Remedial Law Review

Evidence

Text, Notes and Cases

Compiled by Rehne Gibb N. Larena | JD-NT-4 | AY 2020-21 | University of San Carlos

 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

TABLE OF CONTENTS Electronic document 41

Judicial Notice 21
Object Electronic Evidence 41
When mandatory 21
De inition of Terms and General Principles 4 Ephemeral Electronic Communication 41
When discretionary 21
Evidence as de ined 4
When hearing necessary 22 Parol Evidence Rule 42
Evidence and Proof 4
Parol evidence rule and its exceptions 42
Factum Probandum and Factum Probans 5 Judicial Admissions 22
Instances where Parol Evidence Rule Does Not Apply 45
Classi ication of Evidence 5
Legal Presumptions 24 Distinction between Best Evidence Rule and Parol Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence and its Requisites 7 Conclusive Presumptions 24 Rule 46
Wigmore’s Two (2) axioms of admissibility 7 Estoppel by deed 24
Witnesses 46
Relevancy 8 Estoppel against tenants 25
Disquali ications 47
Competency 8 Disputable Presumptions 25
Executive Privilege 49
Cybercrime Warrants 8 Presumption of Normalcy 26
Testimonial Privilege 49
Exclusionary Rules Under the 1987 Constitution 9 Presumption of Self-preservation 26
Parental and Filial 49
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizure and the Right Presumption of Ownership 27
Trade Secrets 49
to Privacy 9 Presumption caused by Willful Suppression 27
Newsman’s Privilege 49
Exceptions to the Search Warrant Requirement 9 Presumption of Death 28
Seizure of Evidence in Plain View 9 Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings 29 Extrajudicial Admissions and Confessions 49
Search incident to a lawful arrest 10 Presumption against the accused in criminal cases 29 Admissions Against Interest 50
Terry Search 10 Compromises 50
Consented Search 11 Object Evidence 29
Res Inter Alios Acta Rule 51
Checkpoint Search 11 Real Object Evidence 29
Similar Acts or Previous Conduct Rule 52
Right of Persons under Custodial Investigation or the Miranda Demonstrative object evidence 29
Rights 11 Scienti ic evidence; requisites for admissibility 30 Hearsay Evidence Rule 52
Right Against Self-incrimination 12 Polygraph or lie detector test 30 Concept of Hearsay Evidence 52
Exclusionary Rules Under Special Laws 14 Handwriting Examination 30 Independently Relevant Statement 53
Documentary Stamp Tax 14 Rule on DNA Evidence 30 Exceptions to Hearsay Evidence Rule 54
Secrecy of Bank Deposits 14 Paraf in Test 31 Dying Declaration 54
Anti-Wire Tapping Act 15 Chain of Custody in Drugs Cases 32 Dead-man Statute 54
Anti VAWC 16 Declaration Against Interest 55
Best Evidence Rule 34
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act 17 Act or Declaration about Pedigree 56
Documentary evidence 35
Human Security Act 17 Family Tradition or Reputation Regarding Pedigree 56
Original document 35
Data Privacy Act 18 Common Reputation 57
The “Best Evidence Rule” and its exceptions 36
Principle of Multiple Admissibility 20 Res gestae 57
Secondary Evidence 37
Principle of Conditional Admissibility 20 Records of Regular Business Activities 58
Electronic Commerce Act 38
Principle of Curative Admissibility 20 Entries in the Of icial Records 58
Rules on Electronic Evidence 39
Commercial Lists 59

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 2 of 68

 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

Learned Treatises 59 Proof of notarial documents 66

Prior Testimony 59 Alteration in document 66
Residual Exceptions⭐ 60 Documentary evidence in an unof icial language 66
Privilege Relating to Trade Secrets ⭐ 60
Offer and Objection 66
Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Case 60
When to make offer of evidence 66
Hearsay Rule in Writ of Amparo Cases 60
Objection 66
Effect if hearsay evidence is not objected to 60
When repetition of objection unnecessary 66
Opinion Rule 60 Ruling 66
General Rule 60 Striking out of answer 66
Exceptions 60 Tender of Excluded Evidence 67

Character Evidence 61 Weight and Suf iciency of Evidence 67

General Rule 61 Preponderance of evidence 67
Exceptions 61 Proof beyond reasonable doubt. 67
Substantial evidence 67
Burden of Proof and of Evidence 62
Circumstantial evidence 67
Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings 62
Weight to be given opinion of expert witness 68
Presumption against an accused in criminal cases 62
Power of the court to stop further evidence 68
Presentation of Evidence 62 Evidence on motion 68
Examination of Witnesses 62
Rights and obligations of witnesses 63
Order in the examination of an individual witness 63
Impeachment of adverse party witness 63
Hostile and Adverse Party Witness 63
Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses 64
When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence 64
Authentication and Proof of Documents 64
Proof of Private Documents 64
Ancient Document Rule 64
How to prove genuineness of handwriting 65
Public document as evidence 65
Proof of Of icial Record 65
Proof of record of private document 66
Proof of lack of record 66
How to impeach judicial record 66

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 3 of 68

 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

COURSE MATERIALS: Primary course materials are: (2) Familiarize with the various classi ications of Evidence and The rules on evidence do not strictly apply in the proceedings
distinguish one from the other; before non-judicial proceedings, but only by analogy or in a
(a) Laws and Rules:
(3) Distinguish evidence from other related legal concepts such as proof, suppletory character, whenever practicable and convenient.
(1) The Rules of Court, particularly the Revised Rules on factum probans, and factum probandum
Evidence (Rule 128-133); See cases of Jinggoy Estrada v. Ombudsman, and PDIC v. Casimiro.
(2) The Bill of Rights under the 1987 Constitution, particularly the
These cases involve criminal complaints iled with the Of ice of the
provisions governing the Rights of the Accused under Custodial A. Evidence as defined
Ombudsman and subjected to the required Preliminary
Investigation, Right Against Self-Incrimination, Right Against
Section 1 Rule 128. Evidence de ined. — Evidence is the means, Investigations. Respondents objected to admission of hearsay
Unreasonable Search and Seizure, and Inviolability of the sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the evidence as per the Rules of Court.
Privacy and Communication; truth respecting a matter of fact.
(3) Various special laws and rules which provide for evidentiary SC ruled that the objections are improper since the rules on evidence
rules such as: do not apply in proceedings before the Ombudsman.
B. Evidence and Proof
a. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
Proof is not evidence itself. There is proof only because of
b. Rules on Electronic Evidence In appearing before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, be
evidence. It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the
c. Rule on DNA Evidence acquainted instead of their respective rules of procedure.
consideration of persuasion of the mind resulting from a
d. Anti-Wiretapping Act
consideration of the evidence. Not all types of judicial proceedings are governed by the rules on
e. Human Security Act
evidence, though. As per Rule 1 Sec 4, these Rules shall not apply
f. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act Proof is the effect or result of evidence, while evidence is the
to:
g. Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits medium of proof.
h. The Data Privacy Act (a) election cases,
Evidence has been de ined as the means, sanctioned by the Rules of
i. IRR of Data Privacy Act (b) land registration,
Court, of ascertaining in judicial proceedings the truth affecting a matter
i. The Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of (c) cadastral,
of fact.
Criminal Cases (d) naturalization and
The following are its CHARACTERISTICS: (e) insolvency proceedings.
j. Rules on Cybercrime Warrants
(1) It is a means, medium or tool; Take the case of Ong Chia v. Republic, GR No 127240, 27 Mar 2000
Distinguish evidence from proof. Evidence refers to the means used
NB: Codal provisions are already derived from the 2019 Proposed Involves a petition for naturalization iled by a Chinaman. Ong Chia
to obtain the required quantum of proof. Proof is the persuasion or
Amendments of the Revised Rules on Evidence or A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC. presented a truckload of evidence to support his petition that he
conviction formed in the mind of the court resulting from
Please note of the following: possesses all of the quali ications and none of the disquali ications
consideration of evidence.
(a) This is an amendment; under the law.
(2) Should be sanctioned by the Rules;
(b) An entirely new provision. The public prosecutor representing the Republic refused to
Not all information presented to the Court amounts to evidence if controvert the evidence of Ong Chia. Thus, the Court granted the
not sanctioned by the Rules, regardless of its truthfulness. petition. OSG appealed to the CA presenting for the irst time pieces of
Getting Started
This refers to the requirement of competency. Evidence must not evidence to controvert Ong Chia.
be excluded by the Rules, Constitution or some special law.
De inition of Terms and General Principles Ong Chia objected to the admission of such evidence because under
Take for example, chismis. They may be juicy, but are excluded the Rules, the court can not consider evidence not formally offered
Study Guide: under the hearsay rule. Sad. and such offer must have been made during the trial.
(1) Know the legal de inition of Evidence and its elements; (3) Applies only in judicial proceedings;

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 4 of 68

 Remedial Law Review
SC disagreed. Rules on Evidence not to be strictly applied in
naturalization proceedings such as the case at bar.
(4) Its purpose is to ascertain truth, LEGAL TRUTH;
Moral truth is when a claim coincides with reality. If a witness
claims that something exists and is consistent with what actually
happened, that is moral truth. But it may not necessarily be legal
truth.
So that when the accused confesses to a crime without assistance of
counsel, and the exclusionary rule is raised, the court will
inevitably acquit the accused. Accused is in fact morally guilty for
having actually committed the crime. But in so far as the rules of
court are concerned, the accused is legally innocent.
As lawyers, we are only concerned with the legal truth. It has been
de ined as that which the evidence says it is. It may not necessarily
coincide with reality.
(5) The truth ascertained must relate to a matter of fact
Evidence is only relevant when there are issues of fact in the case.
Take judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment. These are
remedies available when the pleadings of the parties do not present
genuine issues of facts; what remains are legal issues. When this
happens, the Court is obliged to dispense with trial, because trial is
precisely required if there is evidence required, and evidence is
only required if there is any factual issue to resolve.
C. Factum Probandum and Factum Probans
Evidence relates to two types of facts
(a) Factum probandum. The ultimate fact to be proved. As in
civil procedure, you only need to allege the ultimate fact in
your complaint, not evidentiary facts.
(b) Factum probans. The speci ic materials to be used to prove
the factum probandum. The evidentiary facts sought to
establish the ultimate fact.
So, in a case of rape
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
Factum Accused raped the victim
probandum
Factum Testimony of complainant; Medical report of
probans attending physician; Object evidence, like the
underwear of accused found in the crime scene, or an
XS condom containing the semen of accused.
Take the case of Dela Llana v. Biong
The case involves a civil action for the recovery of damages arising
from tort, speci ically, a vehicular accident. Dela Llana theorized that
she suffered WHIPLASH as a result of the negligence of the driver of
Biong.
Thus, the factum probandum is that the negligence of the driver is
the proximate cause of the whiplash injury.
Dela Llana presented the following factum probans:
(a) Photographs of damaged vehicle;
(b) Testimony of Dela Llana;
(c) Medical certi icate.
As to the medical certi icate, failure to present the doctor who
prepared it, renders such evidence inadmissible for being hearsay.
In the inal analysis, the factum probans were not suf icient the
factum probandum. Because the most important element of
causation in torts cases was not duly proven.
D. Classification of Evidence
(b) Documentary. Consist of writings, recordings,
This is important so you will be able to apply the corresponding
exclusionary rules. Certain exclusionary rules only apply to speci ic
types of evidence.
(1) Based on form
(a) Object. Any evidence presented for the court to examine,
observe using the senses of the court.
(i) Real. The very thing involved in the case.
(c) Testimonial. Not limited to oral. More accurately, it is
By RGL
Evidence
(ii) Demonstrative. A replica, substitute or
representation of the real thing.
E.g. In a murder case, the real object evidence is the
murder weapon; a demonstrative evidence could be its
photograph.
ATTN: Proposed Revised Rules on Evidence, wherein
photographs are now classi ied as documentary
evidence.
Take note that the classi ication does not lie so much on
the form, but as to its PURPOSE for which the evidence
was offered. Like a photograph which could be offered as
demonstrative object or documentary evidence depending
on the purpose.
EX: In a case for concubinage, the photograph of accused in
sexual act with a woman not his wife is offered in
evidence. It could be real demonstrative to show the
existence of the act; or documentary when the accuracy of
the content is being disputed, such as the identity of the
person in the photograph not being the accused. Under the
best evidence rule, the original of the photo must be
presented, which could take the form of a negative or a
printout of the photo. This time around, the photo is
treated as documentary evidence because the purpose is
to prove its contents.
photographs or any material containing letters, words,
sounds, numbers, igures, symbols, or their equivalent, or
other modes of written expression offered as proof of their
contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings,
stored images, x-ray ilms, motion pictures or videos.
They are offered in evidence as proof of its contents.
that evidence consisting of the recollection of the witness
5 of 68
Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

of past events being communicated to the court. The

Subsequent FLIGHT Disappearance after the crime The SC ruled that by logic, common sense, and human experience, it
manner of communicating may vary: orally, through sign
is probable that the absence of any single complaint in the past
language. Another manner is when a witness is required to OFFER OF Offers to marry rape victim would tend to establish that the design of the safety mechanism is
physically demonstrate the past event he witnessed. COMPROMISE not defective.
It may also be in the form of an af idavit. Such that it
(3) Positive vs Negative
contains the account of the witness of his recollection of Compare with
past events, it is testimonial. (a) Positive. A particular set of facts exists or an event
took place. State of Missouri v. Ball
(2) Direct vs Circumstantial (b) Negative. A particular set of facts did not exist or an
The SC excluded evidence for being irrelevant.
event did not take place. Common example is alibi, or
(a) Direct. Directly proves the fact in issue without need of Ball was arrested 6 weeks after he got out of prison. And during his
denial.
inference from other established facts. Textbook example arrest, some dollar bills and coins were recovered. These were
is an eyewitness account. All things being equal, the positive evidence presented as evidence to prove that Ball was responsible for a recent
prevails, especially if the witness is not shown to have robbery.
(b) Circumstantial. Indirectly proves the fact in issue and
an ill-motive to testify falsely against the accused.
may only be resorted to when other facts have been This was objected to for being irrelevant, and the Court sustained the
established from which it is derived. objection. The fact that Ball was caught with the dollar bills does not
(4) Relevant, Material, Competent
shed light to the issue of whether he was responsible for the recent
(a) Relevant. Refers to evidence that has the tendency or
Basic facts must irst be proven before this evidence may robbery. There was no single evidence shown that the dollar bills
reason to establish the probability or improbability of a
be inferred. recovered from Ball were the same bills illegally taken from the vault
fact in issue. It helps the court in resolving the issue. To
of the jewelry store.
Types of circumstantial evidence: determine relevancy, we are to apply the test of logic,
common sense or human experience. It does not require There is no logical, rational connection between Ball being caught in
(i) Antecedent. Existed prior to the event, act in absolute certainty or conclusivity. It merely requires possession of the bills to the robbery.
question, i.e. Motive. Others may include: probability. It was further argued that Ball could be responsible for the robbery
● Character of accused; due to his dire inancial status after having just recently gotten out of
Lopez v. Hessen
jail. SC rejected this, holding that one’s inancial condition does not
● Past convictions;
This involves an action for damages arising from an accidental light upon the issue on whether Ball committed the robbery.
(ii) Concomitant. Exists contemporaneously shooting of a ri le. Hessen went deer hunting, when he accidentally
with the event, act in question. shot his ri le, hitting Lopez.
It always boils down to logic, common sense, and human experience.
Basic example is Opportunity. Lopez sued Hessen and the merchant who sold the ri le. Lopez This is distinguished from Material evidence.
attributed the accident to the defective design of the ri le’s safety
(iii) Subsequent. Existed after the event, act in (b) Material. If evidence is offered to prove a fact in issue. It
mechanism as it allegedly would move from the safety position to
question. Example is light. has nothing to do with the tendency to prove probability.
the ire position. The factum probandum was that the defective
Type Example Basic Fact to be Established design was the cause of the accident.
It is thus possible that evidence is relevant but immaterial;
Defendants presented experts on gun-making who testi ied that there or irrelevant but material.
Antecedent MOTIVE Prior altercation, threats made have never been any complaint regarding the design of the gun being
defective. Lopez challenged the relevance of this testimony. EX: In action for collection of sums of money, an actionable
Concomitant OPPORTUNITY Presence at the crime scene document such as a promissory note is appended to the

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 6 of 68

Remedial Law Review
complaint. Rules on Civil Procedure tell us that when a
defendant denies the genuineness and due execution of an
actionable document, he should do it under oath, or that
the Answer is veri ied. Failure would have the effect of
implied admission, and therefore, any evidence presented
to show that the promissory note is a forgery, is
IMMATERIAL, because it is offered to prove a fact that is
NOT in issue, because that fact is already impliedly
admitted.
The evidence is RELEVANT, though, because it throws light
on the issue and would tend to prove the probability that
defendant did not owe the plaintiff any money if the fact of
forgery is proven.
It is relevant but IMMATERIAL.
EX 2: In the Ball case, the dire inancial condition of Ball is
material but IRRELEVANT. Material because the fact sought
to be established is in issue as to whether he committed
the robbery. It is however irrelevant, as previously
discussed.
(c) Competent. When evidence is not excluded by the
Constitution, the Rules and any other special laws.
IN SUMMARY
(1) Object/real, electronic, documentary, and testimonial evidence
Object or real evidence are those addressed to the senses of
the court.
Electronic evidence or electronic data message refers to
information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic,
optical or similar means.
Documentary evidence consists of writing or any material
containing letters, words, numbers, igures, symbols or other
modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents.
Testimonial evidence is an oral evidence given by the witness
on the witness stand or in any proceeding.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
(2) Relevant, material, and competent evidence
Relevant evidence is one which has a relation to the fact in
issue.
Material evidence is one that is directed to prove a fact in
issue as determined by the rules on substantive law and
pleadings.
Competent evidence is one which is not otherwise excluded
by the Constitution, by law or by the rules.
(3) Direct and circumstantial evidence
Direct evidence proves a fact without the need to make an
inference from another fact.
Circumstantial or indirect evidence proves a fact by making
an inference from a previously established fact.
(4) Cumulative and corroborative evidence
Cumulative evidence is of the same kind and character
which tends to prove the same proposition.
Corroborative evidence merely supplements evidence which
has already been given tending to strengthen the same. It is
additional evidence of a different character to the same point.
(5) Primary and secondary evidence
Primary evidence assures the greatest certainty of fact sought
to be proved, and which does not in itself, indicate the
existence of other and better proof.
Secondary evidence is any evidence other than the document
itself, e.g. a copy, recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or recollection of witnesses.
(6) Positive and negative evidence
Positive evidence af irms that a certain state of facts does exist
or that a certain event happened.
By RGL
Evidence
Negative evidence is just the opposite.
(7) Expert or scienti ic evidence
Expert evidence is derived from an expert witness or "one
who belongs to the profession or calling to which the subject
matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses special
knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an
opinion."
(8) Prima Facie and conclusive evidence
Prima facie evidence denotes evidence which, if unexplained
or uncontradicted, is suf icient to sustain the proposition it
supports or to establish the facts.
Conclusive evidence is one that establishes the fact in issue
and cannot be contradicted by any other evidence.
No Sticker, No Entry
Admissibility of Evidence and its Requisites
Study Guide:
(1) Know and articulate the concept of Admissibility of Evidence, its
essential requisites and its various classi ications;
(2) Understand the concept of relevancy of evidence and competency of
evidence;
(3) Familiarize with the various rules of exclusion of evidence as found in
the Rules of Court, the Constitution, and special laws;
(4) Familiarize with various jurisprudence interpreting the foregoing
legal doctrines and principles.
Section 2. Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts
and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or
these rules.
A. Wigmore’s Two (2) axioms of admissibility
Our rules only require relevancy and competency. It does not literally
require materiality, as requisite for admissibility.
However, under our jurisdiction, relevancy is understood in its broader
sense, as supposed to its restrictive concept. Relevancy, in its restrictive
7 of 68
 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

concept, only refers to probativeness or tendency to prove a fact in Warrant to EXAMINE. — This is different from the third one in that
These provide for a uniform exclusionary rule to the effect that
issue. The broader sense includes both probativeness and materiality. when the applicant is not yet in possession of the suspected devices,
any evidence obtained in violation of these rights is
So when our rules speak of relevancy as requisite of admissibility, it their proper warrant is warrant to seize and examine. But if they already
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. This is
necessarily includes materiality. Materiality is subsumed in the have legal possession, they only need to apply this warrant to examine.
understood to be partial so that they may be inadmissible
broader concept of relevancy. only if offered against the person whose right has been violated This applies when the devices were seized in a search incident to lawful
and not against the violator. arrest as when the accused was caught in lagrante delicto. However, the
B. Relevancy
law enforcers here have no authority to examine right there and
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is This is to be distinguished from the exclusionary rule under then the contents of the devices. Thus, they would need to apply for
relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the law or the Human Security Act which is absolute. a warrant to examine such data.
these Rules.
3. Special Laws The prevailing doctrine in the US on examination of computer data is
that if access to the computer data can be obtained by purely
Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
mechanical acts, evidence obtained as a result of the examination is
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a
admissible because it will not violate the right against
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or Cybercrime Warrants
self-incrimination. But if access needs the disclosure of a password,
non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except
this will violate the right against self-incrimination if the accused does
when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or Applies only to cybercrimes. Pay attention to the 4 types of warrants:
improbability of the fact in issue.
not freely disclose the password. This is not a purely mechanical act as
1. Warrant to disclose computer data (WDCD); it will require the intervention of the mental faculties. Thus, the
2. Warrant to intercept computer data (WICD); prevailing rule then is to determine how the access was made.
C. Competency 3. Warrant to search, seize and examine computer data
Sources of Exclusionary Rules With this new rule on cybercrime warrants, there seems to be no
(WSSECD);
distinction. So long as the computer device comes into the possession
1. Rules of Court 4. Warrant to examine computer data (WECD).
of the authorities legally, examination of the data inside can only be
a. Best Evidence Each has its own distinct purpose. done if a warrant to examine is duly obtained.
b. Parol Evidence
Warrant to DISCLOSE. — This warrant is just like your ordinary Take note also that these warrants, unlike the ordinary ones, have a
c. Requirement of Authentication
warrant, issued in the name of People by a judge authorizing any law lifespan of 10 days and can be further extended to another 10 days. Also,
d. Res inter alios acta rule
enforcement agency referring to the applicant to direct any person to there is nothing in the rules that prohibit further extensions. So it can be
e. Hearsay evidence
disclose or submit computer data. This warrant commands not the argued that the warrant can be extended so long as there exists any
f. Privileged communication
person suspected to be in possession or control of a computer data but justi iable ground.
g. Disquali ication of witnesses.
it authorizes the applicant to direct the person. This is covered by the
2. Constitution Take note also on the rule on VENUE. Here, there are three (3) possible
rule on probable cause.
a. Sec 2, Art III, the Right against unreasonable searches and venues:
seizure; Warrant to INTERCEPT. — This warrant authorizes the applicant to
1. Place of commission;
b. Sec 3, Art III, Right to Privacy and the inviolability of conduct surveillance operations to monitor, record, or intercept any
2. Place where the computer device or part thereof is located; OR
correspondence and communication; communication between the subjects.
3. Place where the damage caused to the private complainant
c. Sec 12, Art III, Right of Persons under Custodial Warrant to SEARCH, SEIZE AND EXAMINE. — This warrant authorizes occured.
Investigation or the Miranda Rights; the seizure of a computer or similar devices and examine the data stored
d. Sec 17, Art III, Right against Self-incrimination The court referred herein is the Cybercrime Court.
inside. There is only one warrant but has two purposes, the seizure, and
examination.

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 8 of 68

 Remedial Law Review
Exclusionary Rules Under the 1987 Constitution
Right Against Unreasonable Searches
and Seizure and the Right to Privacy
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
af irmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.
Section 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
GR: Any search and seizure is invalid unless made pursuant to a
search warrant or falls among the recognized exceptions.
Where to apply for a search warrant? Rule 126 Sec 2(1), with the
appropriate court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime has
been committed. So that if the robbery took place in Cebu, but the
robber hid the stolen goods in Bohol, the application for the search
warrant must be iled in RTC Cebu.
An exception would be should there be a compelling reason that must
be stated in the application, the search warrant may be applied within
the same judicial region of the place of commission, if known, or the
place of enforcement.
What could be a possible compelling reason? Leakage of information.
The rule on venue is mandatory. It can be a ground for the quashal of the
search warrant. Take the case of Pilipinas Shell v. Romars International
Gases, GR No 189669, 16 Feb 2015
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
A search warrant was applied in the RTC of Naga City in connection
with a crime committed in Iriga City.
SC made a de initive ruling that venue is mandatory, but is not
jurisdictional. Not being jurisdictional, it can be waived.
When the respondent failed to raise the issue on venue in the trial
court, it is deemed waived, applying the Omnibus Motion Rule. A
pleading attacking the court order or proceeding should contain all
grounds then available. All others not alleged are deemed waived.
There are however exceptions to this rule. One of which is lack of
jurisdiction. Respondent thus invoke this exception.
SC then had the occasion to rule that venue, although mandatory, is
not jurisdictional. Venue in criminal proceeding is jurisdictional, but
not in a search warrant proceeding since it is not a criminal action.
This was reiterated in a later case A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC, September
05, 2017, RE: REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE SPOT
AUDIT IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 170, MALABON
CITY.
Another exception is that provided by AM No 03-8-02-SC that authorizes
the executive and vice-executive judges of Quezon City and Manila to
issue search warrants outside their jurisdictions, and enforceable
anywhere in the Philippines involving:
(a) heinous crimes,
(b) illegal gambling,
(c) illegal possession of irearms and ammunitions as well as
(d) violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
(e) the Intellectual Property Code,
(f) the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001,
(g) the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and
(h) other relevant laws.
This rule was af irmed in the case of People v. Jerry Punzalan, GR No
199087, 11 Nov 2015
By RGL
Evidence
Exceptions to the Search Warrant Requirement
(1) Plain view;
(2) Search incident to a lawful arrest;
(3) Consented search;
(4) Search in checkpoints;
(5) Terry search;
(6) Search in moving vehicles;
(7) Customs search;
(8) Search in exigent circumstances.
Seizure of Evidence in Plain View
The rationale behind this is the impracticability of authorities procuring
search warrant in the face of an incriminating object observed directly
by the seizing of icer. For this to prosper, 3 requisites must be met:
(a) Prior Valid Intrusion. The seizing of icer must have the right
where he is when he stumbled upon the incriminating object.
The of icer, in the course of implementing a search warrant, has
a valid justi ication for the intrusion.
Presence of an of icer is pursuant to a hot pursuit operation. Or
when he happens to be in the place for any other legitimate
purpose.
Take the case of Pp v. Salanguit
When the purpose of the search warrant is already accomplished, any
further search is no longer justi ied.
The case involves a search warrant commanding the police to search
and determine a quantity of shabu and paraphernalia. While
implementing the warrant, police further found dried marijuanan
leaves wrapped in newspaper.
The seized marijuana leaves were disregarded for having been a fruit
of a further search. Given that the police of icers already knew where
to ind the shabu subject of the warrant, it’s logical to assume that the
police irst found the shabu and paraphernalia. And after inding the
9 of 68
Remedial Law Review
items subject of warrant, police conducted further search. And in the
process, seized other items not indicated in the warrant.
Thus, the further search can not be deemed a valid intrusion since the
purpose of the search has already been accomplished.
(b) Inadvertent Discovery. The seizing of icer should not
speci ically look for the incriminating object. Pp v. Musa
demonstrates this requirement.
A buy-bust operation was conducted outside the house of Musa. The
poseur-buyer handed Musa the marked money. Musa went back to
his house to get the illegal drugs. Indeed, he returned, and when Musa
delivered the shabu to the poseur-buyer.
When they conducted a body search on Musa, they could not ind the
marked money. The of icers thus barged in the house to look for the
marked money. Lo and behold, they found a plastic container hanging
over the kitchen which eventually yielded dried marijuana leaves.
SC ruled that the police went inside for the purpose of looking for
incriminating evidence. For the plain view doctrine to operate, the
discovery must be inadvertent such that it should not be speci ically
sought for. The dried marijuana leaves were therefore inadmissible.
(c) Apparent Illegality of Object. The incriminating nature of the
object must be apparent to the observation of the seizing
of icer. Its illegality must be obvious.
So if the object is contained in a closed receptacle, generally, it
can not be deemed that its incriminating nature is apparent.
Except if the container proclaims its contents, i.e. transparent,
the distinctive physical con iguration of the inside can be
determined from the outside.
Incriminating nature can be determined by any of the senses.
Take the case of Pp v. Claudio, G.R. No. 72564, 15 Apr 1988,
where a plastic woven bag appearing to contain camote tops on
the top had a big bundle of plastic of marijuana at the bottom
since the of icer recognized its smell.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
QUERY: How about if the police of icer, during a iesta, gatecrashes
uninvited, and upon entering the house discovered illegal objects.
If the owner of the house did not object to the presence of the of icer,
then it must be implied consent, making his presence therein valid, and
would justify the invocation of the plain view doctrine.
Search incident to a lawful arrest
This contemplates a situation where a search takes place after a VALID
arrest. It can not be the reverse.
An arrest is valid if done pursuant to a warrant of arrest or under the
recognized exceptions. Under Rule 113 Sec 5, there are 3 instances of
valid warrantless arrests
(a) In lagrante delicto. Requires compliance with 2 requisites:
(i) Overt acts on the part of the person to be arrested
indicating that a crime has just been, is being or about to be
committed;
Trail-blazed by cases such as Pp v. Amminudin,
Arrest was illegal and cannot be justi ied under in lagrante delicto
because there is nothing illegal about a person disembarking from
the vessel walking on the gangplank.
Pp v. Mengote
Police obtained a report of 3 persons acting suspiciously in an alley.
Mengote was arrested after being observed to be looking side-to-side,
with his hand holding his abdomen.
There is nothing criminal about this.
Pp v. Sy-Chua
An arrested drug-peddler divulged that his source of illegal drugs was
Mr Chua. Police then conducted surveillance on Chua and found the
latter on his way to a hotel. Police saw Chua disembarking from his
car, carrying with him a Zest-o juice box. Police arrested him then
searched the box and his car, yielding contraband.
There is nothing illegal about this.
By RGL
Evidence
compare this with Pp v. Quebral
Police received a tip-off that 2 men and a woman would meet at a
certain place for a drug deal. Police dispatched a team to surveil and
true enough found a jeepney passing by in the vicinity identi ied by
the informant.
Moments later, another vehicle arrived. The woman then handed to
the man a white envelope, prompting police to swoop down on the
suspects, seize the envelope which yielded marijuana.
SC saw it differently. What happened here is the opposite of
Amminudin. Here, search irst, arrest later. The search was predicated
from a valid tip-off, suf icient ground for probable cause to conduct
the search. The tip-off was validated by the police on the ground
when the transaction actually took place.
Thus, for purposes of warrantless search, probable cause, which may
be derived from a telephone call, is suf icient, if of course validated
by the observation of the arresting of icers on the ground.
The search is not limited to the body of the person sought to be
arrested, but extends to his immediate surroundings over
which he has control. The purpose is two-folds
1. To allow the of icer to look for dangerous weapon that
may be used against the of icer;
2. To prevent destruction of incriminating evidence.
(ii) Personal knowledge of the arresting of icer
(b) Hot pursuit.
(c) Arrest of an escaped prisoner.
Terry Search
A person is stopped and frisked. If the search of his body yields
positive, that person may now be arrested, under in lagrante delicto.
Here, a police of icer has reasonable suspicion that based on his
experience and the surrounding circumstances, a crime is afoot, and the
person is armed and dangerous. The of icer has the right to protect
himself as well as others in the same surroundings. The police of icer
10 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
has to introduce himself and conduct reasonable inquiry. What is
covered here is limited to the outer clothing of the person and should
not be extensive, as enunciated in Terry v. Ohio.
While we adhere to this doctrine, our application goes beyond the scope
as originally contemplated.
Posadas v. CA
There was extensive bodily search on the person who suddenly ran
away upon being approached by the police. This yielded contraband.
People v. Manalili
There was a search conducted in a cemetery. When police saw the
suspect walking wobbly, with his eyes red shut, characteristic of a
person high on drugs, they approached him and the suspect then
acted suspiciously. Police then extensively searched the suspect.
Consented Search
This is based on the principle of waiver. A search is an intrusion into the
privacy of the individual. This is a personal right available to the person
concerned, and may be waived only by the person concerned. He who
invokes it, waives it.
People v. Damaso
The apartment rented by the accused was raided by the authorities.
Accused was not there when the raid took place. Police were allowed
entry by the househelp. This consent is not valid. The search was
thus invalid.
Checkpoint Search
Valid as long as to meet the exigencies of public order and for as long as
the search is not extensive or intrusive. It should not involve the search
of the occupants of the vehicle, nor it should allow the search of the
vehicle itself. The only allowed search is a visual one, done outside the
vehicle. It does not authorize the of icers to demand the lowering of the
windows, nor to demand that occupants alight from the vehicle.
Exceptions would be when there is probable cause that the occupants
are committing a crime or that the vehicle contains incriminating
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
objects. Refer to Guanzon v. De Villa, G.R. No. 80508. January 30, 1990.
Also in
People v. Vinecario, GR No 141137, 20 Jan 2004
There was a COMELEC Gun Ban. In a checkpoint, a motorcycle with 3
men on board sped passed it prompting an of icer to whistle them to
return.
One of them misrepresented himself to be a military of icer but failed
to present an ID. Police noticed a military backpack and when asked
by the police to hand it over, they took turns in passing it to each
other. They were restless and idgety. Acting on their suspicious
actuations, police conducted the search that yielded some
contraband.
SC upheld the search ruling that if there is probable cause, a more
extensive search is allowed although done in a checkpoint.
Right of Persons under Custodial
Investigation or the Miranda Rights
Section 12. Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
in the presence of counsel.
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
Section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture
or similar practices, and their families.
When are these rights available? Only in custodial investigations.
What is a custodial investigation? It is a stage wherein the investigation
ceases to be a general inquiry in an unsolved crime and now focuses on
a particular suspect placed or taken under custody, and otherwise
By RGL
Evidence
deprived of his freedom of action in a signi icant way by the of icer who
carries out the process of investigation aimed at eliciting admission
from the suspect. Thus, there are 4 requisites.
(1) Investigation should no longer be a general inquiry, and is
already accusatory;
Police line-up is not a custodial investigation.
(2) Suspect must be taken into custody of law.
People v. Guting
The son stabbed his father to death. He approached two policemen
standing across the police station and voluntarily confessed to them.
SC says Miranda rights are not available here.
Under RA 7438, "custodial investigation" shall include the
practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to
have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the
"inviting" of icer for any violation of law.
People v. Lauga
Father raped his daughter. The mother sought the assistance of a
bantay-bayan. The bantay-bayan invited the father to the house of
the barangay captain. The father confessed to the crime.
The extrajudicial confession was then impugned for violating the
Miranda doctrine. SC sustained. He was under custodial
investigation.
People v. Del Rosario
A case for murder. A witness positively identi ied the driver of the
getaway motorcycle. The driver was invited by police where he
confessed.
SC sustained the inadmissibility of the confession since the practice
of the police in inviting him amounted to custodial investigation
where his Miranda rights should have been observed and enforced.
11 of 68
Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

(3) The confession made must be in response to police
interrogation. Spontaneous statements proffered not through
interrogation are not covered by the Miranda doctrine.
People v. Andan
Murder and rape of a minor girl. Andan was arrested and detained.
When he learned that the mayor was in the police station, he sought
an audience with the mayor. Without being interrogated by the mayor,
Andan broke down and confessed to the mayor.
People v. Bokingco SC disagreed on the ground that the constitutional right against
unreasonable search and seizure does not apply.
Involves murder of a contractor. During PI, they were interrogated by
the prosecutor without assistance of counsel.
What types of evidence are covered
SC sustained the inadmissibility of the evidence as their confession
under the Miranda warnings?
was done under custodial investigation. The suspects were subjected
to the same coercive, relentless and intimidating atmosphere as to
GR: Testimonial evidence, only.
compel them to admit something that they may not have done.
People v. Baloloy, GR No 140740, 12 April 2002 People v. Baylon

This is not covered as his confession was a spontaneous statement
done in an ordinary manner. The Miranda rights were never intended
to prevent the suspect from being truthful. Instead, it was intended to
avoid the slightest coercion that may compel the suspect to admit to
something that he never did.
(4) The one questioning must be a law enforcement agent.
People v. Guillermo
When Guillermo was arrested, he was visited by reporters. He was
interviewed, wherein he confessed to the killing.
Not covered because the one asking the question were not law
enforcement of icers.
Who may be regarded as law enforcement agents? Police,
Mayor, Barangay Captains
People v. Edna Malngan, GR No 170470, 26 Sep 2006
Malngan was a househelp who burnt down the house of her
employer. She was identi ied by the neighbors and was picked up by
the barangay captain.
In the course of the interrogation by the brgy captain, Edna confessed.
SC rejected the confession as it was not done via the assistance of a
counsel. Barangay captain is considered as a law enforcement agent.
Also includes public prosecutors conducting the preliminary
investigation, as well as judges
Rape-slay of a minor girl where the suspect took the liberty of
reporting the crime but not him as the culpable one. During the wake,
the barangay captain went in front and raised a black rope and asked
who its owner was. To Baloloy’s credit, he admitted having owned
the rope. So he eventually confessed.
Witnesses and Baloloy were brought to the judge for them to
subscribe to their af idavit. During that proceeding, the judge asked
Baloloy certain questions prompting Baloloy to confess. Such
confession was deemed inadmissible.
Questioning conducted by employers to their employees NOT
COVERED.
De Castro v. People
De Castro was accused of estafa thru falsi ication. She was made to
undergo disciplinary proceedings. She executed an extrajudicial
confession admitting culpability.
De Castro can not invoke Miranda rights. The proceedings were not
initiated by the State but by private individuals. ADMISSIBLE!
People v. Bongcarawan
Security employed by a private employer is not a law enforcement
Right Against Self-incrimination
agent. A passenger of a vessel whose bag was searched by the
security guard employed by the shipping irm. Passenger argued that
the search was illegal because it was not done with a search warrant.
correlate with Rule 130, Sections 27, 29 & 31
Killing of a teacher witnessed by the pupil. The pupil described the
assailant as wearing a hat, maong pants, white shirt, green
handkerchief wrapped around his neck. Acting on the description
given, police arrested the suspect. Suspect was stripped of his
clothing and presented to court to corroborate the testimony of the
pupil. Accused sought the exclusion of these evidence for having
been obtained without the assistance of counsel.
SC rejected this contention ruling that the MIranda rights only cover
testimonial evidence and not object evidence.
People v. Malimit
Malimit was a suspect for robbery and while under custody, he
confessed and pointed to the location where they hid the stolen
goods.
Malimit sought the exclusion of the goods as evidence contending
that these were procured in violation of his rights under Sec 12 Art
III. SC rejected such an argument, applying the rule that object
evidence is not covered under the Miranda warnings.
Atty T: The doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree should have
been followed such that the objects recovered borne from the
inadmissible confession should also have been inadmissible. But,
you know, that’s life.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 12 of 68

 Remedial Law Review
Section 27. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a
party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her.
Section 29. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.
Section 31. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a
conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy and during its existence,
may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy
is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
The kernel of the privilege is testimonial compulsion. Thus, it covers
generally testimonial evidence. Object evidence or those that are purely
mechanical are not covered.
US v. Ong Siu Hong
This involves compelling a suspect to discharge morphine from his
mouth. He invoked his right against self-incrimination. SC rebuffed
him, ruling that the right applies only to testimonial compulsion.
US v. Tan Teng
This involves a suspect compelled to submit to physical tests where
substances emitted by his body were subjected to laboratory tests to
determine if he is af licted with gonorrhea. The victim of the acts of
lasciviousness was also af licted with gonorrhea.
Tan Teng’s objection was rejected since this is not covered by the
privilege of self-incrimination.
Villa lor v. Summers
Consistent with this doctrine, an accused of adultery may be
compelled to submit to a pregnancy test to prove that the baby she is
carrying is sired by a man other than her husband.
People v. Vallejo
Rape and slay of a minor child. DNA test was conducted on the
vaginal swab taken from the victim. This was compared to the DNA
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
pro ile of Vallejo which yielded a positive match. This again is not
covered by the right against self-incrimination.
The same principle applies as when accused is subjected to:
(a) Fingerprinting;
(b) Paraf in test;
(c) Photographing;
(d) Forcing accused to strip naked to show conditions of his body;
(e) Forcing accused to measure parts of his body for comparison.
These are purely mechanical, and not protected by the right against
self-incrimination.
The principle no longer applies if the process of examination would
require the intervention of the mind or the mental faculty of the subject.
This piece of evidence is now protected.
Beltran v. Samson
When a person charged with falsi ication of documents was forced to
produce a sample of his handwriting to compare it with the alleged
falsi ied document.
The SC sustained Samson’s objection holding that this is not purely
mechanical since producing one’s handwriting involves the
intervention of the mind.
Jaime dela Cruz v. People
Even if evidence was taken by a purely mechanical act but it has
absolutely no relation to the principal cause of the arrest of the
suspect, it is still subject to the protection of the right against
self-incrimination.
Here, the suspect was arrested for alleged extortion but was subjected
to a urine test that yielded positive results of drug use.
In the prior cases discussed, the evidence was related to the principal
cause of arrest, unlike in this case. Urine has nothing to do with
extortion. Unless you use urine to extort.
By RGL
Evidence
When is the right invocable? What kind of proceeding is this invocable?
ANY, as long the proceeding is initiated by the State. Remember People v.
Marti.
When is a question incriminating? When the question calls for an
answer that may establish criminal liability or expose the witness to
criminal prosecution. If it only tends to establish civil or
administrative liability, the question is NOT incriminating.
Although the right may be invoked in any proceeding, the nature of the
question propounded is an entirely different matter. The right may only
be invoked against those questions that are incriminating.
If the question seeks an admission for a crime that has been prescribed
or that the person has already been granted immunity, this is no longer
covered. This is no longer incriminating since the person would no
longer be exposed to possible criminal liability or prosecution.
How do you invoke the right against self-incrimination?
Proceeding Refuse to take Refuse to answer
witness stand questions
CRIMINAL ✔ ✔
CIVIL ✘ Only incriminating
ADMIN ✘ Only incriminating
The moment an incriminating question is propounded, the right may
then be invoked and defendant may refuse to answer the question.
An exception in Civil and Admin cases is when the proceeding is
PENAL IN NATURE. The manner of invoking the right is similar to that
of criminal proceedings.
Pascual v. Board of Examiners
Pascual was administratively charged for gross misconduct that
could strip him off his license. The proceeding is penal in nature
since it could possibly forfeit his license which is a property right.
Pascual may then refuse to take the witness stand.
13 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
Atty T: Penalty of suspension is also penal in nature. You are
deprived of your profession in that period.
Cabal v. Kapunan
Cabal is a military of icer accused of violating the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt practices Act as well as Anti Ill-gotten wealth. He was
investigated by the Department of National Defense in an
administrative proceeding. There, he refused to take the witness
stand.
SC sustained Cabal’s refusal ruling that the nature of the proceeding is
penal since it could possibly result in the forfeiture of his property
by the State.
How about in Rosete v. Lim
This is an action for nullity of documents and recovery of property.
Parallel to the civil proceedings is a criminal action for violation of
BP 22.
In the civil case, the plaintiff sought the deposition of the
respondents who were the accused in the criminal case. Respondents
refused to participate in the deposition contending that any testimony
that may be taken from him may surely be used in the criminal case.
SC reiterated the rule that the manner of invoking the right is different
from criminal on the one hand, and civil and admin on the other.
Respondents can not refuse to participate in the deposition taking in
the civil case but has the right to answer incriminating questions.
Atty T: Rosete v Lim would also possibly result in the taking of
property, not different from that of Pascual, and in Cabal.
Personal take: The difference lies in that in the civil case, the taking of
property is due to civil liability and will be reverted to its rightful
owner. In the cases of Pascual and Cabal, the forfeiture is done by the
State. So, there’s a whale of difference.
If the one invoking is a witness, he can not altogether refuse to take the
witness stand even in criminal proceedings because, ‘witness stand’.
Also, the witness does not stand (pun intended) on equal footing with
the accused. He is called not for the purpose of him being incriminated.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
Just like any other rights, the right against self-incrimination can be
waived, either expressly or impliedly. The implied waiver takes place
(a) when the accused voluntarily takes the stand; or
(b) when a witness voluntarily answers an incriminating question;
or
(c) when the counsel fails to timely object.
Take note that this waiver is limited. This only covers questions related
to the crime as regards to which the accused testi ies. The waiver does
not extend to other possible criminal liability not subject to the criminal
proceeding. Here, counsel should timely object on the ground that the
question is irrelevant to the fact in issue.
What is protected by the privilege? Testimonial, object, and ALSO
documentary.
Regala v. Sandiganbayan, GR No 105938, 20 Sep 1996
This case involves the Coco Levy Fund. It was alleged that proceeds
of the fund were funnelled to corporations of the cronies of Marcos.
After Marcos was toppled, the irst order of business was to go after
the cronies. A suit was iled against all such corporations believing
that these are founded by Danding Cojuangco, et al, cronies of
Marcos. Upon examination of corporate records, the names of the
cronies could not be found, but just the names of their lawyers. The
lawyers, being partners of ACCRA.
During the proceedings, the government moved that the lawyers be
compelled to disclose the identity of their principals. The lawyers
were forced to produce corporate records to establish the identity of
their principals. The lawyers invoked right against
self-incrimination, for possible criminal prosecution for violation of
the Anti-Dummy Law.
SC sustained the lawyers saying the right against self-incrimination
covers not only testimonial but also documentary evidence.
Also covered here is with regard to privileged communication
between lawyer and client. Generally, disclosure of the identity of the
client is not con idential. However, if it would lead to possible
criminal liability on the part of the client, then it becomes
con idential.
By RGL
Evidence
Exclusionary Rules Under Special Laws
Documentary Stamp Tax
SEC. 201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. - An instrument,
document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which
has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being duly
stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any
record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any
court until the requisite stamp or stamps are af ixed thereto and
cancelled.
No notary public or other of ice authorized to administer oaths shall add
this jurat or acknowledgment to any document subject to documentary
stamp tax unless the proper documentary stamps are af ixed thereto and
cancelled.
What’s the procedural effect of non-payment of DST? Any taxable
document that does not comply with DST is INADMISSIBLE in evidence
in court.
The court however is liberal in applying this. When a party fails to
comply with the DST, the court shall require its compliance irst rather
than outrightly excluding the document. Failure to comply with such an
order will then justify the exclusion of such documents in evidence.
What are these taxable documents?
(a) Certi icates of stocks;
(b) Any deed reconveying real property;
(c) Insurance policies;
(d) SPAs;
(e) Among others...
Secrecy of Bank Deposits
RA 1405, An Act Prohibiting Disclosure and
Inquiry into Bank Deposits.
SEC. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions
in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the
14 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its
instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely con idential
nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person,
government of icial, bureau or of ice, except
(a) upon written permission of the depositor, or
(b) in cases impeachment, or
(c) upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty of public of icials, or
(d) in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject
matter of the litigation.
SEC. 3. It shall be unlawful for any of icial or employee of a banking
institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in
Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits.
These prohibitions are imposed particularly on the bank of icers and
RA 6426, Foreign Currency Deposits Act of the Philippines
institutions. It is not a prohibition imposed on the depositor.
SEC. 8. Secrecy of deposits.—The secrecy of deposits under this Act shall
Anti-Wire Tapping Act
be governed in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered
One thousand four hundred ive.
R.A. 4200, otherwise known as the Wiretapping Act
We have RA 1405, a law of general application, which prohibits the
access or inquiring into the bank deposit without the consent of the
depositor, subject to exceptions.
1. upon written permission of the depositor, or
2. in cases impeachment, or
3. upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty of public of icials, or
4. in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject
matter of the litigation.
Another law is RA 6426, Foreign Currency Deposits Act, a law of
speci ic application, that affords immunity of a foreign currency deposit
from being levied or attached on execution; as well as being examined or
inquired to. There is only one exception: CONSENT of depositor, as
enunciated in PSB v. Senate Impeachment Court. Forgetting their
previous ruling in
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
Salvacion v. Central Bank, GR No 94723, 21 Aug 1997
Where SC made an exception not otherwise mentioned in the law and
went beyond its literal language, examining its purpose and rationale.
Its rationale is to help the PH economy by encouraging foreign
investors. The law was enacted to afford absolute protection of
foreign currency deposits.
In this case, accused was convicted of raping a Filipina girl several
times. SC said the accused was merely a transient. His deposit did not
in any way serve the purpose of the law. Therefore, there is no reason
to apply the law to his bene it.
This was not applied in the case of CJ Corona.
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person,
(a) not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word,
(b) to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement,
(c) to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or
spoken word
(d) by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or
dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the
act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to
(a) knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or
any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication
or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date
of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law;
(b) or to replay the same for any other person or persons;
By RGL
Evidence
(c) or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete
or partial, to any other person:
Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence
in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section
3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
This law punishes anyone who, without the permission of all parties to
a private communication or spoken words, tap any wire or cable, or use
any device to intercept, overhear, record such communication by using
devices such as dictaphone, dictagraph, walkie talkie, tape recorder, or
any device however described.
Gaanan v. CA
This involves a telephone conversation between two lawyers. Atty.
Pintor called up Atty Laconico to discuss a possible settlement in a
criminal case. Unknown to Pintro, Laconico allowed his client to
listen to the conversation using an extension telephone line.
The client was prosecuted for violation of RA 4200.
SC ruled that the use of an extension telephone line is not prohibited
under RA 4200. Applying ejusdem generis, the prohibited devices are
used for illegal purposes, but an extension telephone line is not
intended for an illegitimate purpose. It was a common practice to
allow extension wires.
Needless to state, RA 4200 does not cover video recordings. That’s why
the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act came to life because of Hayden
Kho and Vicki, este, Katrina Halili.
Not all communications are covered, only PRIVATE.
Navarro v. People
Two reporters proceeded to the police station to report the public
exhibition of women in a bar. Navarro acted hostile to the reporters.
Their conversation turned violent that resulted in the death of a
reporter.
15 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
Unknownst to Navarro, the confrontation was secretly recorded by
the other reporter. Navarro objected to the presentation of the
recording as it allegedly violated RA 4200.
SC rebuffed him holding that the recorded confrontation was PUBLIC,
taking into account that:
(a) The confrontation happened in a public place;
(b) It took place in the presence of many other people.
All these negate privacy.
Gaanan v. CA
SC took note that the conversations between the lawyers were private.
If it was only meant to be heard to a speci ic person, then it is private.
Had Pintor known that someone else was listening to the
conversation, he would not have proceeded with it. The intent of the
speaker was taken into consideration.
Inadmissibility of any recording in violation of the Act only refers
against the person who did not consent to the recording, or whose right
has been violated. So that if the recording is presented against the
violator, it is admissible.
Ramirez v. CA
Involves 2 friends, or maybe not so. One day, they had a meeting,
Garcia lambasted Ramirez, calling her names, and unleashed her
vilifying words against Ramirez. Ramirez got offended and sued
Garcia for damages arising from defamation.
Ramirez presented a recording of the altercation hoping to nail
Garcia, but ended up being nailed by it.
Ramirez contended that she could not be liable since she was a party
to the conversation. SC disagreed saying that the literal language of
the law says that ANY person not being authorized is liable.
Rape Shield Protection Rule
Section 6, Republic Act No. 8505, otherwise known as the
“Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998”
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
SEC. 6. Rape Shield. - In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's
past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/ her reputation shall not be
admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court inds, that such
evidence is material and relevant to the case.
Sexual Abuse Shield Rule
Section 30, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, A.M.
No. 00-4-07 dated 21 November 2000, effective 15 December
2000
Section 30. Sexual abuse shield rule. -
(a) Inadmissible evidence. - The following evidence is not
admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child
sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim
engaged in other sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of
the alleged victim.
(b) Exception. - Evidence of speci ic instances of sexual behavior by
the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused
was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall
be admissible.
A party intending to offer such evidence must:
(1) File a written motion at least ifteen (15) days before
trial, speci ically describing the evidence and stating
the purpose for which it is offered, unless the court, for
good cause, requires a different time for iling or
permits iling during trial; and
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad
litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of the
motion.
Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a
hearing in chambers and afford the child, his guardian ad litem,
the parties, and their counsel a right to attend and be heard.
The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed and
remain under seal and protected by a protective order set forth
in section 31(b). The child shall not be required to testify at the
hearing in chambers except with his consent.
Section 31. Protection of privacy and safety. - xxxx
By RGL
Evidence
(b) Protective order. - Any videotape or audiotape of a child that is part
of the court record shall be under a protective order that provides as
follows:
(1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties, their counsel, their expert
witness, and the guardian ad litem.
(2) No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be divulged by any person
mentioned in sub-section (a) to any other person, except as
necessary for the trial.
(3) No person shall be granted access to the tape, its transcription
or any part thereof unless he signs a written af irmation that he
has received and read a copy of the protective order; that he
submits to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the
protective order; and that in case of violation thereof, he will be
subject to the contempt power of the court.
(4) Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made
available to the parties, their counsel, and respective agents shall
bear the following cautionary notice:
"This object or document and the contents thereof are subject to
a protective order issued by the court in (case title) , (case
number) . They shall not be examined, inspected, read, viewed,
or copied by any person, or disclosed to any person, except as
provided in the protective order. No additional copies of the tape
or any of its portion shall be made, given, sold, or shown to any
person without prior court order. Any person violating such
protective order is subject to the contempt power of the court
and other penalties prescribed by law."
(5) No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or shown to any person
except as ordered by the court.
(6) Within thirty (30) days from receipt, all copies of the tape and
any transcripts thereof shall be returned to the clerk of court for
safekeeping unless the period is extended by the court on
motion of a party.
(7) This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until
further order of the court.
Anti VAWC
Section 44, Republic Act No. 9262 otherwise known as “An Act
De ining Violence against Women and their Children”
SECTION 44. Con identiality. – All records pertaining to cases of violence
16 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
against women and their children including those in the barangay shall
be con idential and all public of icers and employees and public or
private clinics to hospitals shall respect the right to privacy of the victim.
Whoever publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name,
address, telephone number, school, business address, employer, or other
identifying information of a victim or an immediate family member,
without the latter's consent, shall be liable to the contempt power of the
court.
Any person who violates this provision shall suffer the penalty of one (1)
year imprisonment and a ine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand
pesos (P500,000.00).
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act (R.A. 9995)
Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful
for any person:
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons
performing sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an
image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or
undergarment clad genitals , pubic area, buttocks or female
breast without the consent of the person/s involved and
under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a
reasonable expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced,
such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar
activity with or without consideration;
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such
photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be the
original copy or reproduction thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast,
whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the
photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any
similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and
other similar means or device.
The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply
notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of
the same was given by such person/s. Any person who violates this
provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism as de ined herein.
Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
render it unlawful or punishable for any peace of icer, who is authorized
by a written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof
as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo
or video voyeurism: Provided, That such written order shall only be
issued or granted upon written application and the examination under
oath or af irmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may
produce, and upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be
committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the
conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such,
crime.
Section 7. Inadmissibility of Evidence. - Any record, photo or video, or copy
thereof, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding
sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
Prohibits taking of photo or video coverage of a person or group of
persons performing sexual act, or of a similar activity; capturing the
image of the individual’s private area under such circumstances without
the consent of the person and under such circumstances wherein there
is reasonable expectation of privacy.
Covered:
(a) the naked or undergarment clad genitals,
(b) pubic area, with or without hair hihi
(c) buttocks or
(d) female breast.
The protection presupposes lack of consent on the part of the persons
concerned; or wherein there is reasonable expectation of privacy.
Other prohibited acts include the act of copying or reproducing, sale or
distribution, or possession of such recordings. Consent must be given to
each of the prohibited acts.
Exclusionary rule only applies against the person whose rights have
been violated under the law. It is admissible against the violator of the
law subject to the following conditions:
(1) There should be a court order allowing the use of the recording;
By RGL
Evidence
(2) Court is convinced it is necessary for the purposes of
prosecution and conviction of the law-offender or if necessary
in the prevention of the commission of further similar acts.
This is unlike in any other exclusionary rules that does not require a
prior court order in order to use the evidence against the violator.
Does the Act protect crime? Is there privacy in crime? There’s nothing in
the law that remotely distinguishes so long as the video was taken
without the consent of the persons concerned, inadmissible. In the same
manner that an illegally intercepted conversation is still protected.
Reason for the restrictions: This is a sensitive material that is not
supposed to be exposed to the public.
Human Security Act
Human Security Act (R.A. 9372)
SEC. 15. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Materials. - Any listened to,
intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations,
discussions, or spoken or written words, or any part or parts thereof, or
any information or fact contained therein, including their existence,
content, substance, purport, effect, or meaning, which have been secured
in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shall absolutely not
be admissible and usable as evidence against anybody in any
judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry,
proceeding, or hearing.
SEC. 24. No Torture or Coercion in Investigation and Interrogation. - No
threat, intimidation, or coercion, and no act which will in lict any form of
physical pain or torment, or mental, moral, or psychological pressure, on
the detained person, which shall vitiate his freewill, shall be employed in
his investigation and interrogation for the crime of terrorism or the crime
of conspiracy to commit terrorism; otherwise, the evidence obtained from
said detained person resulting from such threat, intimidation, or coercion,
or from such in licted physical pain or torment, or mental, moral, or
psychological pressure, shall be, in its entirety, absolutely not
admissible and usable as evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.
SEC. 35. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Bank Materials. - Any information,
data, excerpts, summaries, notes, memoranda, work sheets, reports, or
17 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
documents acquired from the examination of the bank deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and records of:
(1) a person charged or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the
crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism;
(2) a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization,
association, or group of persons; or
(3) a member of such organization, association, or group of persons,
which have been secured in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall
absolutely not be admissible and usable as evidence against anybody
in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation,
inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.
Provides the exception by allowing certain communications to be
legally intercepted, overheard or recorded. This applies in a situation
wherein the communication is made between persons or organizations
which are judicially declared an outlawed terrorist, or any person
suspected or charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
This can only be done if authorized by an order issued by an
appropriate division of the CA. It has a lifespan of 30 days, renewable
for another 30 days. Take note of the subject of the surveillance:
(a) Judicially declared outlawed terrorist organizations;
(b) Those suspected of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism;
Terrorism is committed when a person or group of persons commit an
act causing widespread panic and extraordinary fera upon the populace
to compel the government to give in to unlawful demands.
This law also provides for exceptions to the so-called authorized
surveillance. There are certain types of communications which cannot
be the subject of a CA-authorized wire-tapping:
(a) Lawyer-Client;
(b) Physician-Patient;
(c) Journalist-Sources;
(d) Business correspondence.
These are still privileged communication that must be protected. It
would appear from the literal language of the law that any
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
communication is protected regardless of tenor. But juxtaposed with the
privileged communication rule, while their communication is indeed by
professional con identiality, it is far from being absolute. This does
not protect illegitimate or illegal communication. It only covers
conversations which are relevant for the purpose of the
professional engagement.
Take note that the exclusionary rule imposes a positive command,
makes any recorded conversation inadmissible absolutely against
ANY person.
Data Privacy Act
Data Privacy Act (R.A. No. 10173)
⭐ Protected Information
SEC. 3. (g) Personal information refers to any information whether
recorded in a material form or not, from which the identity of an
individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained by
the entity holding the information, or when put together with other
information would directly and certainly identify an individual.
(k) Privileged information refers to any and all forms of data which
under the Rides of Court and other pertinent laws constitute privileged
communication.
(l) Sensitive personal information refers to personal information:
(1) About an individual’s race, ethnic origin, marital status, age,
color, and religious, philosophical or political af iliations;
(2) About an individual’s health, education, genetic or sexual life of
a person, or to any proceeding for any offense committed or
alleged to have been committed by such person, the disposal of
such proceedings, or the sentence of any court in such
proceedings;
(3) Issued by government agencies peculiar to an individual which
includes, but not limited to, social security numbers, previous or
cm-rent health records, licenses or its denials, suspension or
revocation, and tax returns; and
(4) Speci ically established by an executive order or an act of
Congress to be kept classi ied.
By RGL
Evidence
⭐ Who is the data controller?
(h) Personal information controller refers to a person or
organization who controls the collection, holding, processing or use of
personal information, including a person or organization who instructs
another person or organization to collect, hold, process, use, transfer or
disclose personal information on his or her behalf. The term excludes:
(1) A person or organization who performs such functions as
instructed by another person or organization; and
(2) An individual who collects, holds, processes or uses personal
information in connection with the individual’s personal, family
or household affairs.
⭐ When is the Act NOT applicable?
SEC. 4. Scope - xxxx
This Act does not apply to the following:
(a) Information about any individual who is or was an of icer or
employee of a government institution that relates to the
position or functions of the individual, including:
(1) The fact that the individual is or was an of icer or
employee of the government institution;
(2) The title, business address and of ice telephone
number of the individual;
(3) The classi ication, salary range and responsibilities of
the position held by the individual; and
(4) The name of the individual on a document prepared
by the individual in the course of employment with the
government;
(b) Information about an individual who is or was performing
service under contract for a government institution that
relates to the services performed, including the terms of the
contract, and the name of the individual given in the course of
the performance of those services;
(c) Information relating to any discretionary bene it of a
inancial nature such as the granting of a license or permit
given by the government to an individual, including the
name of the individual and the exact nature of the bene it;
(d) Personal information processed for journalistic, artistic,
literary or research purposes;
(e) Information necessary in order to carry out the functions of
public authority which includes the processing of personal
18 of 68
 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

data for the performance by the independent, central monetary (a) The identity of an individual is apparent; or 5. Information necessary in order to carry out the functions of
authority and law enforcement and regulatory agencies of their public authority;
(b) The identity can be ascertained; or
constitutionally and statutorily mandated functions. Nothing in
this Act shall be construed as to have amended or repealed 6. Information necessary for banks and other inancial
(c) If put together with other information will directly and
Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as the Secrecy of Bank institutions;
certainly identify an individual.
Deposits Act; Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the 7. Personal information originally collected from residents of
Foreign Currency Deposit Act; and Republic Act No. 9510, Sensitive personal information includes the individual’s:
foreign jurisdiction.
otherwise known as the Credit Information System Act (CISA); (a) Race, ethnic origin, marital status, age, color, and religious,
(f) Information necessary for banks and other inancial GR: The processing of sensitive personal information and
philosophical or political af iliations;
institutions under the jurisdiction of the independent, central privileged information shall NOT be allowed.
monetary authority or Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to comply (b) health, education, genetic or sexual life of a person;
EXC:
with Republic Act No. 9510, and Republic Act No. 9160, as (c) social security numbers, previous or cm-rent health records,
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act (1) With the consent of data subject — evidenced by a written or
licenses or its denials, suspension or revocation, and tax
and other applicable laws; and orally recorded consent.
return.
(g) Personal information originally collected from residents of (2) The processing is necessary to protect the health and life of the
foreign jurisdictions in accordance with the laws of those Privileged information refers to any and all forms of data which under
data subject or any person and the data subject is incapable of
foreign jurisdictions, including any applicable data privacy laws, the Rides of Court and other pertinent laws constitute privileged
giving his consent.
which is being processed in the Philippines. communication.
(3) When necessary for medical purposes;
1. Lawyer-Client;
⭐ Principle of Extended Privileged Communication
(4) When required by existing laws;
SEC. 15. Extension of Privileged Communication. – Personal 2. Physician-Patient;
information controllers may invoke the principle of privileged (5) When necessary to protect one’s rights and interests in court
3. Journalist-Sources;
communication over privileged information that they lawfully control or proceedings.
process. Subject to existing laws and regulations, any evidence gathered 4. Priest-Penitent;
on privileged information is inadmissible. 5. Business correspondence. The Act affords some rights to the data subject, such as the right to be
forgotten.
This is precipitated by the growing BPO, IT industries in the country NOT COVERED are:
where Information has become a staple commodity. Take note of the extended privileged communication. Privileged
1. Information about any individual who is or was an of icer or
communication can only be invoked by the holder, in this case, the data
This generally regulates the gathering, processing, use and disclosure of employee of a government institution;
subject. However, under Sec 15 of the Act, Personal information
personal data of individuals. This covers any person or entities that that relates to the position or functions of the
process personal information. Examples:
controllers may invoke the principle of privileged communication
individual. over privileged information that they lawfully control or process.
(a) Academic institutions; 2. Information about an individual who is or was performing
(b) Banks; service under contract for a government institution; ATTY T’s OBSERVATION: There are three (3) types of information
covered by the Act:
(c) Companies hiring employees, among others. 3. Information relating to any discretionary bene it of a inancial
nature such as the granting of a license or permit given by the (1) Personal Information;
GR: The processing of personal information shall NOT be allowed,
government; (2) Sensitive Personal Information; and
subject to exceptions.
4. Personal information processed for journalistic, artistic, (3) Privileged or Con idential Information.
Personal Data is any information from which
literary or research purposes;

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 19 of 68

 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

admission of a co-conspirator may be taken as evidence against the

The exclusionary rule under this Act ONLY relates to privileged SC castigated the trial court for totally excluding the confession. SC
others.
information, viz: said the confession, depending on its purpose, could be admissible. If
it was offered to prove the guilt of the confessant, then it is obviously There may be an instance wherein the independent evidence of
Subject to existing laws and regulations, any evidence gathered on admissible. Although it may not be inadmissible for the purpose of conspiracy is unavailable for the time being. The principle of
privileged information is inadmissible. establishing guilt of the co-conspirators due to the principle of res conditional admissibility may then be invoked asking permission that
inter alius acta, the right of a party may not be prejudiced by the act, the extrajudicial confession be admitted with the undertaking that in due
Although it provides penalties for violations against processing of
declaration or omission of another. time, evidence to establish conspiracy will be presented. Failure to
personal and sensitive personal information, it does not speak of the
admissibility or inadmissibility of these information when illegally ful ill such undertaking will result in the conditionally admitted
procured. Also in the case of Uniwide Sales v. Titan-Ikeda, GR No 126619, 20 Dec evidence being stricken out from the records.
2006
The law is conspicuous by its silence. Principle of Curative Admissibility
This involves a construction contract wherein Titan-Ikeda undertook
to construct 3 buildings for Uniwide. The contract stipulated a ixed There are instances when the court erroneously admits otherwise
SUMMARY inadmissible evidence to the prejudice of the party against whom it is
date of completion. For failing to pay part of the contract price, the
EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST VIOLATOR VICTIM contractor sued the project owner. The latter iled a counter-claim for offered.
liquidated damages due to alleged delay. During the trial, the project
This principle offers a procedural mechanism to the aggrieved by
Wiretapping Act ✔ ✘ engineer was presented and testi ied that the project was eventually
allowing him to introduce an equally inadmissible evidence in order to
completed at a certain date, which was later than the stipulated date.
cure the defect or damage of the erroneously admitted inadmissible
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act ✔ ✘ So the project owner invoked the testimony of the engineer to the evidence.
effect that the completion of the project was delayed. This was not
Human Security Act ✔ ✔ sustained because the testimony of the engineer was offered for the EX: The accused for rape shared his culpability to a friend. Said friend
purpose of establishing completion of the project and not to prove shared the confession of the accused to another friend. Prosecution then
Data Privacy Act Privileged Info ✘ delay. offered in evidence the testimony of the 2nd friend to the effect that the
accused con ided to the 1st friend his guilt.
Principle of Multiple Admissibility Principle of Conditional Admissibility
Obviously, the testimony is inadmissible for being hearsay. This is
The court shall consider no evidence unless it is offered; and its Contemplates a situation wherein a proponent of an evidence is allowed objected to by the defense but for one reason or another, the court
purpose must be speci ied. This is so because evidence may be to present his evidence although it is apparently inadmissible, subject to admitted the testimony.
admissible for one purpose, but inadmissible for another. the condition that eventually the proponent will be able to establish the
Under the principle of curative admissibility, the accused should be
admissibility of the evidence in tandem with the other pieces of
Take the case of People v. Yatco allowed to present evidence in order to remedy the damage caused by
evidence yet to be presented.
the supposed inadmissible testimony. Thus, accused may offer
A case of murder with 3 suspects. One of the suspects got arrested, testimony from a friend to the effect that he con ided to such a friend
There may be evidence that is predicated on establishing the proof of
While in detention, he executed a confession admitting the crime and that he did not commit the crime.
other facts. To illustrate, we have a principle on procedure that the right
incriminating the others.
of a party may not be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of
For this principle to apply, the introduction of the inadmissible
During the trial, the prosecutor offered in evidence the extrajudicial another, or the res inter alios acta rule. An exception to this rule is a
evidence should have been objected to. Otherwise, such inadmissible
confession by presenting the NBI of icer who interrogated the confession made by a co-conspirator. For the exception to take effect,
evidence becomes admissible and it can not be said that the court erred
suspect. But such got blown away out of the water by the trial court. there must irst be independent evidence of conspiracy before the
in admitting the evidence. Under the rules of evidence, the various

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 20 of 68

 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

exclusionary rules are not self-operating. They must be invoked by the (i) are of public knowledge, or
departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of
proper party, at the proper time. Otherwise, waiver results. nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (ii) are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or
(iii) ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions.
THREE INSTANCE WHERE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE IS 1. existence and territorial extent of states,
DISPENSED WITH SINCE FACTS ARE DULY ESTABLISHED:
2. their political history, People v. Cabigquez
(a) 🔗Judicial Notice; This involves prosecution for rape and robbery. After the accused
3. forms of government and symbols of nationality,
(b) 🔗Judicial Admission; robbed a sari-sari store, he also raped the owner. Accused adjudged
4. the law of nations, civilly liable for P10K as actual damages representing the value of the
(c) 🔗Legal Presumptions. 5. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, stolen goods.

Your Honor Knows Best
Judicial Notice
Study Guide:
(1) Know the legal concept of Judicial Notice and its effect on the
requirement of evidence to establish a fact in issue;
(2) Familiarize the various matters which are covered by mandatory and
discretionary judicial notice;
(3) Distinguish judicial notice from personal knowledge;
(4) Familiarize various Supreme Court decisions applying the legal
concept of judicial notice.
Is premised on the fact that there are certain facts that courts ought to
know by reason of their judicial functions. So if a fact which is required
to be taken judicial notice by the court becomes an issue in the case, the
proponent of the fact need not present evidence to establish it, but
invoke judicial notice.
There are two kinds:
A) When mandatory
Section 1. Rule 129. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take
judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of
the Philippines, the of icial acts of legislative, executive and judicial
6. the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
7. the of icial acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the National Government of the Philippines,
8. the laws of nature,
9. the measure of time, and
10. the geographical divisions.
The rule on judicial notice imposes upon the courts the duty to appraise
itself of these matters.
Information as supposed to evidence. What is the party supposed to
do when the court erroneously takes judicial notice of a matter in so far
as the tenor of the matter. The party may introduce information to
disprove the tenor of the notice taken by the judge.
Information is any source of data which does not need to comply
with the rules on evidence.
B) When discretionary
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial
notice of matters which
(a) are of public knowledge, or
(b) are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or
(c) ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
(a) Matters the court may or may not take judicial notice. A court
may take judicial notice of matters which
He questioned the award of the court, on the ground that the
complainant failed to prove the actual value of the stolen goods. As a
rule, actual damages should be suf iciently proven.
Applying judicial notice rule, SC disagreed, ruling that the trial court
has the power to take JUDICIAL NOTICE of the value of stolen
goods because these are matters of public knowledge or
capable of unquestionable demonstration.
Atienza v. BOM
The court took judicial notice of the anatomical location of the
human kidney. This falls under mandatory judicial notice,
particularly under laws of nature.
But in Dela Llana v. Biong
Courts are no experts in the ield of medicine. It can not take judicial
notice that a whiplash injury is caused by a vehicular accident.
Atty T: Doesn’t medicine fall under laws of nature?
Personal take: No. Medicine requires application of science that
needs speci ic expertise. Laws of nature on the other hand can be
observed even by ordinary men.
Common example of the third class is records of the case. The rule is
the court can take judicial notice of the records of the same case.
Conversely, it cannot take judicial notice of records of another case even
if that case is iled with the same court or pending with the same judge.
This rule may somehow ind con lict with the rule requiring formal
offer of evidence. This rule states that the court shall not consider any

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 21 of 68

 Remedial Law Review
evidence unless offered. Even if the evidence physically forms part of
the case, but not offered, the court is not supposed to consider it.
So if a deed of sale is made to form part of the records, since it is
attached to the complaint; but after the presentation of the witnesses,
the plaintiff who appended the deed, in one way or another, failed to
formally offer the deed in evidence. In deciding, the court is not
supposed to consider it.
Candido v. CA, GR No 107493, 1 Feb 1996
This was an action for collection of rentals. It was claimed by
plaintiff that it was their agreement that the tenant undertook to pay
rentals in the form of palay. It was claimed that the tenant failed to
comply. Thus, the cause of action springs from the tenancy
relationship.
The plaintiff attached his af idavit to the complaint. It suf iciently
alleged the cause of action. During the trial, plaintiff failed to
formally offer his af idavit. The court ruled against him.
He argued that the court should have taken judicial notice of the
af idavit. SC said, the court shall consider no evidence unless
formally offered.
But in BPI v BIR
BPI overwithheld its payment of tax for the year 1989. It paid more.
BPI chose to avail tax credit for its tax liability for the next year. It
however incurred net loss on that year, and so, no tax liability. Tax
credit could not then be availed of. So BPI demands reimbursement.
CTA ruled in favor of BPI. SC took judicial notice of the decision of the
CTA. The decision of the CTA was appended to the petition for review.
To reconcile, the requirement of formal offer applies only to situations
where the evidence is necessary to prove a fact in issue, or to prove the
defense or claim of a party, in so far as the main case is concerned. But
matters involving incidental proceedings, not related to the merits of the
case, does not require formal offer, and so the court can take judicial
notice thereof.
Typical example would be on the matter of declaring the defendant in
default. This is merely an incident to the main case. As movant, you
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
have to prove that summons has been served on defendant, and that no
answer has been iled. The court can take judicial notice of the records
and examine whether indeed summons have been served as well as the
report of the sheriff. The court can then decide whether to declare
defendant in default by examining the records of the case, even if not
formally offered. Formal offer is not required in incidental proceedings.
C) When hearing necessary
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the pre-trial
and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the
parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion,
may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon
if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
Yes, I Do!
Judicial Admissions
Study Guide
(1) Know the concept of judicial admission and its effects vis-à-vis the
need for evidence in establishing a fact in issue;
(2) Know the various forms by which judicial admissions may be made;
(3) Distinguish judicial admission from extrajudicial admission;
(4) Familiarize with the pertinent prevailing jurisprudence on the
concept, forms, and effects of judicial admission.
Section 4. Rule 129. Judicial admissions. — An admission, oral or written,
made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed
admission was not, in fact, made.
Any admission, written or oral, made by a party, in the course of the
proceedings in the main case, need not be proved. If a fact is already
admitted, there is no more need for evidence, as the fact is deemed
established.
By RGL
Evidence
When is the fact admitted? Look at the pleadings. Only those
allegations denied by defendant need to be proven by evidence as these
become the factual issues of the case.
What makes a judicial admission? It must be made by a party. That
made by a witness is NOT. That made by the lawyer of a party is a
judicial admission on the premise that he is an agent of his client,
except if the lawyer commits gross mistake that deprives the client of
due process.
An admission made by a witness, though binding on the proponent, is
not judicial admission.
So what to do with a witness who goes astray and testi ies against the
proponent? A party is not allowed to impeach his own witness, because
by presenting the witness, the party undertook to the court that he is
truthful. The remedy is to ask the court to declare such a witness a
hostile witness. After the declaration, the proponent may then impeach
his witness. Without declaring the witness hostile, his testimony, even
if adverse, is binding on the proponent.
EX: Accused is prosecuted in 2 separate criminal cases for BP 22 and
estafa. In the BP22 case, he admitted to issuing the bum check. Such
admission is treated as an extrajudicial admission on the estafa case.
Being extrajudicial, it can only be admitted if formally offered. Judicial
admissions must be made in the proceedings of the SAME case.
GR: Judicial admissions need not be formally offered;
EXC: Those made in
(1) Deposition taking; Sec 6 in rel to Sec 8 of Rule 23
A party availing of deposition is not bound by the result of the
deposition taking. Thus, evidence presented during the
deposition taking does not necessarily become the evidence of
the party availing of that deposition.
If the record of the deposition taking is used, it must be
formally offered to give the other party an opportunity to
object.
(2) Plea of guilt to a CAPITAL offense. Court is required to
conduct probing questions to determine the voluntariness of
the plea and ascertaining the full understanding of the
consequences of the plea. Most importantly, the court shall
22 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
require prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, as well as to allow the
defense to present evidence on his behalf.
This is the only rule that prohibits the accused from being
honest hihi.
GR: Judicial admission is binding and conclusive on the admitter.
Santos v. Lumbao, GR No 169129, 28 Mar 2007
A case for partition. One of the co-owners sold his share to a 3rd
party. Buyer approached the heirs to secure title and effect partition.
The heirs refused.
In their Answer, the heirs admitted that they witnessed the execution
of the deed of sale. But during trial, they turned around and claimed
otherwise.
Applying the judicial admission rule, SC ruled that the heirs can not
be allowed to disown their admission. Any evidence presented
different from or inconsistent from their earlier admission can not be
considered.
Sps Binarao v. Plus Builders, GR No 154430, 16 Jun 2006
This involves a purchase of a subdivision unit. Defendants bought on
installment basis. They failed to pay the balance prompting the
developer to sue.
In their Answer, defendants admitted of their unpaid balance. During
trial, they tried to present evidence that they have already paid the
purchase price. SC applying the judicial admission rule, disallowed
such evidence as they can not now be allowed to play somersault and
claim otherwise.
Elayda v. CA
An action for collection of sum of money where plaintiff alleged that
defendant owed P90K. During trial, defendant admitted to the loan
but alleged to have fully paid and even overpaid, to P186K, well
beyond the P90K.
Realizing this, plaintiff tried to present rebuttal evidence from the
statement of an accountant to show that the obligation is more than
P90K. SC rebuffed the plaintiff applying the judicial admission rule.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
The rule on waiver does not apply in judicial admissions.
Normally an inadmissible evidence can be admitted for lack of
objection by the adverse party. But here, if an evidence is presented
contrary to a judicial admission is still inadmissible even if not
objected to by the adverse party.
correlate with Rule 10, Sections 5 & 8, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Section 5. No amendment necessary to conform to or authorize
presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised by the pleadings are
tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be
treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. No
amendment of such pleadings deemed amended is necessary to cause
them to conform to the evidence.
Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An amended pleading
supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in
superseded pleadings may be offered in evidence against the pleader,
and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended
pleading shall be deemed waived.
Pay attention to Rule 10 Sec 5. This involves the rule on amendment to
conform to evidence. Under this rule, where issues not raised in the
pleadings are tried expressly or impliedly, it may be admitted as if the
issues are raised in the pleadings. If it is objected to by the adverse
party, amendment may still be allowed if doing so would subserve the
interest of justice and no damage would result to the adverse party.
Objected to or not, amendment is allowed to conform to evidence.
Azolla Farms v. CA
Azolla Farms obtained a loan from the bank to inance a particular
project. The proceeds of the loan were belatedly released causing the
project to fail. The cause of the delay was due to reports that the
initial tranches of the loan were used by the of icers of Azolla Farms
for purposes other than inancing the project.
By RGL
Evidence
Azolla sued the bank. In the complaint, Azolla admitted that all its
transactions with the bank were valid and legal. During trial, a
witness testi ied, whose testimony established that the transactions
between Azolla and the Bank were unauthorized, so void. Taking cue
from this evidence, Azolla iled a motion to amend the complaint in
order to conform to the evidence. SC allowed applying Rule 10 Sec 5.
There is thus a seeming con lict between the evidentiary application
of the judicial admission rule and the rule on amendment to conform
to evidence.
This concern is no longer true now since in the Proposed
Amendments on the Rules of Civil Procedure, amendment to conform
to evidence is only allowed if issues not otherwise raised in the
pleadings are tried expressly or impliedly by the parties. In other
words, this is only allowed if not objected to by the adverse
party.
No more confusion in the case of Elayda and Rule 10 Sec 5.
Judicial Admission vs Extrajudicial Admission
GR: A judicial admission may be treated as an extrajudicial
admission in a separate case.
EXC: If a judicial admission is made in answer to a request for
admission under Rule 26 Sec 3. Any admission made in reply
to such request can only be used in the same case and is
inadmissible in for any other purpose or in any other
proceeding.
Judicial Extrajudicial
Made in the course of the Made outside of the proceedings
proceedings of the same case
Conclusive upon the admitter Controvertible
Does not require proof Requires proof
23 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
Under Sec 28 Rule 130, an act, declaration or admission made by a
party relevant to the case, may be received in evidence against him. This
is a form of admissible hearsay evidence.
Do not commit the mistake of calling the admitter to the witness stand.
To prove the extrajudicial admission, present a witness who heard the
admission made outside of the court.
Take a situation wherein the accused who made an extrajudicial
confession during custodial investigation with the assistance of counsel
repudiates during trial. How to prove such his extrajudicial admission
despite his subsequent repudiation? Present the investigating of icer
who heard the admission as well as the assisting counsel. Their
testimony is to the effect, hearsay. They have personal knowledge as to
the existence of the admission. But they don’t have personal knowledge
as to the truth or falsity of the facts being admitted. By the very nature of
extrajudicial confession, it is treated as admissible hearsay.
It Goes Without Saying
Legal Presumptions
Study Guide:
(1) Know legal concept of presumption, and its effects on the requirement
for evidence to establish a fact in issue;
(2) Determine the various kinds of conclusive and disputable
presumptions, and their distinctions;
(3) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving the preceding
matters.
Inferences derived from established facts. It does not totally dispense
with the presentation of evidence. The factual basis of the presumption
must irst be established by presentation of evidence. The fact
presumed is the one that does not need evidence.
To illustrate, in presumption of legitimacy, a child conceived during
the existence of a valid and subsisting marriage is presumed to be
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
legitimate. This does not need to be proven. But, evidence is required to
prove the foundational facts:
(a) Existence of a valid marriage;
(b) The child was conceived during the existence of such marriage.
If these foundational facts are duly established, then, as a matter of
course, the legal presumption of legitimacy arises. It now becomes the
burden of the party that claims that the child is illegitimate to prove
otherwise. This is basically a rule on burden of proof.
A legal presumption cannot rise from another presumption!
Another presumption would be that a man and a woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage. But this presumption can not give rise to another presumption
which is that of legitimacy. A case in point is
Angeles v. Maglaya, GR No 153798, 2 Sep 2005
This is a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
The estate is being contested between the wife and a woman who
claims to be a legitimate daughter of the deceased. The latter never
bothered to prove her legitimacy because she merely relied on the
presumption of legitimacy. She did not also bother to prove the
existence of a valid marriage between her purported father and
mother, merely relying on the presumption of marriage.
Presumption cannot rise from another presumption.
There are two types of legal presumptions. However, to clarify, whether
conclusive or disputable, the proponent must establish the foundational
facts via evidence. A common mistaken notion is that if the
presumption is conclusive, presentation of evidence is totally
dispensed with or not required.
The only distinction between the two is that conclusive does not allow
contrary evidence to overcome it, unlike disputable which is
susceptible to being controverted.
By RGL
Evidence
A. Conclusive Presumptions
Section 2. Rule 131. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are
instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe
a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or
omission, be permitted to falsify it; and
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his or her
landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them.
Estoppel by deed
This happens when a party deliberately or intentionally leads another to
believe that a certain fact is true. And that other party acts in accordance
with that belief. The party who made the representation may not be
permitted to falsify it in case a litigation arises out from that act or
declaration.
If someone asserts or claims something, and the other party acting in
good faith, believes in your representation and acts on the basis of that
belief, the party making representation cannot turn around and say “I
was only joking”, because that is conclusive upon him.
Typical example is in the city assessor’s of ice. In an effort to dodge
payment of real estate taxes, you sent a letter to the city assessor
disclaiming ownership over the real property in that you are a mere
lessee. Acting on your representation, the assessor, instead, assessed
taxes on the purported lessor. Years later, the city initiated expropriation
proceedings over the property. In an effort to bene it from the just
compensation, you then claim ownership over the property. You are
thereby estopped to claim ownership.
Remember the rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and not by the
action, inaction, ignorance or stupidity of the parties. There is this
recognized rule in
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, GR No. L-21450, April 15, 1968
24 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
That a party who invokes af irmative relief and after failing to obtain
the relief, assails the very jurisdiction that he invoked for that
purpose, Estoppel by deed.
Asking for af irmative relief in effect is a recognition of jurisdiction of
that court.
Estoppel against tenants
The tenant may not be allowed to deny the title or better right of
possession of his landlord at the commencement of the relation
between landlord and tenant. Having recognized such title, the tenant
may not refuse to ful ill his obligations under the lease contract, like
paying rentals, on the ground that the landlord is not the owner.
Even if the landlord turns out to not be the owner, the tenant is still
bound to pay. We now apply the rule on mirisi. The tenant must have
exercised due diligence in ascertaining the extent of the title of the
landlord. However, when what is being denied is the title that exists
after the commencement, this conclusive presumption does NOT apply.
This is well-illustrated in
Ermitano v. Paglas
Involves a lease contract. The landlord, during the existence of the
lease, obtained a loan from a creditor. As security, he mortgaged the
leased property. For failing to pay, the creditor foreclosed the
property and thereafter acquired ownership. The creditor-mortgagee
then sold the property to the tenant.
The landlord-mortgagor disputed the legality of the foreclosure
proceedings and continues to collect rentals. The tenant-buyer
refused to pay. The landlord sought refuge on the conclusive
presumption that the tenant cannot deny his title over the property.
SC said the conclusive presumption only applies when what is being
denied is the relationship at the commencement, not after. In the case
at bar, the relationship has changed where the tenant eventually
became the owner. The tenant may now deny the title of the landlord.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
B. Disputable Presumptions
Section 3. Rule 131. 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 or her
voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced;
(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;
(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 or her ;
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself or herself
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 of ice was regularly appointed
or elected to it;
(m) That of icial 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;
By RGL
Evidence
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
(r) That there was a suf icient consideration for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
suf icient 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;
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown
whether or not the absentee still lives, he or she is considered
dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of
opening his or her succession until after an absence of ten
years. If he or she disappeared after the age of seventy- ive
years, an absence of ive years shall be suf icient in order that
his or her 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; and
(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 dead. In case of
disappearance, where there is a danger of death the
circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of
only two years shall be suf icient for the purpose of
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any
25 of 68
Remedial Law Review
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 co-partnership;
(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 bene it 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 acquired
properly through their actual joint contribution of money,
property or industry, such contributions and their
corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and
evidence 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 (180) 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; and
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty (180) days
following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is
considered to have been conceived during such
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
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
or her when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title
of such person or his or her successor in interest;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons
perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
con lagration, and it is not shown who died irst, 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 ifteen 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 ifteen and the other above sixty, the
former is deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over ifteen and under sixty, and the sex be
different, the male is deemed to have survived, if the
sex be the same, the older; and
5. If one be under ifteen 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 irst,
By RGL
Evidence
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.
Presumption of Normalcy
There is also this presumption that things happen in the ordinary
course of nature and in the ordinary habits of life. Normalcy is
presumed. It is incumbent upon the one claiming otherwise to prove
abnormalcy. This was applied in the case of
Atienza v. BOM
Where the issue was the anatomical location of the human kidneys.
SC said there is no need to prove since normalcy is presumed. If you
claim that a kidney is located in the buttocks then prove it yourself
hihi.
Presumption of Self-preservation
Related to this is the presumption that every person is presumed to take
ordinary care of his concerns. Self-preservation is presumed. This
was illustrated in
BPI v. Jesusa Reyes
Reyes, enticed by a promo of BPI, went to a branch and opened a new
account. She intended to open a P200K ATM account. She had with
her P100K cash, and intended to withdraw another P100K from her
existing BPI account.
The bank teller assisted Reyes and illed up the entries for the
withdrawal. After the transaction, Reyes realized that what was
re lected on her passbook was only P100K. She complained.
The crucial piece of evidence was the withdrawal slip. It indicated the
withdrawal amount of P200K, and beside the amount was the
signature of Reyes. SC ratiocinated that given the relative position of
the amount and the signature, it was impossible for Reyes not to
notice the amount of P200K. If it was really her intention of
withdrawing P100K then why didn’t she raise this to be corrected.
When you are a depositor, you are expected, in the normal course of
26 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
things, to scrutinize every bank document that you are signing in
relation to any transaction you have with the bank.
This is how a presumption in law could resolve a very complicated
critical factual issue.
Presumption of Ownership
We also have a presumption that one in possession of an item which
is taken in the doing of a recent act is presumed to be the taker
and doer of the whole act. One in possession of a stolen item, is
presumed to be the thief. And if a person dies during the theft, then the
possessor is also presumed to be the killer, since he is presumed to be
the doer of the whole act. This was illustrated in
People v. Newman
Newman was accused of the killing and robbery of a taxi driver. Upon
the arrest of Newman, some personal belongings of the victim were
in his possession, including a driver’s license. Worse, Newman even
superimposed his face on the driver’s license.
Newman was convicted based on the presumption since he was not
able to explain how in hell he was able to take possession of the
personal belongings of the victim.
But, how do you reconcile this with another presumption that one in the
possession of a thing in the concept of an owner is presumed as the
owner and he is not required to prove his title. It is incumbent upon the
party who claims that he is not the owner to prove otherwise.
As a result of this presumption, every recent possessor must be
respected of his present possession. The remedy of the party who
claims otherwise is to go to court and prove that he has the better right.
In the meantime, he can not take the law in his own hands and
dispossess the present possessor. Thus, if there are squatters on your
land, you ile a suit for ejectment.
So that if you are in possession of say a piece of jewelry, and the police
stops you and claims the jewelry is a stolen item, can you resist the
police? Yes you can, but you won’t because you will end up ‘nanlaban’
huhu. You will suddenly become a drug dealer (wow, level up). As
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence
between these two presumptions, the presumption of ownership
Blue Cross v. Olivares
prevails. This has been settled in
There was this woman who procured a health insurance policy. She
got hospitalized and incurred expenses. After her discharge, she
Edu v. Gomez
asked for reimbursement from the insurance company but the latter
This involves a motor vehicle owned by a military man which was refused on the ground that the hospitalization was due to a
illegally taken. Subsequently, this vehicle landed in the hands of a pre-existing condition which is an excepted peril.
buyer who bought it from a 3rd party. While driving the car, the buyer
The insurance company capitalized on the fact that when it tried to
was pulled over by a traf ic police and impounded the vehicle. The
get a copy of the medical records of the patient, the doctor, upon
buyer went to court and iled an action for replevin to recover
instruction of the patient refused. So the insurer argued that had it
possession of the vehicle.
been released, the records would have shown that the cause of
SC sustained the buyer ruling that a person in possession of a hospitalization was a pre-existing condition, invoking the
property in concept of an owner is presumed to be the owner and is presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
not required to prove his title. The burden is on the person who presented.
claims otherwise to go to court and prove his better right of
SC rejected this argument holding that for the presumption to apply,
possession. The buyer is not even required to ile an action because
the suppression must be willful. It should be maliciously done and
she could have stood her ground and refused turning over the vehicle
not in pursuance of the exercise of a right. Here, the patient was
to the police consistent with the presumption of ownership.
merely exercising her right of con identiality. This can hardly
constitute willful suppression.
Presumption caused by Willful
Suppression
(b) The evidence is equally available at the disposal of all the
Another presumption is that evidence willfully suppressed, would be parties.
adverse if presented. This contemplates of a situation where someone
is supposed to be in possession of a vital piece of evidence, which People v. Padiernos, G.R. No. L-37284, February 27, 1976
normally, he would not have failed to present if it were in his favor. But A case involving a wife killing her abusive husband. It was
due to an inexplicable reason, that party fails to present that evidence. established that before the trial an eyewitness executed an af idavit to
That refusal or failure will give rise to the presumption. the effect that he saw the accused killed the victim The prosecutor
failed to present the af idavit and the witness.
So that if you claim to have paid the obligation sued upon, and claim
Taking advantage of this failure, the accused argued that such gave
that you have receipt to prove such payment, but for an inexplicable
rise to the presumption that the af idavit would have been adverse to
reason you failed to present this in court, it will be presumed that there
the prosecution had it been presented. SC rebuffed this ruling that the
is actually no such receipt or the receipt would be adverse to you. The
presumption is inapplicable given that the af idavit is equally
normal behavior of a party in possession of a favorable piece of
available at the disposal of all the parties. It is a public document. If
evidence is to present it. Take note however of the following
the accused believed that the af idavit would have been adverse to the
limitations, that the suppression can only be deemed wilful if done
prosecution, it could have availed of court processes to compel the
absent any justi iable reason. The presumption does not apply if:
production and submission of the document to court.
(a) The suppression is pursuant to an exercise of a right; take the
case of
By RGL 27 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
(c) The evidence is merely corroborative or cumulative.
This is because the party has the prerogative to determine
which evidence to present and which not to present. If the
evidence supposedly suppressed is merely corroborative or
cumulative, then the party can not be blamed for dispensing
with this evidence if he believes that he has in his possession
more vital and compelling evidence suf icient to support his
cause or defense. The justi iable reason here is the discretion of
the party to choose his evidence. However, it then becomes
unjusti ied if the evidence suppressed is vital to the other
party.
Presumption of Death
There are three (3) presumptions related to death.
(a) Presumption of Death;
(b) Presumption of Survivorship;
(c) Presumption of Simultaneity of Death.
Why are these necessary? There are some proceedings that require
evidence of death. Otherwise, parties could be held in suspended
animation.
The ideal procedure to prove death is to present the dead body, or a
witness who saw the dead body or attended the wake of the decedent.
But what about if the dead body is nowhere to be found? Like a person
went missing for a considerable length of time.
Here are the presumptions:
(a) A person is presumed dead by his mere absence. This only
applies when the person went missing for a period speci ied by
the Rules. But if the absence is coupled by other evidence or
preponderance of evidence to prove that the person is indeed
dead, presumption of death does NOT apply. That person is
proven to be dead even in the absence of the dead body.
In other words, the presumption is applied when the only
evidence presented is the fact that the person is missing.
The periods are as follows:
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence
a. Under ordinary circumstances, or those that don’t
crewmember is presumed dead. So in the meantime, no death
involve danger of death:
bene its can be released.
1. For purposes other than succession, 7 years;
SC said the presence of preponderance of evidence militates the
2. For purposes of succession, 10 years; application of presumption of death. No need to wait for 4 years.
3. But if the missing person disappeared after
(b) Survivorship. There are instances when it is necessary to
the age of 75, 5 years, for all purposes;
determine who of the two persons died irst. The end result is
b. Disappearance took place under danger of death: that someone is presumed to have died ahead of the other.
1. 4 years; Here, when two persons died in a calamity and it cannot be
determined from the circumstances who among them died
2. Except if the purpose is to remarry, 2 years.
irst, the survivorship is determined by the probabilities
The law take kindly on the lonely spouse.
arising from the strength, ages and sexes of the parties, subject
to the following:
Eastern Shipping v. Lucero
1. If one is <15, and the other >60, the older died ahead;
This case enunciated the preponderance of evidence rule. A
captain of a vessel perished along with the vessel that sank when it 2. If both are <15, the younger died ahead;
caught the ire of a storm. Before the vessel capsized, Lucero was able
3. If both are >60, the older died ahead;
to communicate with the employer describing their precarious
conditions. 4. If one is either <15 or >60, and the other is between 15
and 60, the former died ahead;
After the incident, the widow of Lucero insisted in collecting the
monthly allotment of Lucero contending that since Lucero can only 5. If both are between 15 and 60,
be presumed dead after 4 years, then she should be allowed to
a. If one male, the other female, the female died
continue to collect the salary of Lucero.
ahead;
The SC saw the buffoonery of this argument. Presumption of death
b.
If both of the same sex, the younger died
can not be applied because other than the fact that Lucero went
ahead.
missing, preponderance of evidence showed that he died in that
The ages are relevant only if the purpose is other than
incident. Preponderance of evidence negates presumption of
succession because the rule applicable is presumption of
death. The same principle was applied in
survivorship.
Victory Shipping v Workmen's Compensation Commission
If the issue as to who died irst arises from contract, you
This involves a crewmember who jumped off a vessel when he
apply survivorship. The ages of the parties matter. But if the
realized that a ire of unknown origin engulfed the vessel. And since
issue is about succession; whether one can inherit from the
then he was never heard of again.
other, the applicable presumption is...
The father who was the only heir claimed for death bene its. The
(c) Simultaneity in death. The net effect is two or more persons
employer refused contending that it is only after 4 years that the
who are called to succeed each other died simultaneously.
Here, the ages of the parties are irrelevant.
By RGL 28 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
So if a husband and wife perish together in the same calamity
and it cannot be determined who died irst and later, the rule is
he who alleges the death of one prior to the other has the
burden to prove it, as if he could prove it. Without evidence,
and there is de initely no evidence, the presumption is that they
died together, and therefore no succession takes place
between them. An heir can only inherit if he survives the
decedent.
C. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings
Section 5. Rule 131. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. —
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by the law
or these Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is
directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the
presumption.
If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded upon
weightier considerations of policy shall apply. If considerations of policy
are of equal weight, neither presumption applies. ⭐
D. Presumption against the accused in criminal cases
Section 6. Rule 131. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases.
— If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an element of the offense
charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the
basic fact beyond reasonable doubt. ⭐
Now You See Me
Object Evidence
its Kinds and Requisites for Admissibility
Study Guide:
(1) Determine the various kinds of object evidence, its concept, and
requirements for admissibility;
(2) Distinguish object evidence from documentary and testimonial
evidence;
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
(3) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving, or otherwise
applying, the preceding matters.
Section 1. Rule 130. 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.
That which is addressed to the senses of the court. There are two
classi ications.
Real Object Evidence
The very object or thing involved in the case.
Demonstrative object evidence
In the absence of the real thing, we can have a substitute. The substitute
is the replica, representation of the real thing, such as photograph, map,
diagram, sketch. If there is an issue as to the location of a certain area,
instead of going to the actual area itself, you can present a map. If you
don’t want to expose the victim of an injury, and exhibit the human body
where the injury is found, you may present a photograph depicting the
injury.
What are the requisites of admission of object evidence?
(a) It should be relevant and competent;
(b) It must be authenticated by a competent witness; and
(c) It must be formally offered.
Requisite of Authentication
It refers to the process of establishing in court that the thing offered in
evidence is what it is claimed to be. This boils down again to the
purpose. If an object is offered in evidence for a particular purpose, it
should be established for that speci ic purpose.
So, if you present a knife, and you want to prove that the knife is the
very same knife used in the killing, so you claim it to be the murder
weapon.
By RGL
Evidence
How then do you authenticate this? You have to present a witness
because every object and documentary evidence needs a sponsoring
witness for purposes of identi ication and authentication.
If you offer a knife to prove that it's the same one recovered at the crime
scene, not necessarily it being the murder weapon because there was no
witness to the actual crime, then you present the police of icer who
responded to the crime scene and recovered the knife lying beside the
victim.
If the knife is not identi iable such that it has no distinguishing mark
exclusive to it, then the authenticating police of icer would say that “I
made it identi iable because I made sure that when I found and
recovered it, I put some distinguishing mark in the forms of my initials.”
By putting such initials, the object otherwise unidenti iable, becomes
identi iable. The authentication would therefore establish what the
object is claimed to be. An excellent example of authentication is the
rule on chain of custody in drug cases.
How do you authenticate a demonstrative object evidence?
Photographs are ideally authenticated by the photographer. But it is not
always the case. He is not the only competent witness that could
authenticate a demonstrative object evidence. Jurisprudence has it that
anyone who has personal knowledge of the person, thing, event or is
familiar with the same depicted and who can attest to the court that the
photograph is an accurate and faithful representation of the actual
original thing. So in the case of
Sison v. People
This involves a mauling incident. It was captured in photographs.
These were presented in court and authenticated by someone other
than the photographer. Applying the above principle, the SC sustained
the authentication.
State v. Tatum
Involving photographs taken by a regiscope. The accused stole a
social welfare check and then encashed this in a convenience store.
During his transaction with the sales lady, he was captured by a
regiscope. It produced a photograph of him from the waist up.
29 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
During the trial, the photo was presented. But the one who
authenticated was the sales lady. SC said, while it is ideal for the
operator of the regiscope to authenticate the photo, the sales lady
would be competent to authenticate the same for she was the one
who dealt with the accused.
What about text messages, how do you authenticate? Refer to the case
of
People v. Enojas
Text messages can be authenticated by the party to the
communication or anyone who has personal knowledge of the
communication. Here, there was a robbery, and one of the robbers left
his cell phone in the taxi. His other companions texted his phone. The
police pretending to be the companion, texted back. This lead to the
entrapment and eventual arrest of the other suspects.
The transcript of the text messages were presented and objected to by
accused for absence of authentication, contending that it should have
been the owner who should authenticate. SC said the text message can
be authenticated by the parties of the conversation, who need not be
the owner of the cell phone.
The rule on authentication also depends on the nature of the object
being authenticated. If the object is
(a) Identi iable, or those which have distinct features - no problem;
(b) Non-identi iable but can be made identi iable;
(c) Inherently non-identi iable - most dif icult to authenticate, i.e.
blood, liquid substances, dangerous drugs.
Scienti ic evidence; requisites for admissibility
A unique kind of object evidence. It has its own peculiarities under the
Rules.
How do you prove scienti ic evidence?
By presenting an expert witness. The testimony of a witness on
matters requiring special knowledge, skills, training, experience, and
education which the witness is shown to possess may be received in
evidence. GR is an opinion of a witness is not admissible. An exception
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
is that of an expert witness. This then paves the way for the
admissibility of scienti ic evidence.
Polygraph or lie detector test
People v. Daniel, G.R. L-40330, November 20, 1978
Pp v. Carpo, G.R. No. 132676, April 04, 2001 and
Pp v. Adoviso, G.R. Nos. 116196-97, June 23, 1999
The result of a polygraph is INADMISSIBLE in court on our
jurisdiction because it has not been generally accepted by the
relevant scienti ic community as a reliable tool for determining truth
or falsity. There are two reasons offered:
(a) Absence of general acceptance by the relevant scienti ic
community;
(b) Its unreliability.
It has totally no value in our jurisdiction.
This however has been used by law enforcement of icers in the conduct
of their investigations. Note however that in our own Rules of Court, the
only requirement for admissibility of an expert witness or opinion is
the expertise of the witness. There is no requirement that the scienti ic
evidence should have been generally accepted by the relevant scienti ic
community. The reason advanced by the SC in shutting down polygraph
tests in our jurisdiction is based from
Frye v. US, 54 App. D.C. 46, 47, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923)
This involves a double murder case wherein the accused during trial
offered in evidence the result of a polygraph test which showed that
he was not lying when he was interviewed. The result tends to
support his defense of innocence. SC rejected holding that the
polygraph test has not been generally accepted by the relevant
scienti ic community.
This doctrine however has long been abandoned by
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
US SC held that under the Federal Rules on Evidence, general
acceptance by the relevant security community is not a requirement
for the admissibility of scienti ic evidence.
By RGL
Evidence
Our courts however are still stuck with Frye v. US.
Atty T: The cases of Daniel, Carpo and Adoviso must be revisited.
Our own rules, speci ically Rule 133 Sec 5 deals with the standard in
determining reliability of an expert testimony. This rule states that in
assigning weight to the testimony of an expert witness the court should
consider the following:
1. Whether the opinion is based upon suf icient facts or data;
2. Whether it is the product of reliable principles and
methods;
3. Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the case; and
4. Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such
determination.
Focus on the 2nd and 3rd factors that deal with reliability. Reliability in
turn deals with weight and suf iciency, that’s why it’s found in Rule 133.
As previously discussed, admissibility only deals with relevancy and
competency. And relevancy nor competency has nothing to do with
reliability. That’s why, under our rules, polygraph tests should be
admissible subject to the test of reliability.
Handwriting Examination
This is not a reliable piece of scienti ic evidence. But the SC still
recognizes its admissibility unlike that of a polygraph test.
Rule on DNA Evidence
(A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)
a. Guidelines for DNA Analysis
Sec. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. – In assessing the
probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall consider
the following:
1. The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were
collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of
contamination of the samples;
30 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
2. The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed
in analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of
the procedure, and compliance with the scienti ically valid
standards in conducting the tests;
3. The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any
reputable standards-setting institution and the quali ication of
the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not
accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic
casework and credibility shall be properly established; and
4. The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.
The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of
evidence shall apply suppletorily.
Recently recognized by the SC as an admissible scienti ic evidence. This
is premised on the scienti ic theory that no two persons, other than
identical twins, possess the same DNA pro ile. This is particularly
useful in cases where the issue of identity is involved.
Under the existing rules, DNA testing can be resorted to under any of the
following instance:
(a) Before any case is iled. This can be done without leave of
court by any interested party.
(b) During the pendency of a case. Here, the proponent should
obtain leave upon showing that
(i) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(ii) The biological sample: (1) was not previously
subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or
(2) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the
results may require con irmation for good reasons;
(iii) The DNA testing uses a scienti ically valid technique;
(iv) The DNA testing has the scienti ic potential to produce
new information that is relevant to the proper
resolution of the case; and
(v) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court
may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy of
integrity of the DNA testing.
(c) Upon conviction or post-conviction DNA testing. The accused
had not yet fully served the sentence and the decision has
become inal. This is only useful for convicts who have not yet
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
served or fully served his sentence. The convict or the
prosecution may ile a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA
testing are favorable to the convict.
This does not serve to obliterate the accessory penalties.
During the pendency of a paternity suit, it is not enough to comply with
the requisites set forth in the Rules on DNA Evidence.
For purposes of paternity suit:
Lucas v. Lucas
Before a DNA test can be allowed, the proponent should establish
prima facie possibility of paternity. The court wanted to prevent
unscrupulous parties from using DNA tests as a tool for harassment.
There should be a hearing irst where the proponent is allowed to
present prima facie evidence of paternity.
In other words, the DNA test is not the only evidence to prove
paternity. It is only con irmatory or corroborative to the prima facie
evidence already presented.
DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity or a
negative result, shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity.
If the value of the Probability of Paternity is < 99.9%, the results of the
DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence.
If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher there
shall be a disputable presumption of paternity. (Sec 9)
What is the rule with regard to safeguarding DNA samples?
Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. The trial court shall preserve
the DNA evidence in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA
pro iles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA
testing. For this purpose, the court may order the appropriate
government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as follows:
1. In criminal cases:
a. for not less than the period of time that any person is
under trial for an offense; or
By RGL
Evidence
b. in case the accused is serving sentence, until such
time as the accused has served his sentence;
2. In all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case
where the DNA evidence was introduced has become inal
and executory.
The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample
before the expiration of the periods set forth above, provided that:
1. A court order to that effect has been secured; or
2. The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has
consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence.
What is the effect if the Government fails to comply with the condition
to keep and preserve DNA samples to the prejudice of the accused?
Lejano v. People, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010 (Webb case)
Hubert Webb, et al were convicted of the rape-slay of Carmela
Vizconde. Webb, et al moved for DNA testing. RTC denied the motion.
They argued before the SC that they were denied their right to due
process when they were not allowed to avail of DNA testing.
First, invoking Maryland v Youngblood, there is no obligation on the
part of the government to preserve DNA samples and make them
available to the accused, except if the government is guilty of bad
faith. That would result in deprivation of due process.
Second reasoning advanced by the SC was that when the motion for
DNA testing was denied by the RTC, appellants did not bother to
appeal the adverse decision to the CA. SC interpreted this as their
waiver to their right to pursue DNA testing.
Third, there was no set of rules on DNA testing when the case was
ongoing.
Paraffin Test
It is never conclusive that a person ires a gun. But it is admissible. It
even has a recognized probative value, although merely corroborative. A
positive result only establishes the fact that nitrates are found in the
31 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
body of the subject. It is never conclusive as to the fact that that person
had indeed ired a gun. The presence of nitrates in the human body can
be explained by other causes.
It is also possible that even if the subject indeed ired a gun, he tests
negative for nitrates.
Chain of Custody in Drugs Cases
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Con iscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so con iscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment shall, immediately after seizure and con iscation,
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were con iscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected
public of icial and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
of ice of the apprehending of icer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided,
inally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
justi iable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending of icer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (as
amended by RA No 10640)
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon con iscation/seizure of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the
same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a
qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certi ication of the forensic laboratory examination
results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of
the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not
allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally
issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still
to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a inal certi ication shall be issued
immediately upon completion of the said examination and
certi ication; (as amended by RA No 10640)
(4) After the iling of the criminal case, the Court shall, within
seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the
con iscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, including the
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment,
and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours
thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of the
same, in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were con iscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected
public of icial. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on
the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such
item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That
those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board,
shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes:
Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed
and recorded is retained;
By RGL
Evidence
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certi ication as to the fact of
destruction or burning of the subject item/s which, together
with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA,
shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case.
In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a
minimum quantity as determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall
be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings
and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt.
In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a
representative after due notice in writing to the accused or
his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual
burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the
Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public
attorney's of ice to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case
wherein the representative sample/s was presented as evidence
in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the inal
termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for
leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA
for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24)
hours from receipt of the same; and
(8) Transitory Provision:
a) Within twenty-four (24) hours from the effectivity of
this Act, dangerous drugs de ined herein which are
presently in possession of law enforcement agencies
shall, with leave of court, be burned or destroyed, in
the presence of representatives of the Court, DOJ,
Department of Health (DOH) and the accused/and or
his/her counsel, and,
b) Pending the organization of the PDEA, the custody,
disposition, and burning or destruction of
seized/surrendered dangerous drugs provided under
this Section shall be implemented by the DOH.
32 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
How then do we authenticate illegal/dangerous drugs?
The process of authenticating illegal drugs rest in Sec 21 of RA 9165,
as amended by RA 10640. Take note of the amendment on required
third party witnesses.
The process, otherwise known as the chain of custody procedure,
starts with the seizure and marking of the seized illegal drugs. What is
supposed to be done upon seizure of the illegal drugs? The seizing or
apprehending of icer is required to mark the seized illegal drugs at the
place of seizure, immediately after the seizure. Jurisprudence
interprets the place as that where the seizure took place. There are
justi iable reasons for doing the marking somewhere else like in
(a) The nearest police station; or
(b) The nearest of ice of the apprehending of icer.
Who should be present during the seizure and marking?
(a) The accused or his representative or counsel;
(b) Before the amendment, there were 3 required 3rd party
witnesses:
1. Representative from the media;
2. Representative from the National Prosecution Service
or DOJ; AND
3. A public elected of icial.
But if we examine the wording of Sec 21, these 3rd party witnesses are
required during the inventory and photograph taking, there’s nothing
there that they should likewise be present during seizure and marking.
All those cases in the past, the SC upheld the validity of chain of
custody, even if these 3rd party witnesses were only present during the
inventory and photograph taking or usually after the seizure and
marking.
But the SC has recently indulged in a paradigm shift, some calling it
judicial legislation. In the case of
People v. Larry Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
Reiterated in the case of
People v. Joshua Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018
The rule now is that the three 3rd party witnesses should be present
not only during the inventory and photograph taking but also during
the seizure and marking of the seized illegal drugs.
SC pointed out that the presence of these witnesses is to prevent the
evils of planting evidence. Sc observed that our police of icers have
turned out to be environmentalists, engaged in planting.
So to prevent planting, substitution and contamination of illegal
drugs, their presence is required even during seizure and marking.
Next step is the physical inventory. After the marking, the seized illegal
drugs should now be physically inventoried. There has to be a physical
inventory sheet detailing all the illegal drugs recovered from the
suspect, and describing them in detail, like the markings in each and
every sachet of shabu. So the sheet will prove that an inventory was
actually made.
Other proof that illegal drugs were actually seized is the presentation of
the photograph of the recovered items. The law only requires
photograph of the seized items. But to make sure that the recovered
items are the very same items photographed in that particular police
operation and from that particular suspect is to include everyone
present.
Where should physical inventory and photograph taking be made? If
the search and seizure was pursuant to a warrant, it should be at the
place the seizure was made, subject to exceptions. In the presence of
justi iable grounds, it could be made at the nearest police station or the
nearest of ice of the apprehending of icer, whichever is more
practicable. If there is no search warrant, as when the seizure was
done incident to a lawful arrest, the apprehending of icer has the option
of conducting it at the place of seizure or at the two alternatives. The
preference for both instances is at the place of seizure.
What happens if the seizing of icer fails to strictly comply with the
substantive requirements of Sec 21?
By RGL
Evidence
Apply the substantial compliance rule. For this rule to apply, the
following requisites must be met:
(a) The prosecution should recognize, admit that there is
non-compliance;
(b) They should offer a justi iable reason for the non-compliance.
Usual reason that is consistently rebuffed by the SC is that the police
of icers fail to mark and photograph at the place of seizure because
several people would gather around the crime scene and endanger their
safety, so that they have to withdraw from the place of seizure. SC
rejected this taking judicial notice to the fact that in every police
operation, like in a buy-bust, police are usually in their full-battle gear.
So it sounds unbelievable that they are overpowered by ordinary
people. An exception would be if it can be proven that there really was
resistance, and not a mere general lip-service assertion.
In the third step, the witnesses required must sign the inventory
form or receipt. Equally important is that they should be given a copy of
the inventory receipt. The obvious purpose is to prevent alteration in
the entries in the inventories after the witnesses were made to sign.
There are FOUR LINKS in the chain of custody of illegal drugs:
1. The seizure of the illegal drugs by the apprehending or seizing
of icer from the accused;
2. The turn over of the seized illegal drugs by the seizing of icer
to the investigating of icer;
3. The turn over by the investigating of icer to the chemist or the
crime laboratory to determine the contents of the substance.
4. The turn over or submission of the seized illegal drugs by the
chemist to the court.
If a person or of ice happens to take custody of the seized illegal drugs
and is not one of those links speci ied in the law, constitutes breach of
the chain.
People v. De Guzman
Where it was established that seized illegal drugs were submitted by
the apprehending of icer to the of ice of the public prosecutor. SC said
33 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
the of ice of the public prosecutor is not one of those designated
links by law. There was a serious breach in the chain of custody.
People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018
Recording the incident to a barangay blotter is not enough and and
not a substitute to a physical inventory.
How is the authentication of the seized illegal drugs made given these
four links in the chain of custody?
In an object evidence that is identi iable or non-identi iable but can be
made identi iable, the prevailing rule is that it is not required to present
all links in the chain. But for inherently non-identi iable evidence such
as drugs, it is mandatory and indispensable that all the links are to be
accounted for the authenticity of the seized illegal drugs while in their
custody. In one case, SC said there was a serious breach when the
prosecution failed to present the investigating of icer and the chemist.
What should then be the tenor of their testimony?
While the seized items were in their custody, nobody else had access to
them and therefore it was impossible for substitution, planting,
alteration and contamination. In other words, it is incumbent upon
these links to establish that the integrity of the seized items were
preserved while in their custody and control. How then to establish
integrity?
(a) Each link should describe the condition of the seized illegal
drug when they irst took possession of it.
The link of the apprehending of icer is the most critical
because it is at this moment of the arrest that the of icer should
make an otherwise non-identi iable object evidence to be
identi iable. He does this by marking. Upon seizure he should
have marked them to segregate the seized illegal drug from the
compost of other evidence recovered.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
He would then testify on the inventory conducted and the
photograph taking on the seized illegal drugs.
(b) The steps or procedures undertaken to ensure that the
integrity of the seized items is protected.
First link would testify that he placed the seized items in a
secured place, evidence safe/ room/ container, which is locked,
wherein only he has access. To his knowledge, no one else had
access to the room.
(c) The condition of the seized illegal drugs at the moment he
turned them over to the next link.
It is not enough to mark, inventory and photograph. The roles of the
links are just as equally important to comply with the stringent
requirements of authenticating seized illegal drugs.
In drug cases, Sec 21 is the process of authentication. But the SC has
been very consistent that failure to comply with Sec 21 is not a ground
for inadmissibility of seized illegal drugs.
What is then the effect if Sec 21 is not suf iciently complied with?
Jurisprudence has it that it merely affects the weight and suf iciency of
the evidence. So that, when the court now decides, it will examine
whether the elements of the crime are present or suf iciently
established by evidence. In prosecution of crimes, proof of the corpus
delicti is indispensable. It refers to the presence of all elements
constitutive of the crime. In drug cases, the seized illegal drug should be
presented in court as it is the corpus delicti. Otherwise, this will create a
doubt to the mind of the court. The net result of failure to strictly
comply with Sec 21 is failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused for failure to prove the corpus delicti.
What then is the consequence of this rule that non-compliance with Sec
21 is not a ground for excluding the seized illegal drugs?
(a) You can not move for the exclusion of the seized illegal drugs;
(b) Proceed with trial.
By RGL
Evidence
(c) You may ile a demurrer to evidence. If granted, the case will be
dismissed for insuf iciency of evidence.
You’re Nothing But A Second-rate Trying Hard Copycat
Best Evidence Rule
Study Guide:
(1) Understand the concept of documentary evidence as distinguished
from object and testimonial evidence;
(2) Articulate the best evidence rule, and its exceptions, as an
exclusionary rule in relation to documentary evidence, and how it
operates in an actual case situation;
(3) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving, or otherwise
applying, the preceding matters.
This is an exclusionary rule that applies only to documentary evidence.
It is a rule of preference. If the original document is available, present
the original, and nothing else. However, if the original is not available,
the next to best, the secondary evidence, is allowed.
This is not a question of which one has the more probative value as
both have the same. Only that, the original is preferred. Not all cases
involving documents are covered by this rule. Only in cases when the
document is offered to prove its contents.
Under this rule, if the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document,
no evidence other than the original is admitted.
What’s the reason behind this rule? Back then, documents were
reproduced manually. There is then a high probability of error; error in
transmission, in the copying, in the conveying of the recollection of the
witness. Result would be possible fraud or slaughtering of the
document. Any slight difference in the document will spell a world of
difference between the parties. Thus, the evil of transmission is sought
to be avoided by this rule.
How to avoid mistransmission? Present the document itself. The evil is
prevented because there is no transmission to speak of. The original is
the source itself.
34 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
When does the content of a document become the subject of inquiry?
Consolidated Bank and Trust v. Del Monte Motor Works
SC said, the contents of the document become the subject of inquiry if
there is an issue in the accuracy of the wordings of the document.
What does the document say? One party says it says this way, while
the other says it another way.
Here, plaintiff bank only presented a photocopy of the promissory
note. Defendant objected to its admissibility on the ground of the best
evidence rule.
SC said the rule is inapplicable here since the content of the note is
not at issue here. Defendants did not dispute the content of the note.
Their only defense was that they did not receive the loan. The note
was only offered as proof that the note was issued as evidence of the
loan.
So that, in an action for collection of sum of money founded on a
promissory note, plaintiff claims defendant owes him P1M based on the
note. However, the defendant claims the note only says he owes P100K.
There is now an issue over the accuracy of the content, particularly the
igures. This now calls the application of the original document rule.
Hilario Lamsen v. People, G.R. No. 227069, November 22, 2017
SC said that a photocopy of the alleged falsi ied document is
inadmissible to prove falsi ication or forgery.
This case involves a piece of land covered by a certi icate of title.
When the owner died, the niece tried to look for it in vain. She went
to the register of deeds to inquire. She was informed that the land was
already sold to Lamsen.
The niece then iled an action for the issuance of a new owner’s copy
of the title. Lamsen opposed. The niece iled a separate criminal
action for falsi ication. She went to the notarial department to secure
a copy of the deed of sale purportedly executed by her aunt in favor of
Lamsen. She was told that the original could not be found, so she was
given only a photocopy of the deed.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
With the photocopy, she went to an NBI document examination
expert. The NBI of icer found that the deed was signed by a different
person.
Lamsen was convicted by the RTC and CA. He was later acquitted by
the SC. SC said, in order to prove falsi ication, it is indispensable to
compare the allegedly falsi ied document with the genuine one. IOW,
there is a need to compare the authentic signature of the party whose
signature was allegedly falsi ied with the allegedly falsi ied signature.
But the authenticity of the allegedly falsi ied signature can only be
established by presenting the falsi ied document itself and not its
mere photocopy.
The Best evidence rule is properly applied here. A secondary
evidence can not be resorted to without accounting for the original. In
this case, the prosecution failed to account for the original.
A. Documentary evidence
Section 2. Rule 130. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence
consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing
letters, words, sounds, numbers, igures, symbols, or their equivalent, or
other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents.
Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray
ilms, motion pictures or videos.
B. Original document
Section 4. Rule 130. Original of document. —
(a) An "original” of a document is the document itself or any
counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes
the negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a
computer or similar device, any printout or other output
readable by sight or other means, shown to re lect the data
accurately, is an “original.”
(b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by
means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures,
or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
By RGL
Evidence
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduce the original.
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless
(1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of
the original, or
(2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to
admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
What is an original document? Under the existing rules:
(a) The document, the contents of which is the subject of inquiry;
It does not matter if it is a photocopy, so long as the content of
that photocopy is the subject of inquiry.
(b) When the document is in 2 or more copies, executed at or about
the same time, with identical contents, all copies are original.
This refers to carbon copy;
(c) When an entry is repeated in the course of business, one being
copied from another at or about the same time of the
transaction, each entry is considered original;
(d) When the original consists of voluminous accounts or records
that cannot be produced in court without great loss of time and
the fact sought to be established from them is just the summary
of the whole. The contents of the original may be proved by a
summary. The summary is the original.
Under the proposed amendments: An "original” of a document is
(a) the document itself or
Refers to (a) of existing rules
(b) any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
executing or issuing it.
Refers to (b) and (c) of existing rules
An "original" of a photograph includes
(a) the negative or
(b) any print therefrom.
35 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
If data is stored in a computer or similar device,
(a) any printout or
(b) other output readable by sight or
(c) other means, shown to re lect the data accurately,
is an “original.”
What is a duplicate? A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by
(a) the same impression as the original, or
(b) from the same matrix, or
(c) by means of photography, including enlargements and
miniatures, or
(d) by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or
(e) by chemical reproduction, or
(f) by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the
original.
It is technically NOT an original but is treated as such. It is a functional
equivalent of the original. It is admissible to the same extent as the
original unless
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original, or
(b) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the
duplicate in lieu of the original.
This concept of “duplicate” was irst introduced in the Rules on
Electronic Evidence.
Atty T: Before, when the document is an ordinary paper-based, and
there is an issue as to the best evidence rule, it should be resolved under
the provisions of the rules of court. But if the document is
electronic-based, the best evidence rule is that of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence.
Before the proposed amendments, it was necessary to determine
whether the document is paper-based or electronic-based, to properly
apply the corresponding rule. But now, with the amendments already
including provisions on computer data, it now appears that there is no
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
longer a distinction as to the application of the original document rule
to both paper-based and electronic.
C. The “Best Evidence Rule” and its exceptions
Section 3. Rule 130. Original document must be produced; exceptions. —
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing,
recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other
than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails
to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original cannot be
obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole;
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
of icer or is recorded in a public of ice; and
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue.
Secondary evidence may be allowed if the case falls under any of the
exceptions. Which means, the rule on original document applies, but the
proponent may present not the original but the secondary instead. Note
that each exception has its corresponding secondary.
1. When original document is unavailable.
When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror.
2. When original document is in adverse party's custody or
control.
When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails
to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original cannot
be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures.
By RGL
Evidence
3. Summaries.
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.
4. When original document is a public record.
When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
of icer or is recorded in a public of ice; and
5. When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue.
As to the irst exception, certain conditions must irst be met before
the proponent is allowed to present secondary evidence:
(a) Existence and authenticity of original;
The following witnesses may be presented (As per De Vera v.
Aguilar)
1. Parties to original document;
2. Instrumental witnesses;
3. If the document is public, notary public;
4. A witness who has been shown a copy of the
document after its execution;
5. A witness who has been informed by either party of
the execution of the original.
NB: Just be careful with the No. 5 witness as his
testimony may be likely objected to under the hearsay
evidence rule. (pero malay mo, baka makalusot) Treat
this as an option of last resort.
(b) Fact of loss;
The following witnesses may be presented (As per De Vera v.
Aguilar)
1. Any witness who has personal knowledge of the fact
of loss, destruction or unavailability;
36 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
2. One who has exerted diligent effort in locating the
original in such places that similar original documents
are normally kept; This refers to
a. Of ice of custodian
3. One who has exerted diligent effort in locating the
original in some other places.
Proponent must prove that a reasonable effort has been exerted
to locate the missing or unavailable document.
Citibank v. Teodoro
SC faulted Citibank for its failure to prove that exerted reasonable
effort or diligence in locating the original sales invoices. SC thus
disallowed the bank to avail of the secondary evidence rule for
failure to prove the fact of loss.
(c) Absence of bad faith;
If the loss, destruction or unavailability is attributable to the
proponent, secondary evidence rule may not be availed of.
(d) Contents of original.
As to the third exception.
Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers
For the secondary evidence rule to apply, the original voluminous
accounts or records should be made accessible to the adverse party
for examination or even for copying. The court may even order the
production of the voluminous records in court.
The reason there being is that the adverse party can not be reasonably
expected to effectively cross-examine the witness who would be
testifying based on the summary, chart or calculation without the
adverse party having the opportunity to scrutinize the voluminous
records.
As to the ifth exception, this refers to cases where under the old rules,
the best evidence rule does not apply. IOW, where the subject of inquiry
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
is not the contents of the document. The most common instance where
the best evidence rule does not apply is the so-called collateral fact
rule.
In collateral fact rule, a document is involved, but its contents are not
the controlling issue. Refer to
Air France v. Carrascoso
Altercation between Carrascoso and a crew member resulting in the
bumping off of the former in favor of a white man.
During his testimony, Carrascoso mentioned that another crew
member, a parcer, overheard the altercation. In fact, the parcer
recorded in his notebook the incident. The airline objected to this
testimony, invoking the best evidence rule.
SC said that the rule only applies if the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document. Here, there was no issue as to the contents of
the document.
Probably, this is the one referred to by the ifth exception. Similarly,
in
People v. Tandoy
Involving a prosecution for possession of illegal drugs. During trial,
the prosecution presented a photocopy of the marked money. Tandoy
object invoking the best evidence rule and that the original marked
money must have been presented.
SC rebuffed Tandoy. The contents of the document presented is not
the controlling issue. The photocopy was presented to prove its
existence which is an extraneous matter. Same with
Arceo v. People
This is a prosecution for BP 22. During trial, prosecution presented a
photocopy of the bum check subject of the case. Arceo objected.
SC again ruled that the gravamen of violation of BP 22 is the mere
issuance of a bum check. Best evidence rule is not applicable. Again,
photocopy was presented to prove not the contents, but the existence
of the bum check.
By RGL
Evidence
D. Secondary Evidence
Section 5. Rule 130. When original document is unavailable. — When the
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause
of its unavailability without bad faith on his or her part, may prove its
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
Section 6. Rule 130. When original document is in adverse party's custody
or control. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of
adverse party, he or she must have reasonable notice to produce it. If
after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she
fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as
in the case of its loss.
Section 7. Rule 130. Summaries. — When the contents of documents,
records, photographs, or numerous accounts are voluminous and cannot
be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be
established is only the general result of the whole, the contents of such
evidence may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or
calculation.
The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the
adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that
they be produced in court. ⭐
Section 8. Rule 130. Evidence admissible when original document is a
public record. — When the original of document is in the custody of public
of icer or is recorded in a public of ice, its contents may be proved by a
certi ied copy issued by the public of icer in custody thereof.
Section 9. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party
who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not
obliged to offer it as evidence.
37 of 68
 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

Exception Corresponding Secondary Evidence presented since there is no need to strictly follow the rules on the electronic data message or electronic document or any
secondary evidence because secondary evidence inds no application methodology or procedures employed or adopted by a person
when the best evidence rule is inapplicable. and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of
(1) When original (a) a copy1, or
authenticating or approving an electronic data message or
document is (b) by a recital of its contents in some
electronic document.
unavailable authentic document, or Remember, if the Best evidence rule applies and the problem falls under (f ) "Electronic document" refers to information or the
(c) by the testimony of witnesses the irst exception, you can present secondary evidence but you have representation of information, data, igures, symbols or other
in the order stated. (this is not strictly to comply with the very stringent requirements. These requirements are modes of written expression, described or however represented,
enforced) not imposed if the original is not available but the best evidence rule by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or
does not apply because the subject of inquiry is not the contents of the by which a fact may be proved and af irmed, which is received,
(2) When original If the adverse party, despite reasonable notice, original. recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
document is in fails to produce the original, the original is electronically.
adverse party's now deemed lost, destroyed or unavailable. E. Electronic Commerce Act (g) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which secures and
custody or control Thus, secondary evidence under the irst R.A. 8792, Secs. 5, 6-15. defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels
exception, may now be resorted to. into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key.
SECTION 5. De inition of Terms. — For the purposes of this Act, the (h) "Intermediary" refers to a person who in behalf of another
(3) Summaries (a) Chart; following terms are de ined, as follows: person and with respect to a particular electronic data message
(b) Summary; or (a) "Addressee" refers to a person who is intended by the or electronic document sends, receives and/or stores or provides
(c) Calculation. originator to receive the electronic data message or electronic other services in respect of that electronic data message or
document, but does not include a person acting as an electronic document.
(4) When original Certi ied true copy of the original issued by the intermediary with respect to that electronic data message or (i) "Originator " refers to a person by whom, or on whose behalf,
document is a legal custodian. electronic document. the electronic document purports to have been created,
public record (b) "Computer " refers to any device or apparatus singly or generated and/or sent. The term does not include a person
interconnected which, by electronic, electro-mechanical, optical acting as an intermediary with respect to that electronic
(5) When the ANY evidence, since the Original Document and/or magnetic impulse, or other means with the same document.
original is not Rule does not apply. function, can receive, record, transmit, store, process, correlate, (j) "Service provider " refers to a provider of —
closely-related to analyze, project, retrieve and/or produce information, data, text, 1) Online services or network access, or the operator of
a controlling issue graphics, igures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of
facilities therefor, including entities offering the
expression or perform any one or more of these functions. transmission, routing, or providing of connections for
(c) "Electronic data message" refers to information generated, online communications, digital or otherwise, between
sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means. or among points speci ied by a user, of electronic
Prodon v. Alvarez (d) "Information and Communication System" refers to a system documents of the user's choosing; or
SC distinguished how to prove a fact or a document when the best for generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise 2) The necessary technical means by which electronic
evidence rule does not apply. SC said any form of evidence may be processing electronic data messages or electronic documents documents of an originator may be stored and made
and includes the computer system or other similar device by or accessible to a designated or undesignated third party.
in which data is recorded or stored and any procedures related
Such service providers shall have no authority to modify or alter
1
to the recording or storage of electronic data message or
Normally, a copy is a functional equivalent, and is therefore treated as an electronic document. the content of the electronic document received or to make any
original. This copy as secondary evidence would apply in a situation where entry therein on behalf of the originator, addressee or any third
there is genuine question of authenticity of the original. This means that if (e) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark,
party unless speci ically authorized to do so, and who shall
the authenticity of the original is being questioned, its copy will no longer be characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the
treated as an original but merely secondary. In consequence thereof, the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with retain the electronic document in accordance with the speci ic
original must irst be accounted for before presentation of such copy.

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 38 of 68

 Remedial Law Review
request or as necessary for the purpose of performing the
services it was engaged to perform.
CHAPTER II Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Messages and
Electronic Documents
F. Rules on Electronic Evidence
"REE", Rule 2, Sec. 1; Rule 3; Rule 4.
Section 1. Rule 2. De inition of terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the
following terms are de ined, as follows:
(a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem" means a system
capable of generating a secure key pair, consisting of a private
key for creating a digital signature, and a public key for verifying
the digital signature.
(b) "Business records " include records of any business, institution,
association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind,
whether or not conducted for pro it, or for legitimate or
illegitimate purposes.
(c) "Certi icate" means an electronic document issued to support a
digital signature which purports to con irm the identity or other
signi icant characteristics of the person who holds a particular
key pair.
(d) "Computer " refers to any single or interconnected device or
apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-mechanical or magnetic
impulse, or by other means with the same function, can receive,
record, transmit, store, process, correlate, analyze, project,
retrieve and/or produce information, data, text, graphics,
igures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of expression or
perform any one or more of these functions.
(e) "Digital signature" refers to an electronic signature consisting
of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic
data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such
that a person having the initial untransformed electronic
document and the signer's public key can accurately determine:
1. whether the transformation was created using the
private key that corresponds to the signer's public key;
and
2. whether the initial electronic document had been
altered after the transformation was made.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
(f ) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic document or electronic
data message bearing a digital signature veri ied by the public
key listed in a certi icate.
(g) "Electronic data message" refers to information generated,
sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means.
(h) "Electronic document" refers to information or the
representation of information, data, igures, 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 af irmed, which is received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any
print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which
accurately re lects the electronic data message or electronic
document. For purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic
document" may be used interchangeably with "electronic data
message".
(i) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which secures and
defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels
into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key.
(j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark,
characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the
identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with
the electronic data message or electronic document or any
methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person
and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of
authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message
or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an
electronic signature includes digital signatures.
(k) "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone
conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained.
(l) "Information and communication system" refers to a system
for generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise
processing electronic data messages or electronic documents
and includes the computer system or other similar devices by or
in which data are recorded or stored and any procedure related
to the recording or storage of electronic data messages or
electronic documents.
By RGL
Evidence
(m) "Key pair " in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private
key and its mathematically related public key such that the
latter can verify the digital signature that the former creates.
(n) "Private key" refers to the key of a key pair used to create a
digital signature.
(o) "Public key" refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a
digital signature.
Rule 3 ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based
documents. – Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing,
document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of
writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as
de ined in these Rules.
Section 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is admissible in
evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the
Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner
prescribed by these Rules.
Section 3. Privileged communication. – The con idential character of a
privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the
form of an electronic document.
Rule 4 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Section 1. Original of an electronic document. – 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 re lect the data accurately.
Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When a document is in
two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical
contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic
re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent
techniques which accurately reproduces the original, such copies or
duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
39 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be
admissible to the same extent as the original if:
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit
the copy in lieu of the original.
This is an offshoot of the Electronic Commerce Act. In fact, this rule is
the IRR of said act in so far as the evidentiary rules are concerned. This
act has an impact on the Rules of Court, particularly on the Best
evidence rule. As previously discussed, in so far as the best evidence
rule is concerned, there is a different treatment on paper-based
documents as distinguished from electronic documents. Paper-based
documents are treated by the rules of court as secondary and not
original. But under the electronic evidence rule that has been adopted by
the proposed amendments, there seems to be no more distinction
between an original and a counterpart or a copy. That’s why on those
cases that dwell on issues on electronic evidence, the SC had to irst
distinguish whether the document involved is paper-based or
electronic, because the resolution to the issue depends on the nature of
the document involved.
First, what is an electronic document?
It refers to
(a) information or
(b) the representation of information, data, igures, symbols or
(c) other modes of written expression,
described or however represented,
(a) by which a right is established or
(b) an obligation extinguished, or
(c) by which a fact may be proved and af irmed,
which is (this is the most important part)
(a) received,
(b) recorded,
(c) transmitted,
(d) stored,
(e) processed,
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
(f) retrieved or
(g) produced ELECTRONICALLY.
It includes
(a) digitally signed documents and
(b) any print-out or output, readable by sight or
(c) other means, which accurately re lects the electronic data
message or electronic document.
For purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic document" may be
used interchangeably with "electronic data message".
Thus, if any of the aforesaid processes is done MANUALLY, not
electronically, that document CAN NOT be considered as electronic.
This was enunciated in the case of
NPC v. Codilla
This involves an action for damages as a result of an accident where a
foreign vessel rammed against the power barges of NPC. Among
evidence presented were various photocopies of documents most of
them consist of letters that NPC addressed to the defendant.
These were objected to under the best evidence rule. NPC contended
that these were admissible as functional equivalents of the original
under the electronic evidence rule (EER).
SC was confronted with 2 crucial issues:
1. Is the photocopy admissible?
2. Is the document involved electronic or paper-based?
The ultimate issue is the admissibility of the photocopies. But in
order to resolve the issue, it has to be determined irst whether the
document is electronic. It is only when such a document is electronic
that the argument of the photocopy being functional equivalent would
ly.
In determining the nature of the document, the SC referred to the
de inition under the EER. SC then emphasized the word
“ELECTRONICALLY”. SC said a document can only be electronic if it
underwent any of the processes electronically.
Unfortunately for NPC, SC declared the documents as paper-based
because of the manual signatures appearing on the documents
By RGL
Evidence
involved. The presence of these manual signatures militates against
the electronic character of the documents.
So, since the documents were paper-based, the photocopies could not
be admitted without irst accounting for the original.
Take note also of
MCC Industrial v. Ssangyong
Very interesting if not ‘disturbing’ decision. The issue here is WON a
photocopy of the facsimile copy is admissible as functional
equivalent of the original.
MCC is a domestic corporation engaged in the importation and
distribution of construction materials, particularly stainless steel
pipes. In the course of its business, it sourced its products from a
foreign supplier, Ssangyong. In the course of their transactions, they
have adopted a practice where Ssangyong would send MCC thru fax
invoices detailing the speci ics of their transactions. If MCC agrees to
all the terms and conditions, it would send the invoices back to
Ssangyong thru fax machine.
Ssangyong would only ship to the PH the steel pipes when MCC
would open a letter of credit. For one reason or another, MCC refused
to open a letter of credit, Ssangyong could therefore not ship the
materials. Problem was, Ssangyong had already sourced the materials
from its own supplier. Pending delivery, Ssangyong had to safekeep
these steel pipes in a warehouse incurring storage fees.
Ssangyong iled an action to collect such fees. In order to prove the
existence of its transaction with MCC, it presented the invoices in the
form of photocopies of the facsimile copy of the invoice, or the copy
it received after MCC sent to them thru fax machine.
Ssangyong invoked the EER which treats a copy or duplicate as a
functional equivalent of the original. Thus, the SC had to grapple with
the issue of whether the facsimile copy is paper-based or electronic.
According to the SC, if the copy as received resulted from the use of
the ordinary facsimile machine, that copy is not electronic,
mmmkay? And the SC offered 2 justi ications for this:
1. Based on the de inition of electronic document. The
Electronic Commerce Act and EER were patterned after the
40 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
model law of UNCITRAL. The model law, as adopted, de ines
electronic document as that undergoes certain processes
including telegram, telex and telecopy. Under telecopy comes
facsimile copy. SC noted that in our inal version of the act
and EER with regard to the de inition of electronic
document, the processes of telegram, telex and telecopy
were deleted from the de inition. Such deletion made the SC
conclude, rightly or wrongly, that it was the intention of the
framers to exclude these processes including the process of
facsimile. Thus, any document produced from facsimile can
not be considered electronic.
2. This is where the distinction between an ordinary and
computer-generated facsimile becomes relevant. According
to the SC, the obvious purpose of the ECA and EER is to
promote paperless writing as opposed to a paper-based
document. In an ordinary fax machine, there are two
paper-based documents, the source document and the
received copy. This situation negates the purpose of the law
and rule. Whereas in a computer-generated fax machine
there is only one paper-based copy which is the one printed
at the receiving line. Its source is computer-based. There is
no paper-based source which is being fed into the fax
machine. This procedure is more in line with the purpose of
paperless writing.
The rulings in NPC and Ssangyong where the SC had to endeavor to
distinguish whether the document involved is paper-based or electronic
is relevant because during those times, there was a different treatment
of these documents in so far as the best evidence rule is concerned.
Now with these proposed amendments, a photocopy falls under
“duplicate”, a reproduction of the original using any of the
mentioned techniques. It is now admissible similar to that of an
original. Thus, had NPC and Ssangyong been decided during the
effectivity of the proposed amendments, there would have been
no need to make the distinction. Whether the document is
paper-based or electronic, its copy is treated as a functional equivalent.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
NOTE: NO express or implied repeal of the EER by the Proposed
Amendments.
Let’s now go to AUTHENTICATING electronic evidence.
(1) Electronic document;
(2) Electronic object evidence;
(3) Ephemeral electronic communication.
Electronic document
How do we authenticate an electronic document?
First, how to authenticate a paper-based document. You authenticate a
private paper-based document, NOT a public one. A public document is
presumed regular. A private document when offered as authentic can
only be admitted if it is properly authenticated by witnesses who saw
the parties sign the document or evidence of the genuineness and due
execution of the handwriting or signatures appearing on the private
document. The competence of the witnesses stems from
(a) their familiarity of the subject handwriting or signatures or
(b) that they have become accustomed to them by reason of their
function or
(c) by comparison of the signatures appearing on the document
and the signatures contained in a genuine document.
If the document is electronic there is a unique way to AUTHENTICATE
it.
1. Thru digital signature;
This refers to an electronic signature consisting of a
transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data
message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such
that a person having the initial untransformed electronic
document and the signer's public key can accurately determine:
a. whether the transformation was created using the
private key that corresponds to the signer's public key;
and
b. whether the initial electronic document had been
altered after the transformation was made.
By RGL
Evidence
This is different to the digitized or electronic signatures in
driver’s license and other IDs.
2. By evidence that other security procedures or devices as
may be authorized by the SC or by law for authenticating
electronic documents.
3. By any other means by which the integrity and reliability
of the electronic document is preserved to the satisfaction
of the court.
Note that the manners of authenticating electronic documents are very
different from that of paper-based documents.
Let’s now go to
Object Electronic Evidence
These are audio, photographic, or video evidence of events, acts or
transactions. These are admissible provided that
(a) These are shown, presented to or displayed to the court; AND
(b) Must be authenticated by the one who made the recording
(recorder) OR by a witness competent to testify as to the
accuracy of the recording.
Here, apply the rulings in Sison, Tatum.
Under the EER, these are treated as OBJECT evidence. But, under the
proposed amendments, these are now treated as DOCUMENTARY.
If it is object evidence, it is not governed by the best evidence rule. But
if it is considered documentary, it has to comply with the original
document rule.
How then to reconcile this? Again, look at its PURPOSE. If the recording
is offered to prove its contents, treat it as documentary. But if it is
offered to prove its existence or other facts extraneous to its contents,
treat it as object.
Ephemeral Electronic Communication
The most interesting. Ephemeral as in “ leeting”. Fleeting, like some love
💔. The rule does not de ine this, only enumerates. This refers to
(a) telephone conversations,
(b) text messages,
41 of 68
 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

(c) chatroom sessions,

(d) streaming audio,
(e) streaming video, and
(f) other electronic forms of communication the evidence of
which is not recorded or retained.
This can be AUTHENTICATED by:
(a) The testimony of the party to the communication;
(b) By any witness who had personal knowledge of the
communication.
What happens, if say, the text message is saved or recorded? It now
ceases to be ephemeral. How do you now authenticate this? Depends on
whether you offer it as object or documentary evidence.
We have cases on authenticating electronic evidence. One is
People v. Enojas
This involves recorded text messages. Thus, it was offered not as an
ephemeral electronic communication. Its admission was objected to
on the ground of improper authentication.
SC said there are two persons who could authenticate text messages:
1. Party to the exchanges;
2. Person who has personal knowledge of the text.
It so happened that the police who pretended to be the owner was a
party to the text exchanges. Thus, the transcript of the text messages
were duly authenticated.
We also have
People v. Navarro
This involves sound recording. One of the issues here was the
authentication of the sound recording. The accused argued that the
audio recording was not properly authenticated by a competent
witness.
SC had the occasion to lay down the requisites for authenticating an
audio recording:
1. The existence of the audio recording has to be established;
2. The voice in the recording should be identi ied;
3. The witness should be able to testify that the voice in the
recording is really the voice of the person purporting to be
the owner of that voice in the recording.
Here, the one who authenticated the audio recording was the one who
recorded the altercation. In the process of his testimony, he was able
to identify the voice in that recording and was able to establish the
connection between that voice in the recording and the accused to
whom the voice was attributed.
My Word Is My Bond
Parol Evidence Rule
Study Guide:
(1) Articulate the concept of Parol Evidence Rule and its exceptions as a
rule of exclusion applicable to documentary evidence;
(2) Learn how to apply Parol Evidence Rule in actual case situations;
(3) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving, or otherwise
applying, the preceding matters.
A. Parol evidence rule and its exceptions
Section 10. Rule 130. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms
of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the
parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the
terms of written agreement if he or she puts in issue in a veri ied
pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent
and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written
agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as
between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
What is being prohibited under the parol evidence rule? It is the
introduction of parol evidence, which literally is meant as ORAL. But in
the context of this rule, parol evidence is extraneous evidence which
may take the form of oral or any other form, so long as such evidence is
not found within the four corners of the written agreement.
There are three conditions before parol evidence rule applies:
1. If other terms or agreement, other than those written, are
sought to be proved;
2. These other terms or agreements are sought to be proved by
extraneous evidence other than the terms of the written
agreement itself;
3. These other terms or agreements are contrary to or
inconsistent with the terms of the written agreement.
EX: There is a deed of sale involving LOT A and for a consideration of
P1M. Here comes a witness who testi ies that the deed purports to refer
to LOT B for a consideration of P2M.
Applying the parol evidence rule, his testimony should not be admitted
as it would modify, alter, vary or contradict the terms of the written
agreement. So if there is an issue as to the term of the written agreement,
the only admissible evidence is the written agreement itself, and no
other.
PNB v. Chua
There was this depositor of PNB who maintained a
dollar-denominated time-deposit with the bank.
The depositor decided to withdraw a portion of the time-deposit.
When he went to the bank, he was aghast to learn that the deposit was
gone. He was informed by the bank that the deposit was applied then

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 42 of 68

Remedial Law Review
to his existing loan. The depositor claimed that he never obtained a
loan from the bank.
During trial, the bank presented the promissory note showing the
depositor receiving proceeds of the loan from the bank. The
depositor said that while it is true that he pre-signed some
promissory note, he did not receive proceeds from the loan since it
only served as security for a future loan that he did not avail of at all.
Applying the parol evidence rule, SC said that the promissory note
clearly states that for the amount of blah blah blah received,
depositor promised to pay the bank the amount in 12 installments.
There was nothing in the note that would indicate that it serves as
security for a future loan.
This other term, that the note serves as security for a future loan, is
another term that the depositor tried to prove by extraneous
evidence. The extraneous evidence being his testimony, which is not
found within the four corners of the promissory note. SC thus said
that this extraneous evidence tends to modify, vary, alter or
contradict the terms of the written agreement. Therefore, it cannot be
allowed under the parol evidence rule.
This rule was also invoked in the classic case of
Yu Tek v. Gonzales
There was this contract between Yu Tek and Gonzales, under which
Gonzales undertook to deliver a certain quantity of sugar within a
certain period for an agreed consideration. It further provided that
should Gonzales fail to deliver the agreed quantity within the period,
Gonzales undertook to return whatever consideration he may have
received under the contract.
Fast forward, Gonzales failed to deliver and Yu Tek demanded for the
return of the payment. During trial, Gonzales contended that the iling
of the complaint was immature because their agreement was that the
agreed quantity of sugar must be sourced from his own plantation.
So when his plantation failed to produce a harvest, his obligation to
deliver did not arise, and the demand for payment is still immature.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
SC said an examination of the contract does not contain any term that
the sugar should be sourced from the plantation of Gonzales. Parol
evidence rule applies.
So what are these exceptions?
1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
2. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent
and agreement of the parties thereto;
3. The validity of the written agreement; or
4. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written
agreement.
For purposes of invoking the exception, there is one, singular,
indispensable requirement: that the party should raise any or some of
these exceptions in a VERIFIED pleading. This is the only aspect of the
proposed amendment not found in the existing rules.
In Civil Procedure, we learned that pleadings need not be veri ied, except
if the rule speci ically requires. This is one of those rules that
(2) Failure to re lect the true intention of the parties. This is
speci ically requires that the pleading must be veri ied.
illustrated in the case of
So even if the extraneous evidence tends to establish another prior or
contemporaneous agreement that would vary, modify, explain or
contradict the terms of the written agreement, if the other party invokes
any of these exceptions, and any of these exceptions is or are properly
pleaded as an issue in his veri ied pleading, that extraneous evidence
may be admitted because it falls under the exception.
Let’s go over the exceptions one by one.
(1) Intrinsic Ambiguity, Mistake or Imperfection. This is illustrated
in the very old case of
Palanca v. Fred Wilson & Co
Palanca, owner of La Tondena, is engaged in the business of distilling
liquor. In his effort to produce Kulafu products, he engaged Wilson &
Co to supply him distilling apparatus. In their contract, it was
stipulated that the apparatus should have a capacity of 6000L per day.
By RGL
Evidence
During the actual production, the apparatus was able to treat or
process 6000L per day of raw materials. This is now the bone of
contention between the parties. Palanca claims that the apparatus
failed to deliver the agreed 6000L per day. Palanca claims that the
6000L refers to the inished product. On the other hand, Wilson & Co
claims that it refers to the raw materials to be processed by the
apparatus. This issue can not be resolved by simply examining the
four corners of the contract. There is therefore an intrinsic ambiguity
in the terms of the contract.
In resolving the issue, SC made use of extraneous evidence in the
form of the dictionary and looked for the de inition of “capacity”. It
was found that the term means capacity to treat and not to produce.
On that score, SC sided with Wilson & Co. Another evidence relied
upon by the SC is comparing the purchase price of an apparatus with
a treating capacity and the value of the apparatus with a capacity to
produce the inished product shows a substantial difference. Thus,
the purchase price herein refers to that of the apparatus with the
treating capacity. Otherwise, it would have been much higher.
Enriquez v. Ramos
This involves the sale of 20 pieces of land owned by Enriquez bought
by Ramos. Since Ramos did not have the necessary funds in full, the
parties agreed that Ramos would pay a down payment, and the
remaining balance shall be paid in installments and guaranteed by a
real estate mortgage that Ramos would execute in favor of Enriquez.
The REM is over the same subject properties.
Alleging that Ramos failed to pay the balance, Enriquez instituted
foreclosure proceedings. Ramos opposed alleging that the iling of
the action is premature because his obligation to pay the balance did
not yet accrue. This is because Ramos claimed that it was their
agreement that Ramos would only pay the balance after Enriquez
would have constructed feeder roads around the subject properties.
The intention of Ramos in purchasing the lots was to transform them
into a subdivision project.
43 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
During trial, Ramos testi ied as to the existence of such an agreement.
Enriquez opposed invoking parol evidence rule contending that the
deed of sale does not in any way state the alleged agreement.
SC said that the parol evidence rule does not apply since the contract
did not re lect the true intention of the parties, since the condition of
the construction of feeder roads was not incorporated in the deed of
sale. This was also similarly applied in the more recent case of
Heirs of Policronio Ureta v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta
Alfonso, owned several parcels of land. One of his children happens
to be a judge, Policronio. Anticipating the death of Alfonso, Policronio
convinced his father to resort to estate planning in order to lessen the
effect of estate taxes the moment he dies. To achieve this purpose,
Policronio suggested and Alfonso agreed, to execute deeds of
conveyance over his properties in favor of his children to make it
appear that these properties were sold to them during his lifetime to
avoid payment of estate tax.
Fast forward, Alfonso, then Policronio, died. During the settlement of
the estate of Alfonso, the administrator submitted an inventory of all
the properties forming part of the estate. The heirs of Policronio
learned that the 4 parcels of land which Alfonso sold to Policronio
were included in the inventory. They thus sought to intervene praying
that these parcels of land be excluded from the settlement
proceedings.
In their Answer, the heirs of Alfonso, pleaded it as an issue that the
deed of sale did not re lect the true intention of the parties, because
the deed was ictitious. Heirs of Policronio objected invoking parol
evidence rule.
SC overruled the objection since it was impleaded that the true
intention of the parties was not re lected in the contract.
(3) Validity of the agreement. The application of the parol evidence
rule presupposes a valid contract. So that if the validity of the written
agreement is disputed, there is no sense in applying this rule. This was
also applied in the case of Heirs of Ureta v Heirs of Ureta, as it was
alleged that the deed of sale was simulated and therefore void.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
(4) Terms subsequent to the execution of the agreement. These
other terms agreed upon AFTER the execution of the written agreement
can be interpreted as the parties’ intention to modify the previously
executed agreement. Illustrative of this principle is
Canuto v. Mariano
There was this deed of sale with a right of repurchase. The seller was
given one year to exercise her right to repurchase. When the one year
period was about to expire, and anticipating her inability to
repurchase, the seller approached the buyer requesting for a grace
period. The buyer graciously agreed. The one year period lapsed. But
before the grace period expired, the seller approached the buyer and
offered to pay the repurchase price. But the buyer refused, contending
that the redemption period has expired.
The seller iled an action to compel the buyer to accept the
repurchase price and reconvey the property. The seller testi ied on
their alleged agreement for a grace period to redeem. The buyer
opposed invoking the parol evidence rule.
SC ruled in favor of the seller applying the 4th exception that the grace
period the seller tried to prove by extraneous evidence is another
term executed by the parties AFTER the execution of the written deed
of sale with repurchase.
As previously discussed, the rule can only be invoked by and against a
party to the written agreement. Who exactly is this party to a written
agreement?
(a) Those who signed the written agreement;
correlate with Art. 1403, Civil Code.
(b) Stipulation pour autrui. One who may not be a party, but
stands to bene it out of the terms of the written agreement. This
was illustrated in the relatively recent case of
Heirs of Pacres v. Heirs of Ygona
Involves a lot found in Pardo. Pacres owned a piece of land and when
he died this was inherited by his 6 children. Subsequently, 4 of the 6
surviving children sold their respective shares to Ygona. Two of the 6,
including Mario, did not sell their share.
By RGL
Evidence
The Heirs of Mario iled a case in court to compel the heirs of Ygona
to comply with Ygona’s undertaking. According to them, when Ygona
bought the shares of the 4 children, Ygona undertook to do the
following:
(a) Pay the realty taxes dues;
(b) Cause the survey of the entire land;
(c) Cause a subdivision of the entire land;
(d) Deliver and secure to the parties individual titles covering
the heirs’ respective adjudicated portions.
The heirs of Mario thus tried to present evidence to prove the
existence of this agreement. This was objected to under the parol
evidence rule. The Heirs of Mario countered that they can not be
bound by the rule because they are not parties to the written deed of
sale.
Sc had the occasion to apply the principle of stipulation pour
autrui in relation to parol evidence rule. Even if the heirs were not
parties to the deed of sale, since the alleged undertakings of Ygona
purport to bene it Mario and his heirs, Mario and his heirs are
deemed to be bene iciaries of such undertakings. Being bene iciaries,
they are in law deemed to be parties to the contract.
(c) If a person’s claim is based upon a written agreement or
when he asserts a right emanating from the written
agreement. Even if he is not a party, he is deemed a party to the
contract.
Article 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they
are rati ied:
(1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who
has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has
acted beyond his powers;
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth
in this number. In the following cases an agreement hereafter
made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some
note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by
44 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the
agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a
secondary evidence of its contents:
(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed
within a year from the making thereof;
(b) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or
miscarriage of another;
(c) An agreement made in consideration of marriage,
other than a mutual promise to marry;
(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things
in action, at a price not less than ive hundred pesos,
unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods
and chattels, or the evidences, or some of them, of such
things in action or pay at the time some part of the
purchase money; but when a sale is made by auction
and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales book,
at the time of the sale, of the amount and kind of
property sold, terms of sale, price, names of the
purchasers and person on whose account the sale is
made, it is a suf icient memorandum;
(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than
one year, or for the sale of real property or of an
interest therein;
(f ) A representation as to the credit of a third person.
(3) Those where both parties are incapable of giving consent to a
contract.
Refer your attention to Art 1403 of the Civil Code, or the Statute of
Frauds. This is a civil law concept of parol evidence. Under this rule,
certain contracts can not be proved by parol evidence. They can only be
proved by a written memorandum. The parol here strictly refers to oral
testimony.
A con lict arises when the second exception to the application of parol
evidence rule is invoked as when a contract under the statute of frauds
does not re lect the true intention of the parties. If Art 1403 is followed,
oral testimony can not be used to prove the parties' intention. The Rules
of Court, however, allows this.
There are two views that attempt to resolve the con lict:
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
First, Art 1403 should prevail being substantive law over the Rules of
Court which is procedural.
Second, Art 1403 is a procedural rule found in substantive law. The
Rules of Court would still thus prevail.
Paras is of the view that when the true intention of the parties happens
to be a contract governed by the Statute of Frauds, it can only be proved
by a written memorandum, and not by oral evidence.
Atty T: For our purposes, memorize these contracts…
(1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who
has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has
acted beyond his powers;
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth
in this number. In the following cases an agreement hereafter
made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or
some note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and
subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence,
therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the
writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents:
(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed
within a year from the making thereof;
(b) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or
miscarriage of another;
(c) An agreement made in consideration of marriage,
other than a mutual promise to marry;
(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things
in action, at a price not less than ive hundred pesos,
unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods
and chattels, or the evidences, or some of them, of
such things in action or pay at the time some part of
the purchase money; but when a sale is made by
auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his
sales book, at the time of the sale, of the amount and
kind of property sold, terms of sale, price, names of
the purchasers and person on whose account the sale
is made, it is a suf icient memorandum;
(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than
one year, or for the sale of real property or of an
interest therein;
By RGL
Evidence
(f) A representation as to the credit of a third person.
(3) Those where both parties are incapable of giving consent to a
contract.
Instances where Parol Evidence Rule
Does Not Apply
There are however instances where the parol evidence rule DOES NOT
apply.
1. When the document involved is NOT a contract, as illustrated in
Cruz v. CA
Here, a sublease contract was entered into by Cruz in favor of Salonga
over a ishpond. In the course of their transaction, Cruz issued a
receipt evidencing payment of a certain amount he received from
Salonga. The receipt allegedly shows the loan obligation of Cruz to
Salonga and alleging that Cruz failed to pay the loan.
During trial, Cruz testi ied that the amount in the receipt is not a loan,
but actually an amount paid by Salonga for the latter’s obligation to
Cruz. So, it’s the other way around. It was in consideration of the
sublease contract and a pakyaw contract they entered into.
Since this is not found in the receipt, Salonga objected to the
testimony of Cruz invoking parol evidence rule. SC said, the rule is
INAPPLICABLE here since it can only be applied to contracts, NOT
when the document simply contains a statement of fact. A
receipt is NOT a contract.
2. Founded on the principle of mutuality of contracts, the rule does
not apply when invoked by and against a stranger to the
contract. If at least one party to a suit is not a party to the written
agreement sued upon, the parol evidence rule does not apply. This
is best illustrated in the landmark case of
Lechugas v. CA
Involves a piece of land bought by Lechugas from Lasangue. A deed of
sale was executed by the latter in favor of the former. It clearly
indicates that the subject matter of the sale is Lot “A”. Years later, when
45 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
Lechugas later discovered that the defendants were occupying the
land which she believes to be Lot “A”, she iled an ejectment suit
against them. The suit did not prosper. Lechugas then iled another
action for recovery of ownership and possession of the piece of land
against the same defendants.
During trial, defendants presented Leoncia Lasangue, the seller
herself. Leoncia testi ied that indeed she and Lechugas entered into a
deed of sale but the subject was not Lot “A” but Lot “B”. It would now
appear that Lechugas is claiming ownership over a wrong lot.
Obviously, the defendants were trying to introduce extraneous
evidence consisting of the testimony of Lasangue to establish another
term which is that the subject matter of the deed of sale was Lot “B”
and not Lot “A”. Lechugas invokes parol evidence rule.
SC overruled the objection of Lechugas (Lechugas: lechugas!). SC then
enunciated that the parol evidence rule which is based on privity of
contracts only applies to parties to a written contract. In this case,
while Lasangue and Lechugas were parties to the deed of sale, the
defendants were not parties thereof. In effect, Lechugas can not
invoke Parol evidence rule against herein defendants.
Would the answer be the same had Lasangue been impleaded as
party-defendant along with the other defendants? THE SAME. The
doctrine is that if AT LEAST ONE party to the suit is not a party to the
written agreement, the rule does not apply.
3. When the collateral agreement rule applies. If the other term
that the party seeks to establish is independent from and is not
contrary or inconsistent with the terms of the written agreement,
the rule can not be applied. In the inal analysis, this other term is
an independent and separate contract. So, there’s no danger that the
terms would be modi ied, altered, varied or contradicted by one
party without the consent of the other. This was the doctrine
enunciated in
Robles v. Lizarraga Hermanos
This involves a hacienda owned by Zacarias. After his demise, his
wife assumes as the administratrix of the hacienda. The widow
leased the hacienda to one of the sons, Zacarias, Jr, for a period of 6
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence
years. In accordance with the terms of the lease contract, Jr As to Parol Original Doc
introduced improvements over the hacienda.
Fast forward, 4th year into the lease contract, Lizarraga Hermanos Issue Truthfulness or falsity Accuracy in the contents
approached the heirs of Sr to express its interest to buy the entire of the contents of document
hacienda, including the leased portion. The negotiation hit a snag
Application Only to documents which To all forms of document
when Lizarraga Hermanos discovered there was still 2 years
consist of a contract or
remaining in so far as the lease is concerned. Bent on acquiring the
agreement.
hacienda, Lizarraga Hermanos allegedly offered to compensate Jr of
the value of the improvements he introduced. Jr agreed. Sale
Invocability By and against a party to By and against ALL
accomplished.
the agreement. parties
Claiming that Lizarraga failed to comply with its undertaking to
reimburse Jr of the value of the improvements he introduced, he iled
an action for collection of sum of money. Jr testi ied that were it not
for the undertaking of Lizarraga, he would not have agreed to the sale Honesty Is The Best Policy
of the hacienda, he being one of the heirs.
Witnesses
This testimony of Jr was objected to under the parol evidence rule
because the deed of sale did not contain the alleged undertaking. Study Guide:
SC said, here, there is no inconsistency. That other term, referring to (1) Know and articulate the concept of testimonial evidence, the
the undertaking of Lizarraga, is an independent agreement separate quali ications of a witness, the various rules of disquali ication of
and distinct from the deed of sale over the hacienda. The other term witnesses, and the various kinds of privilege communications;
(2) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving, or otherwise
orally agreed upon by Jr and Lizarraga refers to the improvements.
applying, the preceding matters.
Thus, parol evidence rule does not apply.
Section 21. Rule 130. Witnesses; their quali ications. — Except as
Thus, what is prohibited under this rule is the introduction of evidence provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive,
that would tend to establish the existence of other terms prior to or and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be
contemporaneous with the written agreement. witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or
4. When there is a waiver. Like any other exclusionary rule, this rule
conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be
is not a self-executing exclusionary rule. This must be invoked by
ground for disquali ication.
the proper party at the proper time.
5. When the exceptions apply.
There is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a witness for
a party to present some form of authorization to testify as a witness for
Distinction between Best Evidence
the party presenting him or her.
Rule and Parol Evidence Rule
GR: All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their
How does parol evidence rule differ from the original document rule?
known perception to others, may be witnesses.
There’s a thin line.
By RGL 46 of 68
 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or
her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her
own perception. (Sec 22 Rule 130)
➔ While “mental insanity” and “mental immaturity” are no
longer grounds to disqualify the witness from testifying, his or
her testimony must still be subjected to the stimulating
sunshine of the test of weight and credibility.
➔ However, Section 6 of the Rules on Examination of a
Child Witness requires the court to conduct a competency
examination of a child witness, motu proprio or upon
motion of a party, when it inds that substantial doubt exists
regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember,
communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate
the duty to tell the truth in court.
Disqualifications
1. Lack of Personal Knowledge
2) in a criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse refers only to “future crime or
against the other spouse or against the latter’s direct fraud”
descendants or ascendants. 2. Claimants through same deceased client;
communication may be essential to
Alvarez v. Ramirez
an accurate resolution of competing
The better rule is that, when an offense directly attacks, or directly
claims of succession and the testator
and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the
would presumably favor disclosure
exception to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the
in order to dispose of his estate
other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed by one
accordingly.
against the other.
3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client;
The act of Maximo in setting ire to the house of his sister-in-law
Susan Ramirez, knowing fully well that his wife was there, and in fact does not cover any and all of the
with the alleged intent of injuring the latter, is an act totally alien to information obtained or advice given
the harmony and con idences of marital relation which the in the course of the engagement; but
disquali ication primarily seeks to protect. The criminal act only such information or advice as
complained of had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the may be relevant to the issue of the
conjugal relation. breach of duty.
4. Document attested by the lawyer;

Section 22. Testimony con ined to personal knowledge. — A witness can 3. By reason of PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION (Sec 24) as a lawyer who acts as an attesting
testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal a. MARITAL witness is technically not providing
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception. professional service.
The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage,
CANNOT be examined without the consent of the other 5. Joint clients.
2. By reason of MARRIAGE as to any communication received in con idence by one The rationale of this exception is that
from the other during the marriage EXCEPT in a civil case joint clients do not intend their
Section 23. Disquali ication by reason of marriage. — During their
by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime communication to be con idential
marriage, the husband or the wife cannot testify against the other
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct from each other, and typically, their
without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one
descendants or ascendants. communications are made in each
against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. b. ATTORNEY-CLIENT other’s presence.

GR: Persons covered by the privilege: The common lawyer may be

GR: Either spouse may testify for, but not against, the other examined on such
1. Attorney;
spouse; communication, but only if the
2. Any person reasonably believed by the client
communication is offered in an
EXC: to be licensed to engage in the practice of law;
action between any of the clients.
3. Attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or
1) in a civil case iled by one spouse against the other spouse; other persons assisting the attorney.
EXC: Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society
1. Furtherance of crime or fraud;

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 47 of 68

Remedial Law Review
When the attorney has faithfully carried out his instructions by
delivering the communication to the third person for whom it was
intended and the latter acts upon it, it cannot, by any reasoning
whatever, be classi ied in a legal sense as a privileged
communication between the attorney and his client.
It is plain that such a communication, after reaching the party for
whom it was intended at least, is a communication between the client
and a third person, and that the attorney simply occupies the role
of intermediary or agent.
Regala v. Sandiganbayan
The general rule in our jurisdiction is that a lawyer may not invoke
the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.
This is quali ied by some important exceptions:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists
that revealing the client’s name would implicate that client
in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his
identity is privileged.
3) Where the government’s lawyers have no case against an
attorney’s client unless, by revealing the client’s name, the
said name would furnish the only link that would form the
chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a
crime, the client’s name is privileged.
People v. Sandiganbayan, Honrada, et al.
The same privileged con identiality, however, does not attach with
regard to a crime which a client intends to commit thereafter or in
the future and for purposes of which he seeks the lawyer’s advice.
In order that a communication between a lawyer and his client may
be privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a
lawful end. The existence of an unlawful purpose prevents the
privilege from attaching.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
US v. Gordon-Nikkar
A communication divulged to "strangers" or outsiders can scarcely
be considered a con idential communication between attorney and
client.
US v. McPartlin
McPartlin was entitled to the protection of the attorney-client
privilege, because his statements were made in con idence to an
attorney for a co-defendant for a common purpose related to both
defenses.
Ingram argues that the co-defendants' defenses must be in all
respects compatible if the joint-defense privilege is to be applicable.
The cases do not establish such a limitation, and there is no reason
to impose it. The privilege applies to communications by a client
"to a lawyer representing another in a matter of common
interest." The privilege protects pooling of information for any
defense purpose common to the participating defendants.
NOTE: In the light of the “Joint Clients” rule introduced by the
amendment, the fact that McPartlin and Engram shared a
joint-interest or common defense in the face of a common foe is now
IRRELEVANT.
c. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT
Persons covered:
1. Physician;
2. Psychotherapist;
3. Any person reasonably believed by the patient to be
authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy.
4. Members of the patient's family, who have participated
in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the
direction of the physician or psychotherapist.
By RGL
Evidence
Rule: CANNOT in a civil case, without the consent of
the patient, be examined as to any con idential
communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or
treatment of the patient's physical, mental or
emotional condition, including alcohol or drug
addiction, between the patient and his or her physician
or psychotherapist.
Lim v. CA
In order that the privilege may be successfully claimed, the following
requisites must concur:
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 in his professional capacity;
4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that
capacity; and
5. the information was con idential, and, if disclosed, would
blacken the reputation (formerly character) of the patient.
Krohn v. CA
In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed
is not one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
obstetrics. He is simply the patient's husband who wishes to testify
on a document executed by medical practitioners. Plainly and clearly,
this does not fall within the claimed prohibition. Neither can his
testimony be considered a circumvention of the prohibition because
his testimony cannot have the force and effect of the testimony of the
physician who examined the patient and executed the report.
Chan v. Chan
It is of course possible to treat Josielene’s motion for the issuance of
a subpoena duces tecum covering the hospital records as a motion
for production of documents, a discovery procedure available to
48 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
a litigant prior to trial. But the above right to compel the production
of documents has a limitation: the documents to be disclosed are
“not privileged.”
Physician memorializes all these information in the patient’s
records. Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the
physician to testify on privileged matters he gained while dealing
with the patient, without the latter’s prior consent.
d. PRIEST-PENITENT
A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so
cannot, without the consent of the affected person, be
examined as to any communication or confession made to
or any advice given by him or her, in his or her
professional character.
e. Of icial Secrets
A public of icer cannot be examined during or after his or
her tenure as to communications made to him or her in
of icial con idence, when the court inds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure.
The communication shall remain privileged, EVEN IN THE HANDS
OF A THIRD PERSON who may have obtained the information,
provided that the original parties to the communication took
reasonable precaution to protect its con identiality.
Executive Privilege
ELEMENTS
1) The protected communication must relate to a "quintessential
and non-delegable presidential power."
2) The communication must be authored or "solicited and
received" by a close advisor of the President or the President
himself.
The judicial test is that an advisor must be in "operational
proximity" with the President.
3) The presidential communications privilege remains a quali ied
privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need,
such that the information sought "likely contains important
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
evidence" and by the unavailability of the information
elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
Neri v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
There are two (2) kinds of executive privilege; one is the
presidential communications privilege and, the other is the
deliberative process privilege. The former pertains to
"communications, documents or other materials that re lect
presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President
believes should remain con idential." The latter includes `advisory
opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a
process by which governmental decisions and policies are
formulated."
Accordingly, they are characterized by marked distinctions.
Presidential communications privilege applies to
decision-making of the President while, the deliberative process
privilege, to decision-making of executive of icials. The irst is
rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of power and the
President's unique constitutional role; the second on common law
privilege.
Testimonial Privilege
Parental and Filial
(Sec 25 Rule 130 correlated with Art 215 of the Family Code)
GR: No person shall be compelled to testify against his or her
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants,
EXC: When such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that
person or by one parent against the other.
Lee v. CA
The rule applies only to "direct" ascendants and descendants, a
family tie connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no
common ancestry by her stepmother.
By RGL
Evidence
Trade Secrets
(Sec 26 Rule 130)
GR: A person CANNOT be compelled to testify about any trade
secret,
EXC: Unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise
work injustice.
When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective
measure as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the
parties and the furtherance of justice may require.
A “trade secret” has been de ined in this case as a “plan or process,
tool or mechanism or compound known only to its owner and those of
his employees to whom it is necessary to con ide.”
Newsman’s Privilege
Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the
publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of any
newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be
compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information
appearing in said publication which was related in con idence to such
publisher, editor or reporter unless the court or a House or committee
of Congress inds that such revelation is demanded by the security of
the State.
Forgive Me, For I Have Sinned
Extrajudicial Admissions and Confessions
Study Guide:
(1) Know and articulate the concept of extrajudicial admissions and
confessions, their probative value and requirement for admissibility;
(2) Know and articulate the principle of Res Inter Alios Acta Rule and its
exceptions;
(3) Know and articulate the Rule on Compromises and its evidentiary
implications and consequences;
(4) Distinguish the concept and effects of Extrajudicial Admissions and
Confessions from Judicial Admissions;
49 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
(5) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving, or otherwise
applying, the preceding matters.
Admissions Against Interest
Section 27. Rule 130. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against
him or her.
correlate with Rule 130, Section 34 (confession)
Section 34. Confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging
his or her guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence against him or her.
Rule 133, Section 3 (extra-judicial confession)
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not suf icient ground for conviction. —
An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be suf icient
ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in
this constitutional provision:
(1) coerced confessions, the product of third degree methods
such as torture, force, violence, threat, and intimidation, which
are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section 12, and
(2) uncounselled statements, given without the bene it of
Miranda warnings, which are the subject of paragraph 1 of the
same section.
and Rule 116, Sections 3 and 4, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
(plea of guilty)
Section 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. — When
the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence
in his behalf.
Section 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence,
discretionary. — When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense,
the court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty
to be imposed.
Compromises
Section 28. Offer of compromise not admissible. — In civil cases, an offer of
compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. Neither is evidence of conduct nor
statements made in compromise negotiations admissible, except
evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose, such
as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of
undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation
or prosecution.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty
to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who
made the plea or offer. Neither is any statement made in the course of
plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does not result in a plea of
guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses
occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or
criminal liability for the injury.
NOTES
● Admission. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her.
● Confession. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his
or her guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence against him or her.
By RGL
Evidence
● Extrajudicial Confession. An extrajudicial confession made by
an accused, shall not be suf icient ground for conviction,
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
● Offer of Compromises NOT Admissible in CIVIL Cases
also such other conduct or statements made in the course of
the compromise negotiation,
EXC if such conduct or statement is offered for a purpose other
than to prove the liability of the offeror, such as:
1. proving bias or prejudice of a witness;
2. negativing a contention of undue delay; or
3. proving an effort to obstruct criminal investigation or
prosecution.
● In CRIMINAL cases, an offer of compromise by the accused
may be received in evidence as an implied admission of
guilt.
EXC those involving
1. quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or
2. those allowed by law to be compromised.
● A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a
plea of guilty to lesser offense, is NOT ADMISSIBLE in
evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
Neither is any statement made in the course of plea bargaining
with the prosecution, which does not result in a plea of guilty
or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible.
● An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other
expenses occasioned by an injury is NOT ADMISSIBLE in
evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
50 of 68
Remedial Law Review
People v. Godoy
The accused is permitted to show that the offer was not made under a
consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the inconvenience of
imprisonment or for some other reason which would justify a claim
by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth an
admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences
which would ordinarily ensue therefrom.
It has been held that where the accused was not present at the
time the offer for monetary consideration was made, such offer
of compromise would not save the day for the prosecution. In
another case, this Court ruled that no implied admission can be
drawn from the efforts to arrive at a settlement outside the court,
where the ACCUSED DID NOT TAKE PART in any of the negotiations
and the effort to settle the case was in accordance with the
established tribal customs, that is, Muslim practices and traditions,
in an effort to prevent further deterioration of the relations between
the parties.
People v. De Guzman
A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt
to compromise.
Moreover, any scintilla of doubt both as to the identi ication of the
accused and as to his guilt was dissolved by the overtures of his
parents, wife, children and sister-in-law on pleading for
forgiveness from Gilda. The accused did not disown their acts,
which were testi ied to by his kumadre, Resurreccion Talub Quiocho,
and Gilda herself. He chose not to deny their testimony.
San Miguel v. Kalalo
The Offer of Compromise made prior to the iling of the criminal
complaint was clearly not made in the context of a criminal
proceeding and, therefore, cannot be considered as an implied
admission of guilt.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
People v. Yparraguirre
An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be
irst iled before the offer can be received in evidence against the
offeror. What is required is that after committing the crime, the
accused or his representative makes an offer to compromise and
such offer is proved.
Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
GR: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another
(Res Inter Alios Acta of the First Branch, Sec 29 Rule 130)
EXC as hereinafter provided
1. Admission by Co-partner or Agent
The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the
party to make a statement concerning the subject, or
within the scope of his or her authority and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in
evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint
owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested
with the party.
Learning Child v. Ayala Alabang Village Association
We have to clarify that ALI's statements, if damaging to AAVA, would
be binding on the latter. It appears that Ayala Corporation is
JOINTLY INTERESTED with AAVA in an action to enforce the Deed
of Restrictions, and is therefore covered under the following
exception to the res inter alios acta rule: xxxx
Narra Nickel v Redmont
By RGL
Evidence
A joint venture agreement between and among corporations may be
seen as similar to partnerships since the elements of partnership are
present.
2. Admission by Conspirator
The act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence
against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act of declaration.
People v. Bokingco
In order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against
his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that
irst, the conspiracy be irst proved by evidence other than the
admission itself;
second, the admission relates to the common object; and
third, it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying
out the conspiracy.
As we have previously discussed, we did not ind any suf icient
evidence to establish the existence of conspiracy. Therefore, the
extrajudicial confession has no probative value and is inadmissible
in evidence against Col.
3. Admission by Privies
Where one derives title to property from another, the latter’s
act, declaration, or omission, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former if done while the latter was
holding the title.
City of Manila v. Del Rosario
Whatever statements Lorenzo del Rosario might have made in the
documents mentioned, they are not binding upon the defendant,
because, under section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "where
one derives title to real property from another, the declaration, act, or
omission of the latter, in relation to the property, is evidence against
51 of 68
Remedial Law Review
the former ONLY WHEN MADE WHILE THE LATTER HOLDS THE
TITLE"
Similar Acts or Previous Conduct Rule
Res Inter Alios Acta of the Second Branch
Gevero v. IAC and Del Monte Development
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is NOT
The admission of the former owner of a property must have been
ADMISSIBLE to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or
made WHILE HE WAS THE OWNER thereof in order that such
similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove
admission may be binding upon the present owner.
4. 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 or her.
5. Adoptive Admission
Republic v. Kenrick Development
A party may, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopt or ratify
another's statement. Where it appears that a party clearly and
unambiguously assented to or adopted the statements of another,
evidence of those statements is admissible against him. This is the
essence of the principle of ADOPTIVE ADMISSION.
An adoptive admission is a party's reaction to a statement or action
by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party's reaction
as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person.
By adoptive admission, a third person's statement becomes the
admission of the party embracing or espousing it. Adoptive
admission may occur when a party:
(a) expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by
another;
(b) hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it;
(c) utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of another;
(d) replies by way of rebuttal to some speci ic points raised by
another but ignores further points which he or she has heard
the other make; OR
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence
(e) reads and signs a written statement made by another. convict the accused of a SECOND offense nor is there an attempt to
draw the mind away from the point at issue and thus to prejudice
defendant's case. The purpose is to ascertain defendant's knowledge
and intent, and to ix his negligence.
People v. Irang
While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a
1. a speci ic intent or knowledge; prosecution for robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise
2. identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the
relevant, as where it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator of
the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the scene or in
like.
the vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or when it is evidence of
a circumstance connected with the crime.
Boston Bank v. Manalo
HABIT, CUSTOM, USAGE, PATTERN OF CONDUCT. The examples
offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence must be US v. Mercado
numerous enough to base on inference of systematic conduct.
While you cannot impeach the credibility of a witness, except by
In determining whether the examples are numerous enough, and showing that he has made contradictory statements or that his
suf iciently regular, the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, yet,
uniformity of response. nevertheless, you may show by an examination of the witness
himself or from the record of the judgment, that he has been
However, respondents failed to allege and prove, in the trial court,
convicted of a high crime.
that, as a matter of business usage, habit or pattern of conduct,
XEI granted all lot buyers the right to pay the balance of the purchase
He Said, She Said
price in installments of 120 months of ixed amounts with
pre-computed interests, and that XEI and the respondents had
intended to adopt such terms of payment relative to the sale of the Hearsay Evidence Rule
two lots in question.
Study Guide:
(1) Know and articulate the legal concept of hearsay evidence rule, and
its exceptions, as an exclusionary rule;
US v. Pineda (2) Learn to apply hearsay evidence rule in actual case situations;
(3) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving, or otherwise
If the defendant has on more than one occasion performed similar
applying, the preceding matters.
acts, accident in good faith is possibly excluded, negligence is
intensi ied, and fraudulent intent may even be established.
As a general rule, the evidence of other offenses committed by a
defendant is inadmissible. But appellant has confused this maxim
Concept of Hearsay Evidence
and this rule with certain exceptions thereto. The effort is not to Section 37. Rule 130. Hearsay. — Hearsay is a statement other than one
By RGL 52 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to
prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement is
(1) an oral or written assertion or
(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person,
if it is intended by him or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is
inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testi ies at the trial or hearing
and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the
statement is
(a) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under
oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other
proceeding, or in a deposition;
(b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut
an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent
fabrication or improper in luence or motive; or
(c) one of identi ication of a person made after perceiving him or
her.⭐
Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant
while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the
facts asserted therein. A statement is
(1) an oral or written assertion or
(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person,
if it is intended by him or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is
INADMISSIBLE except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testi ies at the trial or
hearing and is SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION concerning the
statement, and the statement is
(a) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given
under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or
other proceeding, or in a deposition;
(b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to
rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of
recent fabrication or improper in luence or motive; or
(c) one of identi ication of a person made after perceiving him or
her.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
The operative factor that makes a statement hearsay is when such
statement is offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted in the
statement.
If the purpose is only to prove that such a statement has in fact
been made by the declarant, such statement is NOT HEARSAY even if
made by a witness other than the declarant while testifying.
In the latter regard, the statement is admissible under the doctrine of
“independently relevant statement,” where the making of the
statement is relevant it being the fact in issue or circumstantial evidence
of the fact in issue, independent from, or regardless of, the truth or
falsity of the facts asserted in the statement.
People v. Padit
The reason for the exclusion of hearsay evidence is that the party
against whom the hearsay testimony is presented is deprived of the
right or opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the
statements are attributed. Moreover, the court is without opportunity
to test the credibility of hearsay statements by observing the
demeanor of the person who made them.
In the instant case, the declarant, AAA herself, was sworn as a
witness to the fact testi ied to by her mother. Accused-appellant's
counsel even cross-examined AAA. Moreover, the trial court had the
opportunity to observe AAA's manner of testifying. Hence, the
testimony of AAA's mother on the incident related to her by her
daughter cannot be disregarded as hearsay evidence.
Estrada v. Desierto
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends, in
whole or in part, on the competency and credibility of some persons
other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. There are
three reasons for excluding hearsay evidence:
(1) absence of cross examination;
(2) absence of demeanor evidence, and
By RGL
Evidence
(3) absence of the oath.
A complete analysis of any hearsay problem requires that we further
determine whether the hearsay evidence is one exempted from the
rules of exclusion. A more circumspect examination of our rules of
exclusion will show that they do not cover admissions of a party
and the Angara Diary belongs to this class. Section 26 of Rule 130
provides that "the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him." It has long
been settled that these admissions are admissible even if they are
hearsay.
Independently Relevant Statement
Moreover, the ban on hearsay evidence does not cover independently
relevant statements. These are statements which are relevant
independently of whether they are true or not. They belong to two (2)
classes:
(1) those statements which are the very facts in issue, and
(2) those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts
in issue.
The second class includes the following:
a. Statement of a person showing his state of mind, that is, his
mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and
other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as
illness and the like;
c. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made
as to the state of mind of another, that is, the knowledge, belief,
motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter;
d. Statements which may identify the date, place and person in
question; and
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness.
53 of 68
Remedial Law Review
Exceptions to Hearsay Evidence Rule
1. Dying Declaration
The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received
in any case wherein his or her death is the subject of
inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death.
A dying declaration is ADMISSIBLE as evidence if the
following circumstances are present:
(a) it concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances
of the declarant's death;
(b) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the
declarant is under a consciousness of impending death;
(c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he
or she survived; and
(d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the
subject of inquiry involves the declarant's death.
People v. Babiera
A statement made under circumstances which would not render it
admissible as a dying declaration becomes admissible as such, it is
held, if approved or repeated by the declarant after he had abandoned
all hope of recovery.
Although said statement in itself is inadmissible as an ante-mortem
declaration, inasmuch as there is nothing to show that at the time he
made it Severino Haro knew or irmly believed that he was at the
point of death, nevertheless, having RATIFIED its contents a week
later when he was near death as a result of his wounds, said
declaration is admissible as a part of that which he made
ante-mortem.
Geraldo and Ariate v. People
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
Even if the victim's dying declaration were admissible in evidence, it
must identify the assailant with certainty; otherwise it loses its
signi icance.
It has not been established, however, that the victim would
have been competent to testify had he survived the attack.
There is no showing that he had the opportunity to see his
assailant.
People v. De Joya
DOCTRINE OF COMPLETENESS. It has been held that a dying
declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself.
To be complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite
everything that constituted the res gestae of the subject of his
statement, but that his statement of any given fact should be a full
expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his
meaning in respect of such fact.
2. Dead-man Statute
Section 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind. — In an
action against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such
person of unsound mind, where a party or assignor of a party or a
person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testi ies on a matter of fact
occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the person
became of unsound mind, any statement of the deceased or the person
of unsound mind, may be received in evidence if the statement was
made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or the person of
unsound mind at a time when the matter had been recently perceived
by him or her and while his or her recollection was clear. Such
statement, however, is inadmissible if made under circumstances
indicating its lack of trustworthiness.
Aside from the fact that a party or assignor of a party or a
person in whose behalf the action is prosecuted is no longer
disquali ied from testifying in an action against an executor or
By RGL
Evidence
administrator or representative of a deceased person or person
of unsound mind upon a claim or demand against the estate of
the deceased person or person of unsound mind on a matter of
fact occurring before the death of the deceased person or before
the person became of unsound mind, his or her testimony on
such fact, even if not of his or her personal knowledge, is
ADMISSIBLE if the following requisites are present:
a. the testimony of the party or assignor of a party or
party in whose behalf the action is prosecuted relates
to a statement made by the deceased or of the person
of unsound mind;
b. the statement made was based on the personal
knowledge of the person deceased or person of
unsound mind;
c. the statement was made at a time when the matter
had been recently perceived by the person deceased
or person of unsound mind and while his or her
recollection was clear.
Such statement, however, is INADMISSIBLE if made under
circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness.
Guerrero v. St. Clare's Realty
Mere witnesses who are neither parties plaintiff, nor their assignors,
nor persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, are not included in
the prohibition.
The plain truth is that Laura Cervantes and Jose Cervantes are not
parties in the present case, and neither are they assignors of the
parties nor "persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted." They are
mere witnesses by whose testimonies the plaintiffs aimed to
establish that it was not Cristina Guerrero, but Andres Guerrero, who
owned the disputed land at the time of its alleged sale to Manuel
Guerrero; that Cristina Guerrero did not really sell but merely
mortgaged the property to Manuel Guerrero.
Goñi v. CA and Vicente
54 of 68
Remedial Law Review
A waiver occurs when plaintiff's deposition is taken by the
representative of the estate or when counsel for the representative
cross-examined the plaintiff as to matters occurring during
deceased's lifetime.
It must further be observed that petitioners presented a counterclaim
against private respondent. Vicente was in a dual capacity as
plaintiff in the action for recovery of property and as defendant in the
counterclaim for accounting and surrender of ields nos. 4 and 13.
Evidently, as defendant in the counterclaim, he was not
disquali ied from testifying as to matters of fact occurring
before the death of Praxedes Villanueva, said action not having
been brought against, but by the estate or representatives of the
estate/deceased person.
Likewise, under a great majority of statutes, the adverse party is
competent to testify to transactions or communications with
the deceased or incompetent person which were made with an
agent of such person in cases in which the agent is still alive
and competent to testify.
Tongco v. Vianzon
The statute only applies if the actions are brought "against" the
administratrix of the estate, or upon claims "against" the estate.
A waiver is accomplished when the adverse party undertakes to
cross-examine the interested person with respect to the prohibited
matters.
Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf and Paci ic
This limits the disability to the 'party' to a cause of action or
contract, and it is held that a salesman of a corporation, who is also a
director and stockholder, is not a party, within the meaning of the
law, so as to be incompetent to testify in an action by the company
against the other party, who is insane or dead.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
Razon v. IAC and Chuidian
The rule delimits the prohibition it contemplates in that it is
applicable to a case against the administrator or its representative of
an estate upon a claim against the estate of the deceased person.
Mendezona v. Goitia
The plaintiffs- appellees did not testify to a fact which took place
before their representative's death, but on the contrary denied that
it had taken place at all, i. e. they denied that a liquidation had been
made or any money remitted on account of their shares in the "Tren
de Aguadas" which is the ground of their claim.
Dead-man Statute is INAPPLICABLE.
Garcia v. Robles
Thus, the alleged admission of the deceased Pedro Caparas that he
entered into a sharing of leasehold rights with the petitioners cannot
be used as evidence against his widow as the latter would be unable
to contradict or disprove the same.
3. Declaration Against Interest
The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to
testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact is
asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to the declarant's own interest, that a reasonable
person in his or her position would not have made the
declaration unless he or she believed it to be true, may be
received in evidence against himself or herself or his or
her successors in interest and against third persons.
A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal
liability and offered to exculpate the accused is NOT
ADMISSIBLE unless corroborating circumstances clearly
indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
By RGL
Evidence
Fuentes v. CA and People
An essential requisite for the admissibility of a declaration against
interest is that the declarant must not be available to testify. Mere
absence from the jurisdiction does not make one ipso facto
unavailable under this rule.
There are three (3) essential requisites for the admissibility of a
declaration against interest:
(a) the declarant must not be available to testify;
(b) the declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the
declarant; and
(c) the circumstances must render it improbable that a motive
to falsify existed.
In the instant case, we ind that the declaration particularly against
penal interest attributed to Zoilo Fuentes Jr. is NOT ADMISSIBLE.
When it is claimed that the declarant is “unable to testify,” the
proponent must prove that the declarant is
a. mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent or
b. that serious effort to produce the declarant in court has been
exerted but without success.
Mere absence of the declarant is not enough.
Declaration against interest is made by a person who is neither a
party nor in privity with a party to the suit and admissible only when
the declarant is unavailable as a witness and is binding upon the party,
his or predecessors-in-interest or even third party;
While admission against interest is made by a party to the litigation
or by one in privity with or identi ied in legal interest with such party,
and is admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness
and is binding only upon the declarant.
Parel v. Prudencio
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST. It is the best evidence which
affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute.
The af iant, Florentino, who died in 1989 was petitioner's father and
had adequate knowledge with respect to the subject covered by his
55 of 68
Remedial Law Review
statement. In said af idavit, Florentino categorically declared that
while he is the occupant of the residential building, he is not the
owner of the same as it is owned by respondent who is residing in
Quezon City. It is safe to presume that he would not have made such
declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it is prejudicial to
himself as well as to his children's interests as his heirs.
OFFER OF EVIDENCE. It is a settled rule that the mere fact that a
particular document is identi ied and marked as an exhibit does not
mean that it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence
of a party.
4. Act or Declaration about
Pedigree
The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify,
in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him or
her by birth, adoption, or marriage or, in the absence thereof,
with whose family he or she was so intimately associated
as to be likely to have accurate information concerning his or
her pedigree, may be received in evidence where it occurred
before the controversy, and the relationship between the two
persons is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration.
The word "pedigree" includes
1. relationship,
2. family genealogy, birth,
3. marriage,
4. death,
5. the dates when and the places where these fast
occurred, and
6. the names of the relatives.
It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected
with pedigree.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
People v. Alegado
It is long-settled that the testimony of a person as to his age is
admissible although hearsay and though a person can have no
personal knowledge of the date of his birth as all the knowledge a
person has of his age is acquired from what he is told by his parents
he may testify as to his age as he had learned it from his parents and
relatives and his testimony in such case is an assertion of family
tradition.
Tison v. CA and Domingo
The general rule is that where the party claiming seeks recovery
against a relative common to both claimant and declarant, but not
from the 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.
EXCEPT where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself
and not merely to establish a right through his declarations to the
property of some other member of the family.
The primary proof to be considered in ascertaining the relationship
between the parties concerned is the testimony of Corazon Dezoller
Tison to the effect that Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime,
or sometime in 1946, categorically declared that the former is
Teodora’s niece.
Such a statement is considered a declaration about pedigree which
is admissible, as an exception to the hearsay rule, under Section 39,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
(2) that the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is
the subject of inquiry;
(3) that such relationship be shown by evidence other than
the declaration; and
(4) that the declaration was made ante litem motam, that is,
not only before the commencement of the suit involving the
By RGL
Evidence
subject matter of the declaration, but before any
controversy has arisen thereon.
We are suf iciently convinced, and so hold, that the present case is
one instance where the general requirement on evidence aliunde
may be relaxed. Petitioners are claiming a right to part of the
estate of the declarant herself. Conformably, the declaration
made by Teodora Dezoller Guerrero that petitioner Corazon is
her niece, is ADMISSIBLE and constitutes suf icient proof of
such relationship.
Mendoza v. CA and Tunacao
The following requisites have to be complied with before the act or
declaration regarding pedigree may be admitted in evidence:
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
2. The pedigree must be in issue.
3. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose
pedigree is in issue.
4. The declaration must be made before the controversy arose.
5. The relationship between the declarant and the person
whose pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence
other than such declaration.
5. Family Tradition or Reputation
Regarding Pedigree
The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the
controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its
members, may be received in evidence if the witness
testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either
by consanguinity or af inity, or adoption.
1. Entries in family bibles or other family books or
charts,
2. engravings on rings,
3. family portraits and the like,
may be received as evidence of pedigree.
56 of 68
Remedial Law Review
Jison v. CA and Jison
The scope of the enumeration contained in the second portion of this
provision, in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to objects
which are commonly known as “family possessions,” or those
articles which represent, in effect, a family’s joint statement of its
belief as to the pedigree of a person.
These have been described as objects “openly exhibited and well
known to the family,” or those “which, if preserved in a family, may
be regarded as giving a family tradition.” Other examples of these
objects which are regarded as re lective of a family’s reputation or
tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones,
monuments or cof in plates.
Ferrer v. De Inchausti
Evidence may be given upon trial of monuments and inscriptions in
public places as evidence of common reputation; and entries in
family Bibles or other family books or charts; engravings on rings,
family portraits and the like, as evidence of pedigree.
The law does not require that the entries in the said booklet be made
at the same time as the occurrence of those events; hence, the written
memorandum in the same is not subject to the defect attributed to it.
The witness Joaquin Jose de Inchausti declared af irmatively that the
memorandum under consideration has been written in the
handwriting of his brother Ramon Martinez de Viademonte, whose
handwriting he was familiar with, and the testimony of this witness
contains some reference to a member of the family, now dead, and
concerning the family genealogy of the same.
6. Common Reputation
Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, as to
boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the
community and reputation as to events of general history
important to the community, or respecting marriage or
moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of
common reputation.
In Re Mallare
The witnesses, all natives of Macalelon, who had personal
knowledge of the person, birth and residency of both Ana Mallare and
her son Esteban, were one in their declaration that Ana Mallare is a
Tagalog who had continuously resided in the place, and that Esteban,
her son was reputedly born out of wedlock. Such declarations
constitute admissible evidence of the birth and illegitimacy of
Esteban Mallare. Reputation has been held admissible as evidence
of age, birth, race, or race-ancestry, and on the question of whether a
child was born alive. Unlike that of matters of pedigree, general
reputation of marriage may proceed from persons who are not
members of the family – the reason for the distinction is the public
interest that is taken in the question of the existence of marital
relations.
The amendment still retains “marriage” and “moral character” but
makes “matters of general reputation” more speci ic as referring
only to
(1) boundaries of lands in the community;
(2) customs affecting lands in the community; and
(3) reputation as to events of general history important to the
community.
The element of “antiquity” (more than thirty years old) provided for in
the old rules has also been deleted. Instead, reliability is ensured
because the testimony represents the general consensus of the
community.
7. Res gestae
Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto,
under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence
with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in
evidence as part of res gestae.
By RGL
Evidence
So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to
the issue, and giving it a legal signi icance, may be received as
part of the res gestae.
DBP Pool v. RMN
The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not
testify and provided that the testimony of the witness who heard the
declarant complies with the following requisites:
(1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling
occurrence;
(2) the statements were made before the declarant had the
time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and
(3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question
and its immediate attending circumstances.
The Court is not convinced to accept the declarations as part of res
gestae. While it may concede that these statements were made by the
bystanders during a startling occurrence, it cannot be said however,
that these utterances were made spontaneously by the
bystanders and before they had the time to contrive or devise a
falsehood. Both SFO III Rochar and Lt. Col. Torres received the
bystanders' statements while they were making their investigations
during and after the ire. It is reasonable to assume that when these
statements were noted down, the bystanders already had
enough time and opportunity to mill around, talk to one
another and exchange information, not to mention theories
and speculations, as is the usual experience in disquieting
situations where hysteria is likely to take place. It cannot
therefore be ascertained whether these utterances were the products
of truth. That the utterances may be mere idle talk is not remote.
Talidano v. Falcon Maritime
Section 42 (now 44) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court mentions two
acts which form part of the res gestae, namely: spontaneous
statements and verbal acts. In spontaneous exclamations, the res
gestae is the startling occurrence, whereas in verbal acts, the res
gestae are the statements accompanying the equivocal act.
57 of 68
Remedial Law Review
Absent the critical element of SPONTANEITY, the fax messages
cannot be admitted as part of the res gestae of the irst kind.
To be admissible under the irst class of res gestae, it is required
that:
(1) the principal act be a startling occurrence;
(2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time
to contrive or devise a falsehood; and
(3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question
and its immediate attending circumstances.
Neither will the second kind of res gestae apply. The requisites for
its admissibility are:
(1) the principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
(2) the equivocal act must be material to the issue;
(3) the statement must accompany the equivocal act; and
(4) the statements give a legal signi icance to the equivocal act.
8. Records of Regular Business
Activities
A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts,
events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing,
typing, electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the
time of or from transmission or supply of information by a
person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course
or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular
practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of
which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other
quali ied witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay
evidence.
Canque v. CA
The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books requires the
satisfaction of the following conditions:
1. The person who made the entry must be dead, outside
the country or unable to testify.
2. The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions
to which they refer;
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the
entries;
4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or
religious; and
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty.
Wallem Maritime v. NLRC and Macatuno
A copy of an of icial entry in the logbook is legally binding and
serves as an exception to the hearsay rule.
The facts appearing in the logbook should be supported by the facts
gathered at the investigation.
If no investigation is conducted, the contents of the logbook have to
be duly identi ied and authenticated lest an injustice result from a
blind adoption of such contents which merely serve as prima facie
evidence.
Northwest Airlines v. Chiong
While there is no necessity to bring into court all the employees who
individually made the entries, it is suf icient that the person who
supervised them while they were making the entries testify that the
account was prepared under his supervision and that the entries were
regularly entered in the ordinary course of business.
9. Entries in the Official Records
Entries in of icial records made in the performance of his or
her duty by a public of icer 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.
Spouses Africa v. Caltex
By RGL
Evidence
To qualify statements as "of icial information" acquired by the
of icers who prepared the reports, the persons who made the
statements not only must have personal knowledge of the facts stated
but must have the duty to give such statements for record.
There are three requisites for admissibility under the rule just
mentioned:
(a) that the entry was made by a public of icer, or by another
person specially enjoined by law to do so;
(b) that it was made by the public of icer in the performance
of his duties, or by such other person in the performance of
a duty specially enjoined by law; and
(c) that the public of icer or other person had suf icient
knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have
been acquired by him personally or through of icial
information.
People v. San Gabriel
The Advance Information Sheet does not constitute an
exception to the hearsay rule, hence, inadmissible. The public
of icer who prepared the document had no suf icient and personal
knowledge of the stabbing incident. Any information possessed by
him was acquired from Camba which therefore could not be
categorized as of icial information because in order to be classi ied
as such the persons who made the statements not only must have
personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty to give
such statements for the record. In the case of Camba, he was not
legally so obliged to give such statements.
Barcelon v. CIR
An entrant must have personal knowledge of the facts stated by him
or such facts were acquired by him from reports made by persons
under a legal duty to submit the same.
In this case, the entries made by Ingrid Versola were not based on her
personal knowledge as she did not attest to the fact that she
58 of 68
Remedial Law Review
personally prepared and mailed the assessment notice. Nor was it
stated in the transcript of stenographic notes how and from whom
she obtained the pertinent information. Moreover, she did not attest
to the fact that she acquired the reports from persons under a legal
duty to submit the same. Hence, Rule 130, Section 44 inds no
application in the present case. Thus, the evidence offered by
respondent does not qualify as an exception to the rule against
hearsay evidence.
Malayan Insurance v. Alberto
The presentation of the police report itself is admissible as an
exception to the hearsay rule even if the police investigator who
prepared it was not presented in court, as long as the requisites could
be adequately proved.
Respondents failed to make a timely objection to the police report's
presentation in evidence; thus, they are deemed to have waived
their right to do so. As a result, the police report is still admissible in
evidence.
10. Commercial Lists
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register,
periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if
that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in
that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them
therein.
PNOC Shipping v. CA
A document is a commercial list if:
(1) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in
an occupation;
(2) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or
other published compilation;
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
(3) said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged
in that occupation, and
(4) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same
occupation.
Based on the above requisites, it is our considered view that Exhibits
B, C, D, E, F and H are not "commercial lists" for these do not belong
to the category of "other published compilations" under Section 45.
The exhibits mentioned are mere price quotations issued
personally to Del Rosario who requested for them from dealers
of equipment similar to the ones lost at the collision of the two
vessels. These are not published in any list, register, periodical or
other compilation on the relevant subject matter. Neither are these
"market reports or quotations" within the purview of "commercial
lists" as these are not "standard handbooks or periodicals, containing
data of everyday professional need and relied upon in the work of the
occupation." These are simply letters responding to the queries of
Del Rosario.
Accordingly, the author of the letter should be presented as
witness to provide the other party to the litigation the
opportunity to question him on the contents of the letter.
11. Learned Treatises
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of
history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove
the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial
notice, or a witness expert in the subject testi ies, that the
writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his or her profession or calling as expert in the
subject.
12. Prior Testimony
The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or out of
the Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, be
found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable to
testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter,
By RGL
Evidence
may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to cross-examine him or her.
NB: With the amendment, the mere fact that the witness is “out
of the Philippines” now calls for the exception to apply. The
requirement of “due diligence” introduced by the amendment
when the witness is in the Philippines but cannot be found or is
unavailable or unable to testify af irms and institutionalizes
existing jurisprudence on the matter.
Tan v. CA and Tan
Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial or hostility
since testifying at the irst trial does not amount to inability to testify,
but such inability proceeding from a grave cause, almost amounting
to death, as when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech.
Manliclic v. Calaunan
TESTIMONY AT A FORMER PROCEEDING. The following requisites
must be satis ied:
(a) the witness is dead or unable to testify;
(b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same
parties or those representing the same interests;
(c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the
present case, although on different causes of action;
(d) the issue testi ied to by the witness in the former trial is the
same issue involved in the present case; and
(e) the adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the
witness in the former case.
Francisco v. People
Only parties to a case are bound by a judgment of the trial court.
Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment of said case.
59 of 68
Remedial Law Review
13. Residual Exceptions⭐
A statement not speci ically covered by any of the foregoing
exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that
a. the statement is offered as evidence of a material
fact;
b. the statement is more probative on the point for
which it is offered than any other evidence which the
proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and
c. the general purposes of these rules and the interests
of justice will be best served by admission of the
statement into evidence.
However, a statement may not be admitted under this
exception unless the proponent makes known to the
adverse party, suf iciently in advance of the hearing, or by
the pre-trial stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to
provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to
meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the
particulars of it, including the name and address of the
declarant.
14. Privilege Relating to Trade
Secrets ⭐
A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade secret,
unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work
injustice. When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such
protective measure as the interest of the owner of the trade
secret and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may
require.
15. Hearsay Exception in Child
Abuse Case
(Section 28, Rules in the Examination of Child Witness)
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence
Section 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. - A statement made by
(2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his
a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise
statement has been unable to procure his attendance
admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any
by process or other reasonable means.
criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:
(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony
(a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its proponent
shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible
shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer
evidence.
such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair
opportunity to object. If the child is available, the court shall,
16. Hearsay Rule in Writ of
upon motion of the adverse party, require the child to be
present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for
Amparo Cases
cross-examination by the adverse party. When the child is E ect if hearsay evidence is not objected to
unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by
the proponent.
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the
court shall consider the time, content and circumstances thereof Your Guess Is As Good As Mine
which provide suf icient indicia of reliability. It shall consider the
Opinion Rule
following factors:
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie; Study Guide:
(2) The general character of the declarant child; (1) Know and articulate the concept and application of the Opinion Rule
in actual case situations.
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement;
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
General Rule
(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship
between the declarant child and witness;
Section 51. Rule 130. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of admissible, except as indicated in the following sections.
knowledge of the declarant child;
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant Exceptions
child is remote; and
Section 52. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a
(8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, training or
that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child education, which he or she is shown to possess, may be received in
misrepresented the involvement of the accused. evidence.
(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the
following situations:
Section 53. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a witness for
(1) Is deceased, suffers from physical in irmity, lack of
memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding —
psychological injury; or
By RGL 60 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
(a) The identity of a person about whom he or she has adequate
knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he or she has suf icient familiarity;
and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is
suf iciently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the emotion,
behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
GR: The opinion of a witness is NOT ADMISSIBLE.
EXC:
1. Expert Witness
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, which he or
she is shown to posses, may be received in evidence.
2. Ordinary Witness
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may
be received in evidence regarding —
1. The identity of a person about whom he or she has
adequate knowledge;
2. A handwriting with which he or she has suf icient
familiarity; and
3. The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is
suf iciently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
Don’t Judge A Book By Its Cover
Character Evidence
Study Guide:
(1) Know and articulate the concept of Character Evidence and the rules
governing its admissibility;
(2) Learn to apply Character Evidence Rule in an actual case situation;
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
(3) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving, or otherwise
applying, the preceding matters.
General Rule
Section 54. Rule 130. Character evidence not generally admissible;
exceptions: — Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is
not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity
therewith on a particular occasion.
Exceptions
except:
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The character of the offended party may be proved if
it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral
character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged. However, the prosecution may not
prove his or her bad moral character unless on
rebuttal.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character
involved in the case.
(c) In Criminal and Civil Cases:
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible
until such character has been impeached.
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character
of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to
reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On
cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant speci ic
instances of conduct.
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is
an essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof may
also be made of speci ic instances of that person's conduct.
By RGL
Evidence
GR: Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is NOT
ADMISSIBLE for the purpose of proving action in conformity
therewith on a particular occasion.
EXC:
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The character of the offended party may be proved if it
tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral
character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged. However, the prosecution may not
prove his or her bad moral character unless on
rebuttal.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character
involved in the case.
(c) In Criminal and Civil Cases:
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible
until such character has been impeached.
In all cases in which evidence of character or trait of character of a
person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to the
reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion.
On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant speci ic
instances of conduct. In cases in which character or a trait of character
of a person is an essential element of the charge, claim or defense, proof
may also be made of speci ic instances of that person’s conduct.
CSC v. Belagan
When the credibility of a witness is sought to be impeached by proof
of his reputation, it is necessary that the reputation shown should be
that which existed before the occurrence of the circumstances out of
which the litigation arose, or at the time of the trial and prior thereto,
but not at a period remote from the commencement of the suit. This
is because a person of derogatory character or reputation can still
change or reform himself.
61 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
People v. Noel Lee
Proof of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases of
murder committed with treachery and premeditation.
The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide cases
to show “that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger
in the mind of the accused and a justi iable conviction that a prompt
defensive action was necessary.
In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim
is IRRELEVANT to determine the probability or improbability of his
killing. Accused-appellant has not alleged that the victim was the
aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense. There is no
connection between the deceased’s drug addiction and thievery with
his violent death in the hands of accused-appellant.
Pasan Ko Ang Daigdig
Burden of Proof and of Evidence
Study Guide:
(1) Know and articulate the concept of burden of proof in litigation;
(2) Learn to apply the principle of Burden of Proof in actual case
situations.
Burden of Proof (Rule 131, Section 1)
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in
issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law. Burden of proof never shifts.
Burden of Evidence (Rule 131, Section 1)
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence suf icient
to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. Burden
of evidence may shift from one party to the other in the course of the
proceedings, depending on the exigencies of the case.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by the
law or these Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it
is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet
the presumption.
If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded
upon weightier considerations of policy shall apply.
If consideration of policy is of equal weight, neither presumption
applies.
Consequently, the party who makes an af irmative allegation, not the
one who denies- must prove.
Presumption against an accused in criminal cases
If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is
1. an element of the offense charged, or
2. negates a defense,
the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable
doubt.
Aim And Fire
Presentation of Evidence
Study Guide:
(1) Know and articulate the procedure governing the presentation of
witnesses and the proper manner and technique of propounding
questions and impeaching the testimonies of witnesses;
(2) Learn to apply the rules governing the presentation of witnesses in
actual case situations;
(3) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving, or otherwise
applying, the preceding matters
By RGL
Evidence
Examination of Witnesses
Section 1. Rule 132. Examination to be done in open court. — The
examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in
open court, and under oath or af irmation. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the questions calls for a different mode of
answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
(A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC)
III. Procedure
13. Trial
(c) Offer of evidence. — The offer of evidence, the comment/objection
thereto, and the court ruling shall be made orally. A party is required to
make his/her oral offer of evidence on the same day after the
presentation of his/her last witness, and the opposing party is required
to immediately interpose his/her oral comment/objection thereto.
Thereafter, the court shall make a ruling on the offer of evidence in open
court.
In making the offer, the counsel shall cite the speci ic page numbers of
the court record where the exhibits being offered are found, if attached
thereto. The court shall ensure that all exhibits offered are submitted to it
on the same day of the offer.
If the exhibits are not attached to the record, the party making the offer
must submit the same during the offer of evidence in open court.
xxxx
(e) Presentation of Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal Evidence. — If the court
grants the motion to present rebuttal evidence, the prosecution shall
immediately proceed with its presentation after the accused had rested
his/her case, and orally rest its case in rebuttal after the presentation of
its last rebuttal witness. Thereafter, the accused shall immediately present
sur-rebuttal evidence, if there is any, and orally rest the case in
sur-rebuttal after the presentation of its last sur-rebuttal witness.
Thereafter, the court shall submit the case for decision. (See Annexes 11
to 13)
(f ) One-day examination of witness rule. — The court shall strictly
adhere to the rule that a witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day.
62 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
One-Day Examination of Witness Rule (Paragraph 5(i), A.M. No.
03-1-09-SC, Rule on Guidelines To Be Observed by Trial Court Judges
and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of
Deposition-Discovery Procedure)
Ask parties to agree on the speci ic trial dates for continuous trial in
accordance with Circular No. 1-89 dated January 19, 1989; adhere to the
case low chart determined by the court, which shall contain the different
stages of the proceedings up to the promulgation of the decision and use
the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates. The One-Day
Examination of Witness Rule, that is, a witness has to be fully examined
in one (1) day only, shall be strictly adhered to subject to the courts'
discretion during trial on whether or not to extend the direct and/or
cross-examination for justi iable reasons. On the last hearing day allotted
for each party, he is required to make his formal offer of evidence after
the presentation of his last witness and the opposing party is required to
immediately interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter, the Judge shall
make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court. However the
judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing in
conformity with Section 35, Rule 132;
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
(A.M. 004-07-SC)
Rights and obligations of witnesses
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must answer
questions, although his or her answer may tend to establish a claim
against him or her. However, it is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions,
and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the
issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him or her to a
penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his or her
reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from
which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must
answer to the fact of his or her previous inal conviction for an
offense.
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
Order in the examination of an individual witness
Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. — The order
in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows;
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
Impeachment of adverse party witness
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A witness may be
impeached by the party against whom he or she was called, by
contradictory evidence, by evidence that his or her general reputation for
truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that or she has made at
other times statements inconsistent with his or her present, testimony,
but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be
shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment,
that he or she has been convicted of an offense.
Section 12. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime. — For the
purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she has been
convicted by inal judgment of a crime shall be admitted if
(a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one year; or
(b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty.
However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has
been the subject of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction.⭐
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he or she was
called,
1. by contradictory evidence,
2. by evidence that his or her general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity is bad, or
3. by evidence that or she has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his or her present, testimony,
but NOT by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be
shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment,
that he or she has been convicted of an offense.
By RGL
Evidence
For the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she has
been convicted by inal judgment of a crime shall be admitted if
(a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one year;
OR
(b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the
penalty.
However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction
has been the subject of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction.
People v. Resabal
The mere fact of having been excluded from the information to be
used as a witness for the Government, does not prevent a witness
from telling the truth in this case, especially in the absence of proof
showing the interest he might possibly have in testifying against the
accused.
People v. Cortezano
Previous extrajudicial statements cannot be employed to impeach the
credibility of a witness unless his attention is irst directed to the
discrepancies, and he must then be given an opportunity to explain
them. It is only when the witness cannot give a reasonable
explanation that he shall be deemed impeached.
It is well-established that inconsistencies between testimony given in
open court and sworn statements given to investigators do not
necessarily discredit the witness since ex-parte af idavits are seldom
complete.
Moreover, it appears in the records of this case that Jerny was never
allowed to explain the inconsistencies between his testimony and the
sworn statement.
Hostile and Adverse Party Witness
Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
Section 10 of this Rule, the party presenting the witness is not
allowed to impeach his or her credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared
by the court upon adequate showing of
1. his or her adverse interest,
63 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
2. unjusti ied reluctance to testify, or
3. his or her having misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an
adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him or
her in all respects as if he or she had been called by the adverse party,
except by evidence of his or her bad character. He or she may also be
impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such
cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his or her
examination-in-chief.
Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses
The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall order witnesses
excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. This
rule does not authorize exclusion of
(a) a party who is a natural person,
(b) a duly designated representative of a juridical entity which is a
party to the case,
(c) a person whose presence is essential to the presentation of the
party's cause, or
(d) a person authorized by a statute to be present.
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be
prevented from conversing with one another, directly or through
intermediaries, until all shall have been examined.
When part of transaction, writing or record given in
evidence
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given
in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired
into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also
be given in evidence.
Authentication and Proof of Documents
Classes of documents
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation
evidence, documents are either public or private.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS are:
(a) The written of icial acts, or records of the of icial acts of the
sovereign authority, of icial bodies and tribunals, and public
of icers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last
wills and testaments;
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under
treaties and conventions which are in force between the
Philippines and the country of source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents
required by law to the entered therein.
All other writings are PRIVATE.
Kummer v. People
Public documents are admissible in court without further proof of
their due execution and authenticity. A public document is de ined in
Section 19, Rule 132.
The chemistry report showing a positive result of the paraf in test is
a public document. As a public document, the rule on authentication
does not apply. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of
its due execution and genuineness; the person who made the report
need not be presented in court to identify, describe and testify how
the report was conducted. Moreover, documents consisting of entries
in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
of icer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
By RGL
Evidence
Proof of Private Documents
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 by any of the following means:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
of the maker; or
(c) By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.
Any other private document need only be identi ied as that which it is
claimed to be.
Ancient Document Rule
as exception to the requirement of authentication of private
documents
Where a private document
1. is more than thirty years old,
2. is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be
found if genuine, and
3. is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of
suspicion,
no other evidence of its authenticity need be given.
Bartolome v. IAC
An incomplete document is akin to, if not worse than, a document
with altered contents.
On its face, the deed of sale appears unmarred by alterations. We
hold, however, that the missing page has nonetheless affected its
authenticity. It allegedly bears the signature of the vendor of the
portion of Lot No. 11165 in question and therefore, it contains vital
proof of the voluntary transmission of rights over the subject of the
sale. Without that signature, the document is incomplete. Verily, an
64 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
incomplete document is akin to if not worse than a document with
altered contents.
Proof of O cial Record
Heirs of Lacsa v. CA and Songco
The last requirement of the "ancient document rule" that a document
must be unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of
suspicion refers to the extrinsic quality of the document itself.
The lack of signatures on the irst pages, therefore, absent any
alterations or circumstances of suspicion cannot be held to detract
from the fact that the documents in question, which were certi ied as
copies of the originals on ile with the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga, are genuine and free from any blemish or circumstances
of suspicion.
How to prove genuineness of handwriting
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he or she has
seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his or hers
upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by
the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by
the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine
to the satisfaction of the judge.
Public document as evidence
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public of icer 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.
Generally, public documents may be proved by
Solinap v. Locsin, Jr
A Certi icate of Live Birth duly recorded in the Local Civil Registry, a
copy of which is transmitted to the Civil Registry General pursuant to
the Civil Registry Law, is prima facie evidence of the facts therein
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence
stated. However, if there are material discrepancies between them, In addition, if the public document is not kept in the Philippines, the
the one entered in the Civil Registry General prevails. rule requires that the attestation executed by the legal custodian must be
accompanied with a certi icate that such of icer has the custody. This
certi icate is what is commonly known as “consular authentication.”
Section 24. Proof of of icial record. — The record of public documents
If the public document is originating in a foreign country which is a
referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any
contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines
purpose, may be evidenced by an of icial publication thereof or by a copy
attested by the of icer having the legal custody of the record, or by his or is a contracting party, the required certi icate or its equivalent shall be
her deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, in the form prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to
with a certi icate that such of icer has the custody. reciprocity granted to public documents originating from the
Philippines.
If the of ice in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is
a contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines On the other hand, if the public document is originating from a foreign
is also a party, or considered a public document under such treaty or
country which is not party to a treaty or convention to which the
convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof, the
Philippines is a contracting party, the required certi icate may be
certi icate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by such
made by
treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents
originating from the Philippines.
1. a secretary of the embassy or legation,
For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a
contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to in the next 2. consul general,
preceding sentence, the certi icate may be made by a secretary of the
3. consul,
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent
or by any of icer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal 4. vice-consul, or
of his or her of ice.
5. consular agent or
A document that is accompanied by a certi icate or its equivalent may
be presented in evidence without further proof, the certi icate or its 6. by any of icer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed
equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution and in the foreign country in which the record is kept,
genuineness of the document involved. The certi icate shall not be
required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and and authenticated by the seal of his or her of ice.
the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has exempted the
document itself from this formality.
Heirs of Arcilla v. Teodoro
The rule that requires a certi ication from an of icer of the foreign
service of the Philippines pertains to written of icial acts, or records
of the of icial of the sovereign authority, of icial bodies and tribunals,
(1) its of icial publication; or
and public of icers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
country.
(2) by a copy of the public document attested by the of icer having
legal custody thereof.
By RGL 65 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
A certi ication of non-forum shopping executed in a foreign country is
NOT covered under this rule.
NB However, by express provision of the present Section 24 of Rule
132, the required certi icate also applies to documents classi ied
under paragraph (c),
Proof of record of 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 certi icate that such of icer has the
custody.
Proof of lack of record
A written statement signed by an of icer having the custody of an of icial
record or by his or her deputy that after diligent search no record or
entry of a speci ied tenor is found to exist in the records of his or her
of ice, accompanied by a certi icate as above provided, is admissible as
evidence that the records of his of ice contain no such record or entry.
How to impeach judicial record
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial of icer;
(b) collusion between the parties; or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
proceedings.
Proof of notarial documents
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certi ied as
provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof,
the certi icate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved.
Alteration in document
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 or she may
show that the alteration was made by another, without his or her
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it,
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
or was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that the alteration did
not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he or she fails
to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.
Documentary evidence in an uno cial language
Documents written in an unof icial 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.
Shoot And Block
Offer and Objection
Study Guide:
(1) Know and articulate the procedural rule in offering evidence and the
procedural rules in interposing objections thereto;
(2) Apply these procedural rules in actual case situation;
(3) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving, or otherwise
applying, the preceding matters.
Section 34. Rule 132. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be speci ied.
When to make o er of evidence
Section 35. When to make offer. — All evidence must be offered orally.
The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be made at the
time the witness is called to testify.
The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made after the
presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.
Objection
Section 36. Objection. — Objection to the offer of evidence must be made
orally immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer must
be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. Objection to a question
By RGL
Evidence
propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness must be
made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent.
The grounds for the objections must be speci ied.
When repetition of objection unnecessary
Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. — When it becomes
reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that
the question being propounded are of the same class as those to which
objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or
overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being
suf icient for the adverse party to record his or her continuing objection
to such class of questions.
Ruling
Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately
after the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable
time to inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall
always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party
against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented
by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.
However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling
sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground
or grounds relied upon.
Striking out of answer
Section 39. Striking out answer. —
1) Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party
had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, or
2) where a question is not objectionable, but the answer is not
responsive, or
3) where a witness testi ies without a question being posed or
testi ies beyond limits set by the court, or
66 of 68
 Remedial Law Review
4) when the witness does a narration instead of answering the
question, and
such objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the
objection and order such answer, testimony or narration to be stricken
off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers
which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
Tender of Excluded Evidence
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things offered
in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same
attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral,
the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed
testimony.
Yu v CA and Lim Yu
Before tender of excluded evidence is made, the evidence must have
been formally offered before the court. And before formal offer of
evidence is made, the evidence must have been identi ied and
presented before the court.
In the instant case, the insurance application and the insurance policy
were yet to be presented in court, much less formally offered before
it. In fact, private respondent was merely asking for the issuance of
subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testi icandum when the trial
court issued the assailed Order.
Tinimbang Ka Ngunit Kulang
Weight and Suf iciency of Evidence
Study Guide:
(1) Know and articulate the legal concept of Weight and Suf iciency of
Evidence as distinguished from Admissibility of Evidence;
Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa
TEXT, NOTES and CASES
(2) Know the different quantum of evidence required in various
proceedings;
(3) Know and articulate the various rules in determining the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies and apply them in actual case
situations;
(4) Familiarize with various jurisprudence involving, or otherwise
applying, the preceding matters.
Preponderance of evidence
Section 1. Rule 133. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In
civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his or her
case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies,
the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature
of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their
testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The
court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.
Abarquez v People
EQUIPOISE RULE. Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in issue
or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party
having the burden of proof loses.
The EQUIPOISE RULE inds application if, as in this case, the
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence
does not ful ill the test of moral certainty, and does not suf ice to
produce a conviction. Brie ly stated, the needed quantum of proof to
convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking.
By RGL
Evidence
Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his or
her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or
that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind.
Substantial evidence
In cases iled 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.
Circumstantial evidence
is suf icient for conviction if:
1. There is more than one circumstances;
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.
People v. Estibal
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is that evidence which proves a fact
or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by
inference. It is founded on experience, observed facts and
coincidences establishing a connection between the known and
proven facts and the facts sought to be proved.
With respect to the third requisite, 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 others, as the guilty
person.
67 of 68
 Remedial Law Review TEXT, NOTES and CASES Evidence

Weight to be given opinion of expert witness

In any case where the opinion of an expert witness is received in
evidence, the court has a wide latitude of discretion in determining the
weight to be given to such opinion, and for that purpose may consider
the following:
1. Whether the opinion is based upon suf icient facts or data;
2. Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
3. Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the case; and
4. Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such
determination.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc laid down the
following standards:
1. whether the scienti ic theory or technique has been or can be
tested;
2. whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer
review and publication, its known or potential error rate and
the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its
operation; and
3. whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a
relevant scienti ic community.

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. This power shall be exercised with caution.

Evidence on motion
When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may
hear the matter on af idavits 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.

FIN

Based on the Syllabus of Dean Torregosa By RGL 68 of 68