimed the bullet had driven downward. Earl Rogers demanded that
the intestine of the victim be brought to court and by the testimony of
an expert, showed that the bullet traveled upward while the victim was
bending over, thereby confirming the claim of the accused. (Libayan,
batasnatin.com)
C. Exclusion of objects which are offensive to man’s sensibilities or repulsive

objects
c.1. Waste matters, human excreta
c..2. Carcasses of dead animals
c.3. Killing of an animal to prove a substance is poison (Libayan,
batasnatin.com)
D. The procurement, presentation or inspection must not cause

inconvenience or unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary
value of the object evidence. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
E. The admission must not violate the right against self-incrimination
E.1. Handwritings: the general rule is that a person may not be

compelled to produce a sample of his handwriting as basis for
determining his criminal liability as the author of a certain written
document. This is because writing is not a mere mechanical act
but involves the application of the intellect. However, if the
accused testifies in his own behalf and denies authorship, he
maybe compelled to give a sample of his handwriting. (Libayan,
batasnatin.com)
F. In cases of ocular inspections:
F.1. the condition of the thing or place must not have been altered
F.2. there be prior notice of the date, time and place given to the
parties because the inspection is still part of the trial. (Libayan,
batasnatin.com)

IV. NECESSITY OF PRESENTATION OF OBJECTS IN COURT
A. The best proof that an object exists is to present it to the court
B. The presentation is not necessary:
B.1. Where the existence of the object is not the very fact in issue, but
is merely a collateral fact, of are merely used as reference. Thus:
B.1.1. when a witness testifies that the accused was drinking a bottle of
gin when he threatened to shoot the witness, it is not necessary
to produce the bottle.
B.1.2. the witness claims the accused threw a stone at his car, the
presentation of the stone is not necessary.
B.2. Where the article has not been recovered or is outside the jurisdiction
of the court. Examples: stolen articles which are not recovered or
brought elsewhere; unrecovered weapons used in crimes. (Libayan,
batasnatin.com)
C. In crimes the gist of which is the illegal possession of an article, a

distinction has to be made:
C.1. Where the article is common or familiar article such that it can
readily be identified by sight, its presentation is not necessary, its
existence may be shown by testimony of witnesses.
Example: In a Prosecution for Illegal Possession of Firearms,

the accused may still be convicted even without the
presentation of the gun in court.
C.1.1.. PP. vs. Taguba ( 342 SCRA 199): In cases involving

illegal possession of firearms the prosecution has the
burden of proving
C.1.1.1. the existence of the subject firearm and

C.1.1.2 the fact that the accused does not have
the corresponding permit to possess.
As to the first requisite, the existence can best be

established by the presentation of the firearm …
(but) there is no requirement that the actual FA
itself must be presented in court… Its existence
can be established by testimony… thus the non
presentation is not fatal to the prosecution of an
illegal possession case.
C.1.2.. PP. vs. Taan, (506 SCRA 219, Oct. 30, 2006) “The non-
presentation of the subject firearm is not fatal for the
prosecution as long as the existence of the firearm can
be established by testimony” (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
C.2. Where the articles however are not common or familiar to ordinary
persons and cannot be identified by sight, they must be presented
in court. Example: drugs and contraband items (Libayan,
batasnatin.com)
RESULTS OF SCIENTIFIC TESTS AS OBJECT EVIDENCE
A. Forensics: application of scientific principles to answer questions of interest in the

legal system. This is applied most

often in the examination of Trace Evidence to solve crimes based on the Principle of
Contact
a.1. Trace Evidence- evidence found at a crime scene in small but

measurable amounts such as hairs, fibers, soils, botanical materials,
explosive residue.
a.2. Principle of Contact: every person who is physically involved in a crime

leaves some minute trace of his/her presence in the crime scene or in the
victim and often takes something away from the crime scene and/or
victim.(Libayan, batasnatin.com)
B. Requirements for Admissibility:
1. The Daubert Test: The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Daubert vs. Menell
Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) came up with a test of reliability and directed
that trial judges are to consider four factors when determining the admissibility
of scientific evidence, to wit:
a). whether the theory or technique can be tested

b). whether the proffered work has been subjected to peer review
c). whether the rate of error is acceptable
d). whether the method at issue enjoys widespread acceptance. (Libayan,
batasnatin.com)
2. This Daubert Test was adopted by the Philippine Supreme Court when it
finally accepted the result of DNA testing as admissible evidence. (Libayan,
batasnatin.com)
C. Scientific Tests Judicially Accepted:
1. Paraffin Tests although they are not conclusive that a person did or did not
fire a gun
2. Lie Detection Test: The result is not admissible as evidence in the
Philippines
3. Firearms Identification Evidence or Ballistic Test to determine whether a
bullet was fired from a particular gun
4. Questioned Document Test and Handwriting Analysis
5. Drug Tests on a Person
6. Toxicology or Test of Poison
7. Psychiatric examination
8. Voice Identification Test
8. Finger Printing
9. Identification through Dentures
10. Genetic Science such as DNA or Blood Test(Libayan, batasnatin.com)
ILLUSTRATION OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: DNA EXAMINATION
A. Important terms involved in DNA Testing (or protocol) (PP vs. Vallejo, May 9,
2002; PP. vs. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504)
1. DNA ( Deoxyribonucleic acid) is a molecule found inside all living cells which
carries the genetic information that is responsible for all cellular processes.
Except for identical twins, each person’s DNA profile is distinct and unique.
2. DNA TYPING- the process of extracting and analyzing the DNA of a

biological sample taken from an individual or
found in a crime scene.
a) Evidence Sample- material collected from the scene of the crime, from
the victim’s body or that of the suspect/subject
b) Reference Sample- material taken from the victim or subject

3. DNA PROFILE: the result of the process which is unique in every individual
except as to identical twins
4. DNA MATCHING- the process of matching or comparing the DNA profiles of

the Evidence Sample and the
Reference Sample. The purpose is to ascertain whether an association exists
between the two samples.
5. DNA TEST RESULTS:
a). Exclusion: the samples are different and must have originated from
different sources. This conclusion is absolute and requires no
further analysis or discussion.
b). Inconlusive: it is not possible to be sure, whether the samples have
similar DNA types.
c). Inclusion: the samples are similar and could have originated from
the same source. In such case the analyst proceeds to determine
the statistical significance of the similarity.
B. Admissibility and Weight of DNA Profile
1. PP vs. VALLEJO ( May 2002) and PP vs. YATAR ( 428 SCRA 504), adopting
the Dauber Test settled the admissibility of DNA tests as object evidence this
wise:
“Applying the Dauber Test… the DNA evidence appreciated by the

court a quo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably based on
scientifically valid principles of human genetics and molecular biology”.
This was reiterated in HERRERA vs. ALBA on June 11, 2005.
2. As to the weight and probative value, it depends on the observance of certain

requirements known as the Vallejo Guidelines. To wit:
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should
consider the following data:
a. How the samples were collected,

b. How they were handled,
c. Possibility of contamination,
d. Procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
e. Whether proper standards of procedure were followed,
f. Conducting the tests
g. Qualification of the analyst who conducted the test.( People v. Vallejo
GR. No. 144656, 2002) (Ateneo, p. 389, 2019)
3. There is no violation of the right against self-incrimination
a). “The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion but against
testimonial compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is
simply against the legal processes of extracting from the lips of the
accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but
as part of object evidence. As for instance: hair samples taken
from an accused. Hence a person may be compelled to submit to
finger printing, photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA as there is
no compulsion involved (PP. vs. Yatar):

b). The right is directed against evidence which is communicative in
character which is taken under duress (Herrera vs. Alba)
C. Where Used:
1. To identify potential suspects or exclude persons wrongfully accused.

2. DNA Typing may either result in “Exclusion” or “Inclusion”
3. To identify victims of crimes or catastrophes
4. To establish paternity and family relations and genealogy
Demonstrative Evidence: Tangible evidence i.e physical objects, which are illustrate a
matter of importance to the case but are not the very objects
involved in the case. They merely illustrate or represent or
emphasize, visualize or make more vivid what a party desires to
emphasize. (visual aids)
1. Examples: movies, sound recordings, forensic animation, maps,

drawings, sketches, graphs, simulations, models or modules of
the human body.
2. Importance: their use is very helpful as they provide a

stronger impact and lasting effect on the court.
Demonstrative Evidence
Under the Rule on Electronic Evidence, photographic evidence of events, acts, or

transactions shall be admissible in evidence, provided that it shall be presented,
displayed, and shown to the court, and it shall be identified, explained or authenticated
by either, the person who made the recording; or some other person competent to
testify on the accuracy thereof (Rule 11, Sec. 1, Rules on Electronic Evidence) (Ateneo, p.
389, 2019)
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 to the testimonial evidence, the physical evidence should prevail. (BPI v.
Reyes, G.R. No. 157177,2008) (Ateneo, p. 388, 2019)
Chain of Custody Also Applies to 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); see People v. Umanito, G.R. No. 172607)
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material

containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered as
proof of their contents. (n) (RBSI, p. 423, 2011)
What they consist of:
1. Writings, or
2. Any material containing:
2.1. Letters
2.2. Words
2.3. Numbers
2.4. Figures
2.5. Symbols, or
2.6. Other modes of written expression.

What are offered as proof: their CONTENTS. ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.48, 2006)
1. Best Evidence Rule
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions.
1. General Rule:
When the subject of inquiry is the CONTENTS of a document, no evidence shall be

admissible other than the original document itself. ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.56, 2006)
2. Exceptions- When evidence other than the original document may be presented:
2.1. When the original, WITHOUT BAD FAITH on the part of the offeror:
2.1.1. has been lost,
2.1.2. has been destroyed, or
2.1.3. cannot be produced in court
2.2. 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; and
2.3. When the original is a public record:
2.3.1. is in the custody of a public officer, or
2.3.2. is recorded in a public office.
3. When Best Evidence Rule NOT Applicable- When the subject of inquiry is NOT the
contents of the document but other matters such as:
3.1. The existence of the document, or

3.2. The due execution of the document, or
3.3. The location of the document. ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.56, 2006)
Section 4. Original of document. —
What can be Considered as the “Original Document”?
1. One the contents of which are the subject of inquiry;

2. All identical copies of the document- when a document is in 2 or more copies
executed at or about the same time;
3. All entries repeated in the regular course of business- when copied from another at
or near the time of the transaction. ( Suarez & dela Banda, p.56, 2006)
Note:
A carbon copy of a letter is a duplicate original and admissible.

Photographic copies of writings or photocopies are not duplicate originals as they are
produced at a later time. Such are considered secondary evidence. (Ateneo, p. 391, 2019)
2. Secondary Evidence
Section 5. When original document is unavailable.
1. Definition:
Evidence of the contents of the document other than the original.
2. Requisites for Presentation of Secondary Evidence:
2.1. The original document EXISTED and has been DULY EXECUTED in court,
2.2. It has been LOST, DESTROYED or CANNOT BE PRODUCED in court,
2.3. It is unavailable WITHOUT BAD FAITH on the part of the offeror, and
2.4. If there are several original copies, all must be ACCOUNTED FOR.

3. Types of Secondary Evidence Which may be Presented in Evidence in Lieu of the Original
(In order of preference):
3.1. A COPY of the original such as a photocopy or certified true copy;

3.2. A RECITAL of its contents in another authentic document, OR
3.3. The TESTIMONY of witnesses. (Suarez & dela Banda, p.67, 2006)
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. —
Requisites for Admissibility of Secondary Evidence
1. There must be PROOF that the original document exists;

2. The adverse party must have been given REASONABLE NOTICE to produce the
original, and
3. The adverse party fails to produce the document. (Suarez & dela Banda, p.673, 2006)
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record.
Legal Effect:
A certified copy is admissible to prove the contents of the document.
Requirements for Admissibility of Certified Copy:
1. The original is either:

1.1 in the custody of a public officer, or
1.2 recorded in a public office.
2. The certified copy is issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (Suarez & dela Banda,
p.673, 2006)
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls for the production
of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a) (RBSI, p. 425, 2011)
3. Parol Evidence Rule
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements.
Outline of the Parole Evidence Rule
1. General Rule:
When an agreement is in writing, it is presumed that all the terms and conditions
agreed upon are written down in the said agreement.
2. Legal Effect
Oral or parol evidence cannot be presented to MODIFY, EXPLAIN or ADD to

such terms and conditions.
3. Exceptions:
When Parol Evidence may be allowed to MODIFY, EXPLAIN or ADD to the

terms of the written agreement:
3.1. When there is in the written agreement:

3.1.1. An intrinsic ambiguity
3.1.2. Mistake, or
3.1.3. Imperfection

3.2. When the written agreement FAILS to express the TRUE INTENT
and agreement of the parties thereto:
3.3. When the written agreement is not valid, or
3.4. There is a subsequent agreement entered into by the parties or
their successor-in-interest AFTER the execution of the written
agreement.
Requisites for the Parties to Modify, Explain, or Add to the Terms of the Agreement
through Parol Evidence:
1. The party must prove that any of the above exceptions exists, and
2. The party must raise the same in his pleading.(Suarez & dela Banda, p.73, 2006)
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a) (RBSI, p. 426, 2011)
4. Interpretation Of Documents
Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. — The language of a writing is
to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the
parties intended otherwise. (8)
Section 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. — In the construction of an
instrument, where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be
adopted as will give effect to all. (9)
Section 12. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. — In the
construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a
particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will
control a general one that is inconsistent with it. (10)
Section 13. Interpretation according to circumstances. — For the proper construction of an

instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof
and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those who
language he is to interpret. (11) (RBSI, p. 426, 2011)
Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms. — The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used
in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local,
technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular
instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. (12)
Section 15. Written words control printed. — When an instrument consists partly of written words and
partly of a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter. (13)
Section 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. — When the
characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not
understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who
understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language.
(14)
Section 17. Of Two constructions, which preferred. — 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, and when different constructions of a provision are
otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor
the provision was made. (15) (RBSI, p. 427, 2011)
Section 18. Construction in favor of natural right. — When an instrument is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted. (16)

Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. — An instrument may be construed according to
usage, in order to determine its true character. (17)
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. Qualification of Witnesses
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all
persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be
witnesses.or, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)
Qualification of Witnesses
1. Who are qualified to become witnesses—All persons who

1.1. Can perceive, and
1.2. Perceiving can make known their perception to others
2. What cannot be a ground for disqualification of witnesses:

2.1. Religious or political belief
2.2. interest in the outcome of the case (bias), or
2.3. conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law such as:
2.3.1. Rule 119 Sec. 17 – An accused may not be discharged to act as a state
witness if he has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
2.3.2. Civil Code Art. 821 – Those who have been convicted of falsification of
document, perjury or false testimony are disqualified from being a witness
to a will. .(Suarez & dela Banda, p.90, 2006)
Conviction of a crime is not a ground for disqualification of a witness. (Ateneo, p.

400, 2019)
Summary:
1. Disqualifications:
1.1. Total or Absolute (Sec. 21) – The person is disqualified to testify in ANY case.
1.1.1. Mental Incapacity or Insanity

Refers to those whose mental condition is such that they are incapable of
making known their perception to others;
Such mental condition must exist at the time of their production for
examination.
1.1.2. Mental Immaturity – Refers to children whose mental maturity is such as

to render them incapable:
1.1.2.1. Of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined, and
1.1.2.2. Of relating them truthfully .(Suarez & dela Banda, p.95, 2006)
The requirements then of a child’s competency as a witness are capacity

of:
a. Observation
b. Recollection, and
c. Communication .(Suarez & dela Banda, p.97, 2006)
2. Partial or Relative – The person is qualified to be a witness but is disqualified from

testifying on certain matters:
2.1. MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION Rule (Sec. 22)

2.2. SURVIVORS DISQUALIFICATION Rule DEAD MAN’S Statute (sec. 23)
2.3. MARITAL COMMUNICATION Rule (Sec. 24 (a))

2.4. ATTORNEY-CLIENT Privilege (Sec. 24 (b)
2.5. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT Privilege (Sec. 24 (c))
2.6. PRIEST-PENITENT Privilege (Sec. 24 (d))
2.7. Privilege of STATE SECRETS (Sec. 24 (e) )
3. Privileges:
3.1. PARENTAL-FILIAL Privilege
COMPETENCY VERSUS CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS
COMPETENCY CREDIBILITY
The legal fitness of a witness to be Refers to the believability of a witness and has
heard on a trial of a case nothing to do with the law or the rules.
It refers to the weight and trustworthiness or

reliability of the testimony. (Riano, 297, 2013)
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage.
Marital Disqualification Rule:
1. General Rule – One spouse CANNOT testify in any case where the other spouse is
a party, whether FOR or against the other.
a. During their marriage( not when marriage has been dissolved, and
b. WITHOUT the CONSENT of the affected spouse (party to the case)
2. Exceptions: One spouse may testify AGAINST the other spouse:
2.1. In a CIVIL case by one against the other, or

2.2. In a CRIMINAL case for a crime committed by one spouse against :
2.2.1. The other spouse, or

2.2.2. The other spouse’s direct descendants or ascendant
3. Waiver – This disqualification MAY be waived when there is:
3.1. CONSENT- as when one calls the other as his witness

3.2. FAILURE to OBJECT – when the adverse party call the party’s spouse as his
witness. .(Suarez & dela Banda, p.101, 2006)
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party.
I. CONCEPT. This is also known as the Dead Man’s Statute or Suvivorship

Disqualification Rule.
A. The disqualification is merely relative as it is based on what the witness is

to testify on.
B. The purposes are
B.1. to put the parties on equal footing or equal terms as to the

opportunity to give testimony. ”If death has closed the lips of the
defendant, then the law closes the lips of the plaintiff”.
B.2. to guard against the giving of false testimony.
II. APPLICABILITY
A. The case must be a civil case where the defendant is the executor, administrator or
representative of the deceased person of person of unsound mind. But the rule will not
apply to a counter-claim against the plaintiff.
B. The subject is a claim or demand i.e. one that affects the real or personal
properties:
B.1. The case must be a personal action for the enforcement of a debt or
demand involving money judgment, or where the defendant is demanded
to deliver personal property to plaintiff.
B.2. The evidence of this claim is purely testimonial and allegedly incurred
prior to the death or insanity. They are therefore fictitious claims.
C. The subject of the testimony is as to a matter of fact occurring before the death or
insanity. The testimony is the only evidence of the claim or demand.
C.1. The death/insanity maybe before or during the pendency of the case so long
as it was before the death/insanity.
C.2. The matters prohibited are those made in the presence and hearing of the
decedent which he might testify to if alive or sane, i.e. adverse to him, and
not to those which maybe known from other sources.
D. The rule does not apply to the following:
D.1. To claims or demands which are not fictitious or those supported by

evidence such as promissory notes, contracts, or undertakings,
including the testimony of disinterested witnesses.
D.2. Fraudulent transactions of the deceased or insane person, as when the

deceased was an illegal recruiter or that he absconded with money
entrusted to him
D.3. To mere witnesses
D.4. Stockholders/members of a juridical entity testifying in cases filed by the
juridical entity
D.5. Claims favorable to the estate.
The rule maybe waived expressly or by failure to object or by introducing evidence on

the prohibited matter.(Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.
Privilege - a rule of law that to protect a particular relationship or interest, either

permits a witness to refrain from giving testimony he otherwise could be
compelled to give, or permits someone, usually one of the parties, to
prevent the witness from revealing certain information. (Herrera, p.315)
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 405)
Privileged communications are matters learned in confidence. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 405)
Privileged Communications (Rule 130, Section 24):
1. Husband and Wife
2. Attorney and Client

3. Physician and Patient
4. Priest and Penitent
5. Public Officers (Ateneo, 2019, p. 405)
(a) Husband Privilege) and Wife (Marital Communications)
Reason:

Society's interest in the preservation of peace of families and its strongest safeguard is
to preserve any violations of those confidences inherent in the marital status. (Ateneo, 2019,
p. 405)
Ability to communicate without inhibitions is essential in a marital relationship. (Ateneo,

2019, p. 405)
Requisites:
1. There must be a valid marriage between husband and wife;

2. There is a communication received in confidence bone from the other;
3. The confidential communication was received during the marriage; and
4. The spouse against whom such is being offered has not given his/her consent to
such testimony. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 405)
A widow of a victim allegedly murdered may testify as to her husband's dying

declaration as to how he died the since the same was not intended to be confidential
(U.S. v. Antipolo, G.R. No. L-13109, 1918) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 405)
The privilege applies to any form of confident disclosure both in words and in
conduct. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 405)
To whom the privilege belongs
The privilege belongs to the spouse against whom the testimony is given.
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 405)
The privilege does NOT apply:
1. When the husband or wife testifies against the other in a civil case instituted by
one against the other..
2. When the husband or wife testifies against the other in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct ascendants or descendants.
3. Communications between husband and wife overheard by a third person. The
third party can testify.
4. Where the privileged communication came into the hands of a third party. The
third party can testify. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 405)
Distinction between the Marital Disqualification Rule and the Marital Communications Privilege
MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE MARITAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Sec. 22) PRIVILEGE (Sec. 24[a])
Prohibits spouse from taking the stand Prohibits testimony on communication
against the other spouse obtained through confidence in the marital
relation
The spouse affected by the disclosure The spouse affected by the disclosure may
cannot invoke SEC. 22 once the marriage object even after the dissolution of the
is dissolved marriage
Exists only when the spouse for or against Applies regardless of whether the spouses
whom the testimony is offered is a party to are parties or not
the action
The nature of the prohibition is a testimony The prohibition is the examination of a
for or against the other spouse as to matters received in
confidence by one from the other during
the marriage. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 405)
(b) Attorney and Client
Reason: It is based upon grounds of public policy to enable full disclosure. (Ateneo, 2019,
p. 406)
McPartlin was entitled to the protection of the attorney client privilege, because his
statements were made in confidence to an attorney for a co-defendant for a common

purpose related to both defenses. (U.S. vs. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1979). (Ateneo, 2019,
p. 406)
Requisites:
1. There must be a communication made by the client to the attorney, OR an advice

given by the attorney to his client;
No particular form is required under the Rules
2. The communication or advice must be given in confidence; and
3. The communication or advise must be given either:

a. In the course of professional employment; or
b. With a view to professional employment. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 406)
This contemplates preliminary negotiations, even if later on the attorney-client

relationship is not perfected. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 406)
Attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk are also covered by the rule and
cannot be examined concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity without the consent of the client AND their employer.
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 406)
(c) Physician and Patient
The physician-patient privileged communication rule essentially means that a

physician who gets information while professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil
case be examined without the patient's consent as to any facts which would blacken the
latter's reputation (Chan v. Chan, G.R. No. 179786, 2013) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 408)
Reason:
The privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe, full and confidential disclosure.
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 408)
Requisites:
1. The privilege is claimed in a civil case;

2. The person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to
practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
3. Such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient;
4. The information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and
5. The information was confidential and if disclosed would blacken the reputation of
the patient. (Lim v.Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, 1992) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 408)
Scope of the Privilege:
The prohibition applies not only to communications made by the patient to the
physician but also to opinions or prescriptions.
The privilege does not cover all obtained confidentially or necessary for
treatment. The information must be one, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation of
the patient.
Duration of privilege
The privilege survives the death of the patient. Death does not permit the living to
impair the deceased's name (on in case, medical findings) by disclosing a
communications held confidential by law (Gonzales v. CA, G.R. No. 117740, 1998).
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 408)

The Privilege Does not Apply:
1. When the case is a criminal case.

2. When the testimony refers to information regarding a patient which the
physician acquired either before the relation
of physician and patient began or after itstermination.
3. When there is waiver.
4. If the physician acted for purposes other than to prescribe for the patient.
5. When the information was not necessary for the proper treatment of the
patient.
6. When the information does not blacken the reputation of the patient.
7. Where an action for damages is brought by the patient against his
physician.
8. When the physician is presented as an expert witness and the facts
testified to are merely hypothetical. (Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
91114, 1992)
9. When the information was intended to be public, such as results of physical
and mental examinations ordered by the court and results of autopsies.
(Sec. 4, Rule 28) Ateneo, 2019, p. 408)
(d) Priest and Penitent
Reason:
To compel a minister or priest to testify to a confession made to him is equivalent

to an annulment of the confession institution.
Requisites:
1. The confession must be made to the minister or priest in his professional character,
and in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules of practice of the denomination
to which the priest or minister belongs; and
2. The confession must be of a penitential character. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 409)
The Privilege Does Not Apply:
1. Where a minister is consulted not as such (e.g., he is consulted as a friend or

interpreter).
2. Where the confession is not made in the course of religious discipline.
3. When there is waiver. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 409)
(e) Public Officers
Requisites:
1. The communication must have been made to a public officer;

2. The communication confidence; and was made in official
3. Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the information. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 409)
Public interest means more than a mere curiosity; it means something in which
the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest by which their legal
rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as to interest the
particular localities which may be affected by the matters in question (Banco Filipino v.
Monetary Board, G.R. No. L-70054, 1986). (Ateneo, 2019, p. 409)
Exceptions:
1. If what is asked is useful evidence to vindicate the innocence of an accused

person.
2. If the benefit to be gained by a correct disposition of the litigation is greater than
any injury which could inure to the relation by a disclosure of the information. (Ateneo,
2019, p. 409)
The privilege under Section 21, Rule 130 is intended not for the protection of public
officers but for the protection of public interest. Where there is no public interest that
would be prejudiced, this rule will not be applicable. The rule that a public officer cannot
be examined as to communications made to him in official confidence does not apply
when there is nothing to show that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure
question. (Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, G.R. No. 70054, 1986) . (Ateneo, 2019, p. 409)
2. Testimonial Privilege
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (20a)
There are two privileges embodied in this rule: Parental privilege rule; and Filial privilege
rule.
1. Parental Privilege: A parent cannot be compelled to testify against his child or

direct descendants
2. Filial Privilege: A child may not be compelled to testify against his parents or other
direct ascendants. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 411)
When the privilege does not apply
1. Voluntary testimony; waiver
A person may voluntary testify against his parents, but if he refuses to do so, the rule
protects him from any compulsion. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 411)
2. Persons other than direct ascendants and descendants
The privilege under the provision mentioned applies only to direct ascendants and
descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no common
ancestry by her stepmother. (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 177861, 2010). (Ateneo, 2019, p. 411)
3. Admissions and Confessions
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
This rule refers to the maxim, "res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet,"which means,
"A thing done among some persons ought not to do harm to another."(Regalado 2008 ed.)
Reason for Res Inter Alios Acta rule
The reason for the rule is that, on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a
man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. It would not only be
inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and that if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers,
neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. (People v. Raquel, G.R.
No. 119005, 1996)
Two branches of the res inter alios acta rule
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another

(Rule 130, Sec. 28)
Previous Conduct Rule: Evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not
admissible to prove that one did or did not do the same act at another time (Rule 130, Sec.
34)

This rule only applies to extrajudicial declarations (People v. Raquel, G.R. No. 119006,
2006)
Exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule (1st Branch):
1. Admission by a Co-Partner or Agent (Rule 130, Sec.29);

2. Admission by a Co-Conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
3. Admission by Privies (Rule 130, Sec. 31);
4. Admission by Silence (Rule 130, Sec. 32; see Tan Siok Kuan v. Returta, G.R. No.
175085, 2016, J. Perez); and
5. Interlocking Confessions (People v. Muit, G.R. No. 181043, 2008)
In a case, petitioners failed to establish that the defendants' alleged implied admission
of a lessor-lessee relationship falls under the exceptions to the principle of res inter alios acta
as to make such admission binding upon respondents. Although defendants and respondents
were all defendants in the complaints for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners, it is very clear
that defendants and respondents espoused different defenses.
Contrary to defendants' position, respondents, as early as the filing of their response to

petitioners' demand letter, firmly and consistently denied the existence of any lease contract
between them and petitioners over the subject land. (Tan Siok Kuan v. Returta, G.R. No.
175085, 2016)
Additional Exception
Statements made by an employee against his employer are admissible against the
latter, where the statements while in employ and where they concerned a matter within the
scope of his employment. (Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival &Research Center, 588 F.2d 626,
8th Cir. 1978)
Inadmissibility of Extrajudicial Declaration of Accused
As a general rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an accused, although deliberately

made, is not admissible. and does not have probative value against his co-accused. It is
merely hearsay evidence as far as the other accused are concerned. (People v. Alegre, G.R.
No. L-30423, 1979)
The rights of an accused cannot be prejudiced by the extra-judicial declarations of

another person. (People v. Raquel, G.R. No. 119006, 1996)
Section 26. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact
may be given in evidence against him. (22)
Concept of Admissions
The voluntary acknowledgement made expressly or impliedly by a party to a case or by

another by whose statement the party is bound, against his interest, of the existence or truth of
such fact in dispute, material to the issue. By this meant that a party to a case performed an
act, made a declaration/statement whether oral or written, or omitted to do something, which is
contrary to his cause of action or to his defense, and which may therefore be used as evidence
against him. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Kinds
A. As to where it is made:
a.1. Judicial ( if made in the proceedings of the case where it is to be used as

evidence) or
a.2. extra judicial (if made outside the proceedings of the case) (Libayan, batasnatin.com)

B. As to how made:
b.1. Express or
b.2. Implied
C. As who made the admission:
c.1. By the party to the case either as the offended party or accused; or as
the plaintiff or defendant
c.2. Third person due to the principle of Vicarious Admissions or Adoptive
Admissions.
D. As to form:
d.1. By an act or conduct

d.2. Declaration either oral or written or
d.3. through an omission
E. As to their effect:
e.1. Against Interest or

e.2. Self serving admissions (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Reason for the Rule:
Presumption of truth in the admission in that no person would do an act or declare

something which is contrary to his own interest unless such act or declaration is true. (Libayan,
batasnatin.com)
Requirements for Admission
1. It must be relevant to the issues in the case

2. It must be express, certain, definite and unequivocal. A declaration which goes: “ I
am not sure if I still owe money to X” or “ I do not recall having uttered those
words or did the act”, “ Maybe I was in error”, are not admissions.
3. Must be an admission of a fact, not an expression of an opinion
4. Must not be self-serving (Self serving admissions are those made to favor a
declarant) because:
4.1. they are hearsay i.e. they are testified to by person who have no
personal knowledge of the truth of the declarations
4.2. they are inherently untrustworthy
Examples are those where a person disclaims liability or creates a right or

a defense in his own favor.
5. it would open the door to fraud, fabrication of testimony and commission of perjury.
Examples: Affidavits ; entries in diaries; self-praises
6. It must have been made freely and voluntarily. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Evidentiary Value:
1. Either as independent evidence to prove a fact or

2. For purposes of impeachment
Example: Defendant files an Answer claiming he has fully paid his obligation. Plaintiff
presents W to testify that Defendant borrowed money from him to purposely pay off
defendant’s debt to plaintiff, such testimony by W is either to prove:
(i) the existence of an unpaid money to plaintiff and/or

(ii) to destroy defendant’s credibility as to his defense. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)

How to prove.
An admission may be proved by the testimonies of those who heard the oral statement
or to whom it was given, or who saw the act, and by presenting the written declaration itself.
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible.
Rules on Offer of Compromise
1. Civil Case
1.1. Is NOT an admission of any liability, and

1.2. Is NOT admissible in evidence against the offeror
2. Criminal Case
2.1. General Rule
An offer of compromise made by the accused MAY be RECEIVED in

evidence as an IMPLIED ADMISSION of his guilt.
2.2. Exceptions
When an offer of compromise is NOT an implied admission of guilt:
2.2.1 In quasi-offenses (negligence) where there is not criminal intent

(such as reckless imprudence);
2.2.2 In criminal cases allowed by law to be compromised such as:
2.2.2.1. National Internal Revenue code (Sec. 7 ©
- The Commissioner or Internal Revenue has the power to

compromise minor criminal violations as may be determined
by the Secretary of Finance.
2.2.2.2. Local Government Code (Sec. 408)
- Allowed in minor offenses whose penalties do not exceed

one year.
2.2.2.3. Revised Penal Code ( Art. 266-C or Anti-Rape Law of 1997)
- In cases of marital rape, where subsequent forgiveness by

the wife extinguishes the criminal action or penalty. (Suarez & de
la Banda, 2006, p.125)
Section 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (25a)
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
Meaning: Every act or omission results to corresponding consequences which may be

beneficial or harmful.
The rule answers the question:
Who are bound by an admission and who must bear the adverse consequences?

It embodies the first part of the so called Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri Nocere
Non Debet Rule (Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who
are not parties to it, or transactions between two persons ought not to operate to the
prejudice of third persons).
The effects and consequences of an act or omission should be the sole

responsibility of the actor himself and should not affect third persons who did not
participate in the act or omission. A man’s life, rights, fortune and property should not be
affected by what other people’s conduct. (Libayan, batasnatin.com)
Example: After a murder, accused goes to his neighbor and tells her, "Napatay
namin ni Jose si Juan". His neighbor can testify on this fact in a murder case against
Accused; the admission may be given in evidence only against Accused. It is not
admissible against Jose.
HOWEVER: If the accused takes the stand and explains the participation of
Jose, then the testimony is admissible against Jose.
NOTE: Sec. 28, Rule 130 refers to the first branch of the res inter alios acta rule. The second branch
can be found in Sec. 34, Rule 130-similar acts as evidence. (Regalado 2008 ed., 758) (Suarez & de la
Banda, 2006, p.414)
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent.
The act or declaration of a partner or agent the party may be given in evidence
against his co-partner or agent provided that the following requisites are:
1. That the partnership or agency be previously proven by evidence other than the
admission itself.
2. The acts or declarations refer to a matter within the scope of his authority.
3. The acts or declarations were made during the existence of the partnership or
agency. (Rule 130, Sec. 29)
Reason: Identity of interests between the co-partners or agents.
Proving the Partnership, Agency, or Joint Ownership
1. Entries in the partnership books made by one partner during the

continuance of the partnership;
2. By the separate admissions of all who are sued;
3. By the acts, declarations, or conduct of the parties; or
4. The act of one and the declarations or conduct of the others
The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
person jointly interested with the party.
1. There exists a joint interest between the joint owner, joint debtor, or other person
jointly interested with the party;
2. Such party, which joint interest must first be made to appear by evidence other
than the act or declaration itself;
3. The act or declaration was made while the interest was subsisting; and
4. The act relates to the subject matter of the joint interest
Section 30. Admission by conspirator.
The act or declaration of a conspirator may be given in evidence against the co-
conspirator provided the following requisites are present:
1. That the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself.
2. That the admission relates to the conspiracy.
3. That it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the

conspiracy. (Rule 130,
In the example above, the utterance of the accused that "Napatay namin ni Jose si
Juan" was made after the conspiracy. Hence, the out of court statement to the neighbor is not
binding on Jose. However, as stated, if the accused takes the stand and points to Jose as
responsible for the death of Juan, his testimony would be admissible against Jose.
Reason: Identity of interests for the commission of a crime.
Scope: This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or declaration but NOT to testimony given on
the stand at the trial where the defendant has the opportunity to cross examine the declarant.
(People v. Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, 2011)
If the declaration is made after the act designed is fully accomplished and after the
object of the conspiracy has been either attained or finally defeated, the declaration will be
admissible only against the person who made it. (People v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-9181, 1955).
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 415)
Section 31. Admission by privies. — Where one derives title to property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence
against the former. (28)
PRIVIES: denotes not only the idea of succession in right of heirship or testamentary
legacy but also succession by virtue of acts inter vivos as by assignment, subrogation or
purchase in fact any act whereby the successor is substituted in the place of the predecessor
in interest. The purchaser at an execution sale is a privy of the execution debtor. (Alpuerto v.
Pastor, G.R. No. L-12794, 1918) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 415)
General Rule: In order for an admission of a former owner of property to be admissible

against his successor in title, it must have
been made at the time when the title was still held by the declarant.
Exception: The declaration made subsequent to the transfer of the property shall be
admissible:
1. Where the declaration was made in the presence of the transferee and he
acquiesces in the statements or asserts no rights where he ought to speak
2. Where there has been prima facie case of fraud established.
3. Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to defraud which
conspiracy exists between the vendor and the vendee.
The act of a predecessor to a land is not binding on the successor if the

acts/declarations made by the predecessor acknowledging ownership or offering to purchase
the property from a third party were made before the predecessor held title to the land. (City of
Manila v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 1284, 1905) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 415)
Section 32. Admission by silence. — An act or declaration made in the presence and within the
hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as
naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may
be given in evidence against him. (23a)
Reason:
Based on common experience and natural human behavior.
Applicability to Criminal Cases

The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of the truth of
the statements uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal cases. (People v. Paragsa,
G.R. No. L-44060, 1978)
But Before the Silence of a Party can be Taken as an Admission of What is Said, it
Must Appear that:
1. He heard and understood the statement;

2. He was at liberty to interpose a denial;
3. The statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which
he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer;
4. The facts were within his knowledge; and
5. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be
material to the issue. (People v. Paragsa G.R. No. L-44060, 1978)
Silence of an Accused Under Custodial Investigation
The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by

another implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is not asked to
comment or reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit
confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. (People v. Alegre, G.R.
No. L 30423, 1979). (Ateneo, 2019, p. 416)
Section 33. Confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. (29a)
CONFESSION - a categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by an accused in a criminal

case, without any exculpatory statement or explanation. (Regalado 2008 ed.)
A confession is an acknowledgement in express terms, by a party in a criminal case,

of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused, direct or
implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to
prove his guilt. (People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, 1995)
ADMISSION CONFESSION
A statement of fact which does not involve Involves an acknowledgement of guilt or
an acknowledgement of guilt or liability liability
May be express or tacit Must be express
May be made by third persons and, in Can be made only by the party himself
certain cases, are admissible against a and, in some instances, are admissible
party (see Rule 130, Sec. 38, on against his co-accused(e.g., interlocking
declarations against interest) confessions)
In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt. On the other hand, the term

admission is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do
not directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the
offense charged. The rights of an accused are not confined to the period prior to the filing of an
information but are available at that stage when a person is under investigation for the
commission of an offense.
These rights are available to a person at any time before arraignment whenever he is
investigated for the commission of an offense. (People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, 1995)
A Confession May be:
1. JUDICIAL CONFESSION: One made before a court in which the case is pending and
in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can sustain a conviction in capital
offenses. This is admissible against the declarant's co-accused since the latter are afforded the
opportunity to cross examine.

2. EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION: One made in any other place or occasion and
cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti. May be
given in evidence agains the confessant but not against his co-accused as they are deprived of
the opportunity to cross-examine him. (Riano 2016 ed.)
Note: The important thing is the affected party (i.e. co accused) was given the
opportunity to cross-examine. It is irrelevant whether such part actually cross-examined the
confessant.
Extrajudicial Admissions or Confessions repeated during trial and the other accused is
accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, such admission or confession is
transposed into a judicial admission or confession. (People v. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, 2004)
Admissibility of Extra-judicial Confessions
To be admissible, it is necessary that:
1. The confession must involve an express and categorical acknowledgement

2. of guilt.
2. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense.
3. The confession must have been given voluntarily.
4. The confession must have been intelligently made, the accused realizing
the importance or legal significance of his act.
5. There must have been no violation of Section 12, Art. Ill of the 1987
Constitution.
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained, or under custodial

investigation shall be in writing, and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in
the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, older
brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school
supervisor, or priests or minister of the gospel as chose by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
confession shall ne inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. (Bar 2006; 2008)
A confession made before he is placed under custodial investigation need not comply
with the above. (Riano, 2016 ed.)
The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another
implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to comment nor
reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his
participation in the commission of the crime. Such an inference of acquiescence drawn from
his silence or failure to deny the statement would appear incompatible with the right of an
accused against self-incrimination. xxx While an accused is in custody, his silence may not be
taken in evidence against him as he has a right to remain silent his silence when in custody
may not be used as evidence against him, otherwise, his right of silence would be illusory.
(People v. Alegre, G.R. No. L-30423, 1979)
Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel

although later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are flawed under the
Constitution and as such cannot be admitted in Court. (People vs. Compil, G.R. No. 95028,
1995)
Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and
to counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence. (People v.
Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959, 1996)
General Rule - The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon himself and
is not admissible against his co-accused.
Exceptions:

1. If the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted the confession by not questioning
its truthfulness, as where it was made in his presence and he did not remonstrate
against his being implicated by it;
2. If the co-accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions
without conclusions; Confessions corroborated by other evidence and without
contradiction by the co-accused who was present (INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS)
After accused-appellant was arrested, he stated that five police officers at the police
station beat him up. They asked him to undress, forced him to lie down on a bench, sat on his
stomach, placed a handkerchief over his face, and poured water and beer over his face. When
he could no longer bear the pain, he admitted the crime charged participated in a re-
enactment, and signed an extrajudicial statement. He was not informed of his right to remain
silent nor did he have counsel of his choice to assist him in confessing the crime. This was
contrary to the constitution (People v. Yip Wai Ming, G.R. No. 120959, 1996).
The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the
"exclusionary rule" because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are
given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens. The accused cannot be made to affix
their signatures on evidence without complying with the Bill of Rights. By affixing their
signatures on the evidence, the accused are in effect made to tacitly admit the crime
charged for, in this case, mere possession of prohibited drugs a crime.
These signatures amount to uncounseled extra-judicial confession prohibited by

the Bill of Rights and therefore inadmissible as evidence. (People v. Wong Chuen Ming, G.R.
Nos. 112801-11 1996)
Admissions made before the Mayor &Station Commander during a conference that
defendants were responsible for the killing the victims is an admission. Also a judicial
admission by one accused is admissible against his co accused, unlike in an extrajudicial
confession, where its admissible only against the one making it. (People v. Encipido, G.R. No.
70091, 1986)
A videotaped interview showing the accused unburdening his guilt, willingly, openly an
publicly in the presence of newsmen does not form part of custodial investigation if it was not
given to police officers but media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from
the public. However, it is prudent that the trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must
be taken in further admitting confessions of such nature. (People v. Endino, G.R. No.
133026, 2001)
A confession to a radio reporter is admissible where it was not shown that said
reporter was acting for the police or that the interview was conducted under circumstances
where it is apparent that the suspect confessed to the killing out of fear. (People v. Coyos,
G.R. No. 138403, 2001)
An uncounseled confession or admission given by the accused to a private individual is

not covered by Sec. 12, Art. Ill of the Constitution where there is no showing that said private
individual was acting under police authority fear. (People v. Mayo, G.R. No. 170470, 2006)
An uncounseled extrajudicial confession taken by a "bantay bayan," who is

charged with the state related function of peace-keeping, is inadmissible in evidence.
(People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 2010)
Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and
to counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible. (People v. Duero,
G.R. No. L-52016, 1981) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 417)
4. Previous Conduct as Evidence
Section 34. Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but

it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like. (48a)
Example: Accused is charged with robbing a bank in June. The prosecution cannot present
evidence to show that the Accused was seen robbing a bank in January to prove that he
robbed the bank in June. The prosecution cannot use the bank robbery in January to prove
that Accused has a propensity to rob banks.
Exceptions: - Similar acts may be received as evidence to prove. SIPPS-HCU
1. A specific intent or knowledge

2. Identity
3. Plan
4. System
5. Scheme
6. Habit
7. Custom
8. usage; and
9. The like.
The prosecution may, however, introduce the robbery in January to prove the robbery in
June to establish a modus operandi: that in both robberies, the robbers used explosives to
gain entry into the bank, that the robbers threw tear gas while wearing gas masks; and that the
robbers struck at the close of bank hours.
NOTE:
Rule 130, Sec. 34 is the second branch of the res inter alios acta rule and applies to both
civil and criminal cases
Burden of proof: The offering party must allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct
that might constitute evidence of habit. The examples offered in
evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence must be numerous
enough to base on inference of systematic conduct. Mere similarity
of contracts does not present the kind of sufficiently similar
circumstances to outweigh the danger of prejudice and confusion
(Boston Bank v. Manalo, G.R. No. 158149, 2006)
The general rule is that evidence of other offenses committed by the defendant is
inadmissible. However, such evidence may be admitted where its purpose is to ascertain the
knowledge and intent of the defendant to fix his negligence. Evidence which tends to explain or
establish conduct of the accused or defendant is admissible unless it has no legitimate bearing
on the issue (irrelevant) or where it is merely calculated to prejudice the accused. (US v.
Pineda, G.R. No. L-12858, 1918)
While evidence of another crime is generally not admissible in another prosecution, it is

admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify the defendant as the
perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the scene or in the vicinity
of the crime at the time charged or when it is evidence of a circumstance of a circumstance
connected with the crime. (People v. Irang, G.R. No. L-45179, 1937)
Similar Acts Rule in Special Laws
RAPE SHIELD (SEC. 6, R.A. No. 8505): In prosecutions for rape, evidence of the
complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof, or of his/her reputation shall not
be admitted: (Ateneo, 2019, p. 417)
RULES ON EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESS:

The following pieces of evidence are not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving
alleged sexual child abuse.
a. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engage in other sexual behavior
and
b. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim
Exception: Evidence specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove
that a person, other than the others was the source of the semen, injury, or
other physical evidence (This is admissible). (Ateneo, 2019, p. 420)
Section 35. Unaccepted offer. — An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a
written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the
actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (49a)
5. Testimonial Knowledge
Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A witness
can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules. (30a)
MEANING OF HEARSAY
Any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not
based on the personal knowledge of the witness, but on the knowledge of some other person
not on the witness stand. (Regalado 2018 ed) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 420)
The term “hearsay” as used in the law on evidence , signifies evidence which is not
founded upon the personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited and which
consequently does not depend wholly for its credibility and with a weight upon the confidence
which the court may have in him; it's value , if any , is measured by the credit to be given to
some third person at sword as a witness to the fact , and consequently , not subjected to cross
examination . If one therefore testifies two facts which he learned from a third person not
sworn a witness to those facts his testimony is inadmissible as hearsay evidence. (Ateneo, 2019, p.
420)
Elements of Hearsay Evidence
1. There must be an out-of-court statement, whether oral or written, aura conduct

intended as an assertion, and
2. The statement made out of court is repeated and offered by the witness to prove the
truth of the matters asserted by the statement.
Form of Hearsay Evidence
a. verbal or,
b. in writing.
REASONS FOR EXCLUSION OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE

1. deprived of his right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the
statements or writings are attributed. (Regalado 2008 ed.)
2. deprived of the right or opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the
statements are attributed (People of the Philippines v. Victor P. Padit, G.R. No
202978 2016)
3. failure to object to hearsay evidence (Regalado 2008 ed. Citing People v. Ola G.R.
No. L-47417, 1987)
HEARSAY STATEMENTS MAY BE THE BASIS OF PROBABLE CAUSE
Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is

substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining

probable cost in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary
and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties period (Estrada v.
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140- 41, 2015) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 421)
General Rule- A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception. (Ateneo, 2019, p.
421)
Exceptions under Rule 130 (C) (6), Sec. 37-47)
1. Dying declaration
2. Declaration against interest
3. Act under declaration about the pedigree
4. Reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
5. Common reputation
6. Part of the res gestae
7. Entries in the course of business
8. Entries in the official records
9. Commercial waste and the like
10. Learned treatises
11. Testimonies or disposition at a former trial
NOTE: The list is not exclusive. There are other exemptions in the special law and
jurisprudence.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE IN CHILD ABUSE
A Statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse , not
otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule , may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or
non-criminal proceedings subject to certain prerequisite . (See Section 28 of Rule on
Examination of Child Witness, A.M. No. 004 -07-SC) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 421)
“REPLY LETTER” RULE
With respect to a letter received as in due course of mail and purporting to come from a
person to whom a letter has previously been sent and to be in reply thereto, A presumption of
fact is indulged in favor of the genuineness of signature in the letter is admissible in evidence
without further authentication. (Anstine v. McWilliams, 163 P .2d 816, 1945) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 421)
General Reasons for the Exceptions
1. Necessity
2. Trustworthiness . (Ateneo, 2019, p. 421)
6. Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule
Section 37. Dying declaration. — The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. (31a)
DYING DECLARATION- Is a statement made by a dying person referring to the material facts
which concern the cause and circumstances of his death and which is uttered under a fixed
belief that death is impending and a certain to follow immediately, or in a very short time,
without an opportunity or retraction and in absence of all hopes of recovery. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 422)
Requisites:
1. That the declaration is made by dying person

2. Declaration concerns the cost in the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
death;

A dying declaration is NOT considered confidential communication between spouses
(U.S. v. Antipolo, G.R. No. L-13109, 1918)
3. Made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness
of impending death;
But that need not follow soon; statements made during a 7-day interval between
stabbing and the victims death that were held to be dying declaration. (People v. Rarugal, G.R.
No. 1 1148, 1997)
‘Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil ko ni kapitan’ meaning ‘Help me Pre I was shot by the captain’
→ dying declaration (Marturillas v. People G.R. No. 163217, 2006)
The fact what does did not ensue until three days after the declaration was made will
not outer it's probative for since it is not indispensable that a declarant expires immediately
thereafter. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death, in point of
fact, that renders the dying declaration admissible. (People v. Sabio, G.R. No. L-26193, 1981)
Where shortly after he was wounded, the victim was asked as to whether he believed
he would die, and replied “I cannot ascertain”- admissible BOTH as part of the res gestae
and as a dying declaration (People v. Gueron, G.R. No. L-45470, 1985)
“I don’t know” – cannot be considered a dying declaration, BUT may be a part of the
res gestae (People v. Laquinon, G.R. No. L-45470, 1985).
4. The Statement was made declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she
survived.
5. The statement must be complete in itself (People v. Viovicente, G.R. No. 118707, 1988)
6. The declarant thereafter died;
7. Dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the
declarant’s death. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 421)
Purposes for Admitting Dying Declaration:
1. To identify the accused

2. To show the cause of death
3. To show the circumstances under which the assault was made upon him
The declaration of the deceased is not admissible as an ante mortem declaration since the
deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or not. The declaration fails to show that the
deceased believed himself in extremis, “at the point of death when every hope of recovery is extinct,
which is the sole basis for admitting this kind of declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule” It
may be admitted, however, as a part of the res gestae since the statement was made immediately
after the incident and the deceased had no sufficient time to concoct a charge against the accused.
(People v. Laquinon, G.R. No. L-45470, 1985)
Dying declaration may be used to corroborate the testimony of witness. (People vs. Ador,
G.R> Nos. 140538-39, 2004) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 423)
Section 38. Declaration against interest.
Requisites for declarations against interest:

1. Declarant must not be available to testify due to death, mental incapacity, or physical
incompetence, or outside the territorial jurisdiction of the country if exact whereabouts are
unknown.
2. The declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the declarant.
3. The circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed.
Scope: the declaration against interest includes all kinds of interest such as pecuniary,
proprietary, or penal interests.

Kinds of declaration Against Interests:
1. Declaration against Pecuniary Interests- those which may bar in whole or in part the
declarant’s interests or which may give rise to a monetary claim against him.
2. Declaration against proprietary Interests- those which are at variance with the declarant’s
property interest.
Declaration against Penal Interests- those which put the declarant at the risk of prosecution. (Ateneo,
2019, p. 423)
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.
PEDIGREE- History of family descent which is transmitted from one generation to

another by both oral and written declaration and traditions.
The word “pedigree” Includes relationship, family, genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
date when and the cases where this fact occurred and the name of the relatives period it
embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. (Rule 130, Sec. 39)
Reasons Admissibility
Declaration reading pedigree, although hearsay, are admitted on the principle that they
are naturally expressions of persons who must know the truth. Pedigree testimony is admitted
because it is the best that the nature of the case admits and because greater evil might arise
from the rejection of such proof than from its admission. (People v. Alegado, G.R. No. 9030-
31, 1991)
Requisites
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify;

2. There is necessity that pedigree be in issue
3. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question;
4. The declaration must be made before the controversy occurred; and
5. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must
be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
NOTE: Where the subject of the declaration is the pedigree of the declarant, it must be shown
by evidence other than such act or
declaration. (Sec. 39, Rule 130 Revised Rules on Evidence)
Rules on Proving Prior Evidence of Relationship for Establishing Pedigree
General Rule: Where the party claiming seeks recovery against a relative common to both
claimant and declarant, but not from declarant himself or the declarant’s estate.
The relationship of the declarant to the common relative may not be proved by the
declaration itself. There must be some independent proof of this fact.
Exception: [Where the party seeks] to reach the state of the declarant himself and not
merely to establish a right through his declaration to the property of some
other family member.
The declaration itself will suffice. (Tison. V. CA, No. 121027, 1997)
In a marriage nullity case, the lack of personal interview of the respondent does
not render hearsay, the psychological report (Camacho-Reyes, G.R. No. 185286, 2010
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 424)
Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.

By Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree is meant such declarations and

statement as have come down from generation to generation from deceased relatives in such
a way that even though it cannot be said or determine which of the deceased relatives
originally made them, yet it appears that such declaration and statement were made as a
family history, ante litem motam, by a deceased person connected by blood or marriage with
the person whose pedigree is to established.
Requisites:
1. There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any member of a family

2. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed previous to
the controversy; and
3. The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person
concerned must be a member of the family of said person either by consanguinity or
affinity. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 424)
SECTION 39 SECTION 40
Act or declaration about pedigree Family reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree
Declarant is deceased or unable to testify Declarant is the witness himself
Witness need not to be a member of the Witness is a member of family
family
Relation of the declarant and the person The witness himself is the one to whom
subject of the inquiry must be established the facts relates; it is not necessary for
by independent evidence him to establish by independent evidence
his relation to his family.
Section 41. Common reputation.
Common reputation existing previous to the controversy expecting facts of public

general interest more than 30 years old , or respecting marriage or moral character , may be
given in evidence . Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence
of common reputation.
Testimony does not constitute common reputation unless such is equivalent to universal
reputation (City of manila v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 1284, 1905)
Common reputation is the definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be
proved is known or exists. It means the general or substantially a
Undivided repetitive is distinguished from partial or qualified one, although it need not
be an animus (Regalado)
What may be Established by Common Reputation
1. Fact of public or general interest more than 30 years old

2. Marriage and related facts
3. Individual Moral character
Requisites for Availability of Common Reputation Respecting Facts of Public or General
Interest:
1. The facts must be of public or general interest

2. The common reputation must have been ancient i.e.. more than 30 years old
3. The reputation must have been formed among a class of person who were in position to
have some source of information and to contribute intelligently to the formation of the
opinion; and
4. The reputation must have been existing previous to the controversy.
Requisites for Admissibility of Common Reputation Respecting Moral Character
1. That it is the reputation in the place where the person in question is best known; and
2. That it was formed previous to the controversy (People v. Alegado, G.R. No. 93030-31
1991)
Common reputation regarding marriage or moral character is not required to be more
than 30 years old (Regalado)
Reputation and Character Distinguished
1. Character- refers to inherit qualities of a person it means that which a person really is.
2. Reputation-applies to the opinion which others may have formed and expressed of his
character. It means that which a person is reputed to be
Under this section the character of a person is permitted to be established by common
reputation. (Regalado)
The character of a certain place as an opium joint can be established by proof of facts
and circumstances including evidence of its common reputation in the community (U.S. vs.
Choa Choink, G.R. No. 12423, 1917) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 426)
Section 42. Part of res gestae.
RES GESTAE is from the Latin meaning “things done”
Res gestae, as an exception to hearsay rule , refers to those exclamations and

statements made by either the participants , victims , or spectators to a crime immediately
before , during , or after the commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that the
statement where made as a spontaneous reaction or uterine sis fired by the excitement of the
occasions and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliver it and to fabricate a false
statement (DBP pool of Accredited Insurance Companies vs. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc.,
G.R. No. 147039 January 27 2006) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 427)
There are two types of res gestae utterance
1. Spontaneous Statements- statements made by a person while a startling assurance is

lacking place or immediately prior or subsequent there too with respect to the
circumstances thereof. The spontaneous or excited utterance is a part of "things done" the
startling occurrence.
Example: A heard a gunshot and saw B holding a gun pointed at C who was
slumped on the ground. C shouted "Please don't kill me" As testimony regarding the
statement made by C maybe deemed part of the res gestae.
2. A verbal act of presupposes a conduct that is equivocal or ambiguous, one which, in itself ,
does not signify a anything when taken separately . It only acquires a meaning, specifically
what the rules call illegal significance, only because of the statement that accompany the
fact.
Example: A gives B, a public officer, 1million pesos. A says that the 1 million pesos
is the loan he is extending to B. In a case for corruption to public officer, A’s statement can
be given as part of the res gestae (Ateneo, 2019, p. 427)
Rationale: Statement made instinctively at the time of some startling event or incident
without the opportunity for formulation of statements favorable to one's own cause cast
important light upon the matter in issue and is presumed truthful. This is the first type of res
gestae statement the event is peeking through the witness and not the witness talking about
the event.
SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS VERBAL ACTS

Res gestae is the startling occurrence Res gestae is the equivocal act
Statements may be made prior, or Verbal act must be contemporaneous
immediately after, the startling occurrence with or must be accompany the equivocal
act
Requisites for admissibility of Spontaneous Statement
1. There must be a startling occurrence ;

2. The statement must be made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a
falsehood; and
3. The statement must concern the occurrence in the question and its immediate attending
circumstances (People v. Estibal., G.R. 208749, 2014) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 427)
It is important to stress that the statement must not only be spontaneous. It must also
be made as at a time when there was no opportunity for the person to concoct or develop his
own story. (People v. Lungayan, G.R. No. L-64556, 1988)
Not every statement made under the startling event is admissible even if it be
spontaneous. The only spontaneous statement made under the stress of excitement of the
startling event that qualifies for admissibility is one that relates to the circumstances of the
event . The statement must describe the event perceived
Requisites for Admissibility of Verbal Acts
1. Act of verbal occurrence

2. Verbal acts must characterized or explain the equivocal act;
3. Equivocal act must be relevant to the issue; and act (Talidano v. Falcolm Maritime &
Allied Services, G.R. No. 172031, 2008) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 428)
Res gestae and Dying Declaration Distinguished (People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 94570, 1994)
RES GESTAE DYING DECLARATION
It is the event itself which is speaking A sense of impending death takes the
through the witness ( People v. Peralta, place of an oath and the law regards the
G.R. No. 94570, 1994) declarant as testifying (People v. Peralta,
G.R. No. 94570, 1994)
A statement as part of the gestae may be Made only by the victim (Regalado)
that the killer himself during or after the
killing or that of a third person (Regalado)
The rule of gestae has its justification in The trustworthiness of the dying
the spontaneity of the statement declaration is based upon its being given
(Regalado) under the awareness of impending
death(Regalado)
It may precede, accompany or follow the Confined to matters surrounding or
events occurring as a part of the principal occurring after the homicidal act (People
act (People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 94570, v. Peralta, G.R. No. 94570, 1994)
1994)
If the statement was made under the influence of a startling event in the declarant did
not have the opportunity to concoct or contrive story , even if made 9 hours after the killing ,
the statement is admissible as part of res gestae. (Regalado) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 427)
Section 43. Entries in the course of business.
Requisites:
1. The person who made the entry (entrant) must be deceased or unable to testify.
2. The entries must have been made to or near the time of the transaction to which they
refer;
3. The entrant must have been in a position to know the fact stated in the entries;

4. The entries must have been made by entrant in his professional capacity or in the
performance of this duty;
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duties. (Ateneo, 2019,
p. 428)
Business Records Exception to Hearsay Rule under the Rules on Evidence and the Business
Records Exception under the Rules on Electronic Evidence Distinguished
UNDER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE UNDER RULES ON ELECTRONIC

EVIDENCE
The person made the entry must be dead The person who made the entry need to
or unable to testify be dead or unable to testify
The entrant/custodian must have Personal knowledge is not required
personal knowledge of the facts stated in
the entries
(See Sec. 43, Rule130, Revised Rules on Evidence & Rules on Electronic Evidence) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 429)
Section 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in official records made in the performance of his
duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (38)
Requisites:
1. That the entry was made by a public officer, or by another person, specially enjoined
by law to do so;
2. That it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other
person in the performance of duty especially enjoined by law; and
3. That the public officer or other person have sufficient knowledge of the facts stated by
him, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official
information(Ateneo, 2019, p. 429)
Proof of Unavailability of Entrant Unnecessary
It is not necessary to show that the person making the entry is unavailable for he is
excused from appearing in court in order that public business be not interrupted. (Ateneo, 2019, p.
429)
Section 43 vs. Section 44

ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
BUSINESS (Sec. 43) (Sec. 44)
The person who made the entries must No similar requirement in Sec. 44
be dead or unable to testify
Needs authentication Need not be authenticated
Best Evidence Rule Exception to Best Evidence Rule (Public
Records
Entries are made pursuant to a duty, Entrant is a public officer, or if a private
either legal, contractual, moral or individual, must have acted pursuant to a
religious specific legal duty
Section 45. Commercial lists and the like.
Requisites of Admissibility
1. It is a statement of matters of interest to persons engage in an application;

2. Such a statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other published
compilation;
3. Said compilation is published for the use of persons engage in that
occupation, AND
4. It is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation (rule
130, section 45)

Examples:
1. Trade journals
2. Table of mortality compiled by life insurance companies
3. Abstract of title compiled by reputable title examining institution or
individual
4. Business directories (Ateneo, 2019, p. 430)
Section 46. Learned treatises.
Requisites:
1. There is a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history law,

science, or art.
2. It is offered to prove the truth as a matter stated therein.
3. The court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies , that
the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet in the subject.
(Rule 130, Sec. 46.)
Learned treatise are admissible only if:
1. The court takes judicial notice that the writer is recognized in his profession as
expert in the subject.
2. A witness who is an expert on the subject testifies that the writer of the statement is
recognized in his profession as expert in the subject. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 431)
Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. — The testimony or deposition of a

witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party
who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. (41a)
Requisites:
1. The witness whose testimony is offered in evidence is dead or unable to testify;

2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative , between the same parties or those representing the same interest (identify
of parties);
3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on
different causes of action (identity of issues ; and
4. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine the witness in the former case. (Riano)
Ateneo, 2019, p. 431)
7. Opinion Rule
Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the
following sections. (42)
General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not admissible.
Exceptions:
1. Opinion of expert witness (Rule 130, Sec. 49)

2. Opinion of ordinary witness (Rule 130, Sec. 50) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 432)
Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to posses, may be received in evidence.
(43a)
Expert

A person who is so qualified either by actual experience or by careful study as to enable
him to form a definite opinion of his own respecting any division of science, art, or trade about
which persons having no particular training are incapable of forming accurate opinions or of
deducing correct conclusions. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 432)
Expert Evidence
It is the testimony of persons who are particularly skilled, or experienced in a particular

art, science, trade, Business, profession, or vocation a thorough knowledge of which is not
possessed by man in general, in regard to matters connected therewith. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 432)
Probative Value of Expert Testimony
The court is not bound by the opinion of an experts such as handwriting expert. Expert
opinion evidence is to be considered or weighed by the court, like any other testimony, in light
of its own general knowledge and experience upon the subject of inquiry ( Dizon v. Tuazon,
G.R. No. 172167, 2008) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 432)
A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the findings of handwriting experts,
because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in
order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. (Lorzano v. Tabayang, G>R. No. 189647, 2012)
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 432)
Where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion is not necessary. The
observations of the trial judge coupled with evidence establishing the person’s state of mental.
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 432)
Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is
given, may be received in evidence regarding —
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;

(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of
a person. (44a)
8. Character Evidence
Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions: —
Character - the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind or morals, distinguishing

him from others.
Character and Reputation Distinguished
CHARACTER REPUTATION
Aggregate of the moral qualities Depends on attributes which others

which belong to and distinguish an believe one to possess. (Riano,
individual person Evidence, 491-492)
General Rule: character is not admissible in evidence.(Rule 130 Sec 51)
Reason:
The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally relevant in
determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the
issue in the case were allowed to be influenced by evidence of the character or reputation of
the parties, the Trion would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contact rather Than a
factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the business of the court is to have
righteous cause.( People v. Lee, G. R. No. 139070 2002) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 434)

CRIMINAL CASES
As To the character of the accused-
1. The Accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charge.
Example: the accused in a murder case may present evidence that he has, a
reputation for being a peaceful person.
2. The prosecution may prove his bad moral character pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged in rebuttal
In rebuttal, the prosecution may present evidence that the accused has
our reputation for being a quarrelsome person.
As to the character of the offended party
The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it
tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the
offense charged. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 433)
Example: In a murder case, the accused, in self-defense, can present evidence

that the offended party ( the victim) was of a quarrelsome disposition.
CIVIL CASES
Civil Cases Rule 130 Section 51(b)
Evidence of the moral of party in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent
to the issue of character involved in the case.
General Rule: the character of our to a civil Case is not a proper subject of inquiry.
Exception: In cases where, because of the nature of the action, the character becomes
a matter in issue. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 434)
RULE 131
Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts
in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. (1a,
2a)
Burden Of Proof
Burden of proof is the study of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
(Rule 131, Sec 1) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 434)
Presumption- is an inference as to the existence or non-existence of a fact which quarts are

permitted to draw from the proof of other facts. (In the Matter of the Intestate Estates of
Dellgado v. Heirs of Marciana, G.R. No. 192391, 2017)

A presumption of an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which
requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or otherwise established in
the action. (Estate of Honorio Poblador, jr. v. Manzano, G.R. No. 192391, 2017)
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 434)
The meaning of the right of presumption of innocence
The right means that the presumption must be overcome by evidence of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
1. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt means that there is moral certainty as to the
guilt of the accused
2. Accusation is not synonymous to guilt—conviction should then be based on
the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not the weakness of the
defense
Rationale:
There ought to be a balance between the machineries of the State and the accused
Exceptions to the constitutional presumption of innocence
1. If there is a REASONABLE CONNECTION between the fact

presumed and the fact ultimately proven from such fact.
Example: an accountable public officer who fails to account for funds or

property that should be in his custody is presumed to be
guilty of malversation of public funds; or that persons in
possession of recently stolen goods are presumed guilty of
the offense in connection with the goods.
2. In cases of SELF-DEFENSE, the person who invokes the self-defense is

presumed guilty. The burden of proving the elements of self-defense is incumbent
upon the accused.
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify
it:
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of
the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (3a)
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted,

but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
A person is equally liable for all the consequences arising from his criminal act, and
which are inherent therein,; for example such complication as may arise and which are not
due to circumstances completely foreign to the act committed, or from the fault or carelessness
of the injured party. (U.S. v. Monasterial, G.R. no L-5098, 1909) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 436)
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
In order that the presumption in par. € may arise, it is necessary;
a. That the evidence is material (Cuyugan v. Dizon, G.R. NO. L-208, 1947);

b. That the party had the opportunity to produce the same (People V. Balansag
G.R. No. L-41568, 1934); and
c. That the said evidence is available only to said party (People v. tulale, (7 Phil.
953 [unreported case]
The adverse presumption of suppression of evidence does not arise when:
1. The suppression is not willful;

2. The evidence withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative;
3. The evidence is at the disposal of both parties and
The suppression is an exercise of a privilege (People v. Navaja, G.R. No. 1040444,

1993). (Ateneo, 2019, p. 436)
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced;
See, in connection with par. (i), The provisions of Art. 1176, Civil Code, which also lays
down the presumption that interest has been paid if the principal is received by the creditor
without reservation. (REGALADO), p.823) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 436)
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is
the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
The application of this disputable presumption is limited to cases where such

possession is either unexplained or that the offered explanation is rendered impossible in view
of index [pendent evidence thereto. (People v. Urzais, G.R. No.207662, 2016; Panaligan v.
Phyvita Enterprises Corporation, G,R, No. 2020886, 2017) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 437)
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money, or the
delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in
the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed
upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for
arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was
overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;
For the presumption to arise, it must be proved that:
-The letter was properly addressed with postage pre-paid; and

-That it was actually mailed Barcelon, Roxas securities v. CIR, G.R. No. 157064,
2006)
If said letter was not returned to the sender, it is presumed that it was received by the
addressee (Sebastian v. WCC, et al., L-42587, 1978

(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still
lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his
succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of
seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his
succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of
the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is
missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the
vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and
has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and
whose existence has not been known for four years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the
spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-
founded belief that the absent spouse is already death. In case of
disappearance, where there is a danger of death the circumstances
hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be
sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However,
in any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a
summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the
effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable
to the law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
nature habits of life;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into
a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each
other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit
of marriage or under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts,
work or industry.
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry
each other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding
shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within
three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall
govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the
termination of the former marriage.
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the
termination of the former marriage.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the
nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public
authority, was so printed or published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in
tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such
cases;
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular
person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect
the title of such person or his successor in interest;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity,
such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are
no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is
determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes,
according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have
survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to
have survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is
deemed to have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed
each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the
other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to
have died at the same time. (5a) (RBSI,2011, 444)
Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. — There is no presumption of legitimacy of a

child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the
spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation. (6)
RULE 132
Presentation of Evidence
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 1 to 18 will be discussed in COURT TESTIMONY subject
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
Authentication- is the process of proving the due execution and genuineness of the
document.
In order to be admissible in evidence, the objects sought to be offered must be

authenticated. That is, it must be shown to have been the very thing that is the subject matter
of the lawsuit or the very one involved to prove and issue in the case.
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENTS - A deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which

something is proved, evidenced or set forth (US v. Orera, GR No.
3810,1907) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 449)
Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents
are either public or private.
Public documents are:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of
a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to
the entered therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)
Private vs. Public Documents
PUBLIC DOCUMENT PRIVATE DOCUMENT
Admissible without further proof as to its due Before admitted in evidence as

execution and genuineness (Riano, Evidence authentic, it's due execution and
172, 2016 citing Kummer v. People, GR No. authenticity must be proved(Rule
174461, 2013) 132,Sec.20
Evidence even against a third parties of the Bind only the parties and privies
fact which gave rise to its due execution and to writing as to the due execution and
the date of the latter date of the document.
Last will and testament are considered private documents EVEN IF notarized (Riano, 2016, p.
167).
Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)
A private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private

person without the intervention of anna terry or other person legally authorized by which some
disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. ( Patula v. People, G.R. No/ 164457, 2012)
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 450)
Last will and testament are considered private documents EVEN IF notarized (Riano, 2016,
p. 169)).
The manner of authenticating a document, required by Sec 20 of Rule 132, applies only
when a private document is offered as authentic as when it is offered to prove that the
document was truly executed by the person. Purported to have made the same. Otherwise,
only identification is necessary (Riano, 2016, p. 169)
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a private
document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be
found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other
evidence of its authenticity need be given. (22a)
Church registries of births marriages, and death made subsequent to the

promulgation of general orders No 68 promulgated on December 18 1889, and the passage of
Act No190, enacted on August 7 1901, are no longer public writings, no are duly authorized
public officials. They are private writings and their authenticity, must, therefore, be proved ,
as are all other private writings in accordance with the rules of evidence (Riano ,Evidence,
179, 2016 citing Liemos v. G.R. No 150162, 2007) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 450)
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved.
The handwriting of a person may be proved

1. Any witnesses who believes it to be the handwriting of such person
because;
a. He has seen the person write; or
b .He has seen writing purporting to be is upon which the witness has
acted or been charged; and
c. Has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person;
2. By a comparison, made by the witness admitted; or
3. Treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered; or
4. Proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (Rule 132, Sec 22)
Evidence of Genuineness of Handwriting

1. Testimony of the writer;
2. Testimony of a witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument
whether the witness attested to the instrument or not
3. Testimony of a witness who is sufficiently familiar with handwriting such
witness can give an opinion or can make a comparison of questioned handwriting
and admitted genuine specimen. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 452)
Note: Expert testimony on handwriting is not mandatory (Riano, 2016, p.171)
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of entries in public records
made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (24a)
Public documents are admissible without further proof of their genuineness into
execution.
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by
a public officer are prima facie evidence of the fact there in stated. This is a hearsay exception.
All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person of the fact which
give rise to their execution and of the date of the latter( Rule 132, Sec 23)
Proof of Official Record
The record of public documents referred to a paragraph (a) of Section 19 ( the written
official acts, or records of the official act of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, weather of the Philippines, or of a foreign country) when admissible for any
purpose may be evident by:
1. An official publication thereof; or\

2. By copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy; and
3. If the record is not get in the Philippines, the attestation should be accompanied
with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
In the office in which the record is kept is a foreign country:
1. The certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legislation, consul

general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record
is kept; and
2. Authenticated by the seal of his office (Rule 132, Sec 14 )
Section 24. Proof of official record.
Public documents are admissible without further proof of their genuineness into execution.
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a

public officer are prima facie evidence of the fact there in stated. This is a hearsay exception.
All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person of the fact which give rise
to their execution and of the date of the latter( Rule 132, Sec 23)
Proof of Official Record
The record of public documents referred to a paragraph (a) of Section 19 ( the written
official acts, or records of the official act of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, weather of the Philippines, or of a foreign country) when admissible for any
purpose may be evident by:
1. An official publication thereof; or

2. By copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy; and
3. If the record is not get in the Philippines, the attestation should be accompanied
with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
In the office in which the record is kept is a foreign country:
1. The certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legislation, consul general,
consul, vice consul, Or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept; and
2. Authenticated by the seal of his office (Rule 132, Sec 24 ) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 452)
Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a
correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be
under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a
seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public record, an official copy of which is
admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of
a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case.
(27a)
Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a private
document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian
of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (28a)
Section 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of
an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is
found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is
admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. (29)
Section 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or (c) fraud in
the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (30a)
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.
(31a)
Notarial document, except last will and testament, are public documents and are
evidence of the facts that give rise to their execution and of their date(Siguan v.Lim G.R. No
134685, 1999)

A public document duly acknowledged before and notary public, under his hand and
seal with his certificate thereto attached is admissible in evidence without further proof of it's
due execution and delivery until some question is raised as to the verify of said
acknowledgement and certificate (Allison v. Barcelona G.R. No 12483 1917) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 453)
Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. — The party producing a document as genuine
which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the
question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may show that the alteration was made by
another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was
otherwise properly or innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of
the instrument. If he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. (32a)
The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been
altered after its execution, in a part material to the question is dispute, must account for the
alteration)
How a party may account for such alteration?
He may show that:
1. The alteration was made by another, without his concurrence; or

2. It was made with the consent of the parties affected by it;; or
3. It was otherwise properly or innocently made; or
4. The alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument
If he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence (Rule 132, Sec 31)
(Ateneo, 2019, p. 454)
Section 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents
insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a)
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. — Documents written in an unofficial

language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or
Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have such
translation prepared before trial. (34a)
B. OFFER AND OBJECTION
Sec. 34 to 40 will form part on “Court Testimony” subject
RULE 133
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (RULE 133)

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE FOR WHICH CASES
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Criminal Cases
(Rule 133, Sec. 2)
Clear and Extradition cases
Convincing Evidence Charges filed against judges
(Gov’t of HK v. and justices
Olalia, G.R No.
153675, 2007)
Preponderance of Civil cases
Evidence
(Rule 133, Sec. 1
Substantial Administrative Cases,
Evidence Quasi-Judicial Bodies, Wri
(Rule 133, Sec, 5) of
Degree of Proof That Satisfies the Burden of Proof

Civil Cases – Preponderance of evidence
The plaintiff has to establish his case by preponderance of evidence. If he claims

a right granted or created by law, he must prove such right. (Sps. Guidangen v. Wooden
G.R. No. 174445, 2012)
Criminal Cases –
a) To Sustain Conviction – Guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

b) To file an Information- probable cause – engenders a well-founded belief of the fact
of the commission of a crime, and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial.
c) Issuance of warrant of arrest – probable cause (i.e., that there is reasonable ground
to believe that a criminal offense has been committed and that the accused
committed the offense).
d) To deny bail when discretionary – when the evidence of guild is strong
e) To accept plea of guilty to a capital offense. That the consequences of his plea
f) To grant demurrer to evidence – the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The prosecution has to prove its affirmative allegations in the information (i.e., the
elements of the crime as well as the attendant circumstances); while the defense has to prove
its affirmative allegations regarding the existence of justifying or exempting circumstances,
absolutory causes or mitigating circumstances.
Hierarchy of Evidence
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

2. Clear and convincing evidence
3. Preponderance of evidence
4. Substantial evidence
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined.
Factors which the court may consider in determining where the preponderance or
superior weight of evidence lies:
1. All the facts and circumstances of the case;

2. The witnesses
 Manner of testifying
 Their intelligence
 Their means and opportunities of knowing the facts to which they are testifying;
 The nature of the facts to which they testify;
 The probability or importability of their testimony
 Their interest or want of interest;
 Personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon trial.
3. The number of witnesses (though preponderance is not necessarily with the greater
number.) (Rule 133, Sec. 1) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 462)
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance
of evidence. (Rule 133, Sec. 1)
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish case by
preponderance of evidence, or that evidence which is of greater weight or is more convincing
than that which is an opposition to it. (BPI v. Reyes, G.R. 157177, 2008)
It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one side is more
believable that of the other side, and that the probability of truth is on one side than or the
other. (Rivera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115625, 1998)

Land Bank failed to prove that the amount allegedly “miscredited” to Onate’s account
came from the proceeds of the pre-terminated loans of its clients, it is worth emphasizing that
in civil cases, the party making the allegations has the burden of proving them by
preponderance of evidence. Mere allegation is not sufficient. (Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Emmanuel C. Onate, G.R. No. 192371, 2014)
Positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill
motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over a denial which, if not
substantial by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence
undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the
testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. (People v. Caballero Y
Garsola, G.R. No. 210673, 2016)
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as excluding the
possibility of error, produces absolute certainly.
Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind, (Rule 133, Sec. 2)
Requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt necessarily means that mere
suspicion of the guilt of the accused, no matter how strong, should now sway judgement
against him. It further means that the courts should duly consider every evidence favoring him;
and that in the process, the courts should persistently insist that accusation is not synonymous
with guilt; hence, every circumstance favoring his innocence should be fully taken into account,
without the proof of his guilt being beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused herein was not overcome. (People v. Claro, G.R. No. 19994,
2017) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 460)
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief
or convictions as to allegations sought to be established. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5 th
ed., 596)
Clear and convincing evidence is evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is
highly probable or reasonably certain.
This is greater burden than preponderance of evidence, the standard applied in most
civil trials, but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the norm for criminal
trials. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed., 596)
An accused who invokes self-defense must prove it by clear and convincing evidence.
(Guevarra v. People, G.R. No. 170462, 2014)
In extradition cases, the potential extradite must prove by “clear and convincing
evidence” that he is not a fight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of
the extradition court.(Gov’t of HK v. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675, 2007)
The rule is that charges of misconduct against judges should be proven by clear and
convincing evidence, otherwise they should be dismissed. (Pesole v. Rodriguez, A.M.
No. 755-MJ, 1978) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 461)
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. — An extrajudicial confession
made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence
of corpus delicti. (3)
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for

conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstances;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. (5)
To be clear, then, circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct

testimony would ultimately lead to setting a felon free. The rules of Court makes no distinction
between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances form which the existence of a
fact may be inferred; hence, no greater degree of certainly is required when the evidence is
circumstantial than when it is direct.
In either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt
of the accused. Nor has the quantity of circumstantial sufficient to convict an accused been
fixed as to be reduced into some definite standard to be followed in every instance. (People v.
Magbitang, G.R. No. 175592, 2016)
Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact
may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)
In cases filed before administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Rule 133, Sec. 5)
As in all administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary in election cases is

substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate
to support a conclusion. (Sabili v. Comelec, G.R. No. 193621, 2012) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 462)
Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The court may stop the introduction of
further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more
witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this
power should be exercised with caution. (6)
Section 7. Evidence on motion. — When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court
may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court
may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (7)
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)
SCOPE; COVERAGE; MEANING OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE; ELECTRONIC DATE MESSAGE
Scope and Coverage
The Rules on Electronic Evidence (FREE) shall apply whenever an electronic document or
electronic data message as defined in these rules is offered or used in evidence. (FREE, Rule
1 Sec. 1)

These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and
administrative cases. (FREE, Rule 1 Sec. 2)
Applicability to Criminal Actions
As to the admissibility of the text messages, the RTC admitted them in conformity with the
Court’s earlier Resolution applying the Rules on Electronic Evidence to criminal actions.
(People v. Enojas, G.R No. 204894, 2014)
Electronic Document – information or the representation of information, data, figures,

symbols, or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a
right is established or an obligation extinguished or by which a fact may be proved and
affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 462)
It includes digitally signed documents and any print-our or output, reasonable by sight or
other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document.
(FREE, Rule 2, Sec. 1(h))
Electronic Data Message- information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic,

optical or similar means, (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1(g))
A facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the

functional equivalent of an original under the Best of Evidence Rule and is not
admissible as electronic evidence. (MCC v. Ssangyong, G.R No. 170633, 2007)
Note: For purposes of these Rules, the term “electronic document” may be used
interchangeably with electronic data message”. (FREE, Rule 2 Sec. 1 (h)
Electronic evidence as functional equivalent of paper base documents
Whenever the rule of evidence refers the term writing, document, record, instrument,
memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an
electronic document as defined in these Rules. (REE, Rule 3, Sec. 1)
PROBATIVE VALUE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT;

METHOD OF PROOF
Admissibility
An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:
1. It complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and
related law; and
2. It is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. (REE, Rule 3, Sec. 2)
Best Evidence Rule under the REE
An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document

under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately. (REE, Rule 4, Sec. 1)
When copies or duplicates of a document shall be regarded as original:
1. It is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical
contents; or

2. It is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from
the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic recording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces
the original
Such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.

(REE, Rule 4, Sec. 2)
Note: Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to

the same extent as the original if; (REE, Rule 4, Sec. 2)
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 the copy in
lieu of the original.
Factors in Determining Evidentiary Weight of Electronic Evidence (REE, Rule 7, Sec.

1-2)
In assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic document, the following factors may
be considered: (FREE, Rule 7, Sec. 1)
1. The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or
communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures, controls,
test and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or
document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any relevant agreement;
2. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
3. The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is recorded
or stored, including but not limited to the hardware and computer programs or
software used as well as programming errors;
4. The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the
communication and information system;
5. The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and
information system upon which the electronic document was based; or
6. Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity
of the electronic document or electronic data message.
In any dispute involving integrity of the information and communication system which an
electronic document or electronic data message is recorded or stored, the court may consider,
among others, the following factors: (REE, Rule 7, Sec. 2)
1. Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was
operated in a manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document, and
there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and
communication system; (Ateneo, 2019, p. 463)
2. Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the
proceedings with interest adverse to that party using it; or
3. Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary
course of business by a person who is not a party to the proceedings and who did
not act under the control of the party using it.
Method of Proof
Affidavit Evidence- all matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an
electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating fact of:
a. direct personal knowledge of the affiant; or

b. based on authentic records
The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of affiant to testify on the matters
contained therein. (REE, Rule 9, Sec. 2)
Examination of Witnesses
Electronic Testimony – after summarily hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of

these Rules, the court may authorized the presentation of testimonial evidence by
electronic means. Before so authorizing , the court shall determine the necessity for
such presentation and prescribe terms and conditions as may be necessary under
the circumstances, including the protection of the rights of the parties and witnesses
concerned.(REE, Rule 10, Sec. 1)
Transcript of electronic testimony – when examination of a witness is done

electronically, the entire proceedings, including the questions and answers, shall be
transcribed by a stenographer, stenotypist or other recorder authorized for the purpose,
who shall certify as correct the transcript done by him. The transcript should reflect the
fact that the proceedings, either in whole or in part had been electronically recorded.
(REE, Rule 10, Sec. 2).
AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
Authenticating of Electronic Documents (REE, Rule 5, Section 1 to 3)
Burden of providing authenticity
The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal

proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in
this Rule. (REE, Rule 5, Sec. 1)
Manner of authentication
Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in

evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means: (REE,
Rule 5, Sec. 2).
1. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to

have signed the same;
2. By evidence that other appropriate security procedure or devices as may
be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of
electronic documents were applied to the document; or
3. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of
the judge/
Proof of electronically notarized document
A document electronically notarized In accordance with the rules promulgated by

the supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial
document under the Rules of Court. (REE, Rule 5, Sec. 3)
Authentication of Electronic Signature
An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticated in the manner

prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the
signature of a person on a written document. (REE, Rule 6, Sec. 1)
An electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the following manner:

(REE, Rule 6, Sec. 2)
1. By evidencing that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital

signature and verify the same;
2. By any other means provided by law; or
3. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of
the electronic signature. (Ateneo, 2019, p. 464)
BUSINESS RECORDS AS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE(REE, RULE 8,

SECTION 1 AND 2)

A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions,
opinions or diagnoses made by electronic, optical or other similar means in an
exception to the hearsay rule provided that the following are shown by the testimony of
the custodian or other qualified witness:
1. That it was made at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of

information;
2. That it was made by a person with knowledge thereof;
3. That it was kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity; and
4. That such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or
data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means (REE, Rule 8, Sec. 1)
This exception (to the hearsay rule) may be overcome by evidence of the
untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the
preparation, transmission or storage thereof. (REE, Rule 8, Sec. 2)
AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE
Ephemeral Electronic Communication – refers to telephone conversations,

test messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
(REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1(k))
Text messages have been classified as “ephemeral electronic

communication” under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
and “shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same
or has personal knowledge thereof.” (Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-
20-P, 2005)
Admissibility (REE, Rule 11, Section 1 and 2)
Audio, photographic and video evidence
Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be

admissible provided: (REE, Rule 11, Sec. 1)
1. It shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court; and

2. It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy
thereof
Ephemeral electronic communications
Ephemeral evidence shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a

party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof.
In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence

may be admitted.
A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic

communication shall be covered by the immediately preceding section
Note: if the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document,

then the provisions of Rule 5 on authentication of electronic documents shall apply. (REE, Rule
11, Sec. 2) (Ateneo, 2019, p. 465)
References:
Libayan, Randolf B. batanatin.com
Melo, Jorge Alfonso, C, & Lim, Leila S. (2019). ATENEO BAR CENTRAL OPERATIONS
2019.
Rex Book Store, Inc. Editorial Staff (2011). Rules of Court. Published and Distributed by
REX Book Stor 858, Nicanor Reyes Sr. St. Manila, Philippines
Riano, Willard B. (2016). EVIDENCE (The Bar Lecture Series). Published and Distributed
by REX Book Store 858, Nicanor Reyes Sr. St. Manila, Philippines
Suarez, Melissa Romana P. & de la Banda, Gil A. (2006). EVIDENCE. A Lawyer’s

Companion. Published and Distributed by CENTRAL BOOKS SUPPLY, INC. 927
Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines

No Sec. Evidence Learning Materials

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

No Sec. Evidence Learning Materials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rules on Evidence 1

The Truth (Libayan, batasnatin.com)

Distinction between Proof and Evidence

BURDEN OF PROOF VS. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE (Ateneo, p. 372, 2019)

Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence

2021 edition (vicdel)

Civil Cases Criminal Cases

Factum Probandum and Factum Probans (Libayan, batasnatin.com)

a. Factum Probandum refers to the ultimate fact to be proven, or the proposition to be

Classification of Evidence (Libayan, batasnatin.com)

Important considerations on circumstantial evidence

b) Per the Supreme Court: it is essential that the circumstantial evidence

2021 edition (vicdel)

- evidence that affirms the occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as

- negative when the evidence denies the occurrence of an event or existence

e. Primary (Best) Evidence

- the original of a contract is the best evidence as to its contents

2021 edition (vicdel)

- that which, standing alone and uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the

- additional evidence of the same kind bearing on the same point.

- additional evidence of a different kind or character but tending to prove the

Waiver of the Rules of Evidence

The rules of evidence may be waived. When an otherwise objectionable

When the waiver amounts to a transgression of the law, principles of

The failure to object to the illegality of a warrantless arrest does not

2021 edition (vicdel)

When evidence is NOT Required

QUESTION OF LAW AND QUESTION OF FACT

Question When doubt or controversy

2021 edition (vicdel)

What constitutes RELEVANT evidence?

a. Material – evidence offered upon a matter properly in issue. It is

Competency – facts having rational probative value are admissible unless

Importance of Admissibility in relation to offer and objection.

a. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Literally means “false of one, false in everything” (Dawson v.

It is not an absolute rule of law and is, in fact, rarely applied in

Alibi is inherently weak and must be rejected when the identity of

The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-serving

2021 edition (vicdel)

The defense of frame-up is viewed with disfavor as it can easily be

d. Delay and initial reluctance in reporting a crime

Delayed in reporting by witnesses of what they know about a crime

e. Flight or non-flight of the accused

Non-flight cannot be singularly considered as evidence or a manifestation

Principles which exclude relevant or material evidence:

a.2. The principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly provided for by the

2021 edition (vicdel)

b.1. Evidence will be excluded if it was gained through evidence uncovered in

b.2. It is an offshoot of the Exclusionary Rule which applies to primary

b.2.1. The poisonous tree is the evidence seized in an illegal arrest,

b.2.2. It is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the

A suspect was forced to make a confession where he revealed he

Evidence Excluded by the Constitution

a.1. evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable search

2021 edition (vicdel)

2.1.1. the security personnel or house detectives of hotels or

2.2. However, by way of exception, the rule of incompetency applies if

B. Exclusion by Certain Rules of Evidence

a. Multiple Admissibility: when a material is asked by a party to be admitted as

Multiple admissibility may mean either

1. Examples of the first concept: (a) a knife may be admitted to