EVIDENCE (A.M. NO.

19-08-15-SC)(Effective May 1, 2020)

(RULES 128-133, RROE)

GENERAL CONCEPTS

Q. What is the concept of the rules of evidence?

A. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (1) (Sec. 1, Rule 129)

PROOF VS. EVIDENCE

Q. Distinguish proof from evidence.

A. Proof is the establishment by evidence of a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind
of the trier of fact or the court. [Calif. Evidence Code] Whereas, evidence is any species of proof, or probative
matter, legally presented at the train of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses,
records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing the belief in the minds of the court
as to their contention.

BURDEN OF PROOF VS. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE

Q. Explain burden of evidence and burden of proof?

A. Burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during
the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one when created against him. Similarly, it is
elementary that the burden of evidence shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case.
Whereas, burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defenses by the amount of evidence required by law. (Sec. 1, Rule 131, RROE)(Ante vs. UP, G.R. No.
227911, 14 March 2022)(Second Division) [Hernando, J.]
EQUIPOISE RULE

Q. What is the application of the equipoise rule? Explain.

A. The equipoise rule finds application if 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 fulfill the test of moral certainty, arid does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly
stated the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking. (Arriola vs.
People, G.R. No. 199975, February 24, 2020)(Second Division)[Hernando, J.].

RULE – 128 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

Q. What is the difference between the admissibility of evidence and the probative value of evidence?
A. Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the circumstance (or evidence) is to be
considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it
proves an issue.

SEC. 3.–REQUISITES

Evidence is admissible when: 1. it is relevant to the issue; and 2. it is not excluded by: i. the Constitution; ii.
the law; or iii. the rules of court.

RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AND COLLATERAL MATTERS

 Q. What is meant by relevancy of evidence?

A. Relevancy of evidence refers to the probative value in relation to the purpose for which it is offered. The
term describes the logical relationship between a proffered item of evidence and a proposition that is material or
provable in a given case and means a logical relation between evidence and fact to be established.

Q. What is referred to as collateral matter in the rules of evidence?

A. Collateral matter is any matter on which evidence could not have been introduced for a relevant purpose.
If a witness has erred in testifying about detail collateral to the relevant facts, then another party cannot call
witnesses to contradict that point – cross-examination alone must suffice.

Q. What is the exception to the rules of evidence that collateral matters shall not be allowed? Explain.

A. The exception is when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the
fact in issue. The reason for this rule is that such evidence tends to draw the mind of the court away from the point in
issue and misleads it. Moreover, the adverse party having no notice of such course of evidence is not prepared to
rebut it. To be admissible, however, the fact must be the natural, necessary or logical connection of the ultimate fact
in issue. To this end, the trial court may in its discretion permit its introduction.

MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY

Q. Explain the concept of multiple admissibility.

A. Multiple admissibility is the evidentiary rule that although a piece of evidence is inadmissible under one
rule for the purpose given in offering it, it is nevertheless admissible if relevant and offered for some other purpose
not forbidden by the rules of evidence.
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY

Q. What is the concept of conditional admissibility?

A. Conditional admissibility is the evidentiary rule that when a piece of evidence is not itself admissible, but
is admissible if certain other facts make it relevant, the evidence becomes admissible on condition that counsel later
introduce the connecting facts. If counsel does not satisfy this condition, the opponent is entitled to have the
conditionally admitted piece of evidence struck from the record, and to have the judge instruct the jury to disregard
it.

CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY

Q. What is curative admissibility?

A. In curative admissibility, the rule that an inadmissible piece of evidence may be admitted if offered to
cure or counteract the effect of some similar piece of opponent’s evidence that itself should not have been admitted.

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Q. What is the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence?

A. The difference are as follows: (1) Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without drawing any
inference. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, “indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the fact finder
must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.” (2) In criminal cases, the probative value of
direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor superior to circumstantial evidence. The RROE do not
distinguish between “direct evidence of fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may
be inferred.” The same quantum of evidence is still required. Courts must be convinced that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE

Q. What is the recognized principle in the treatment of negative and positive evidence? Explain.

A. It is a long recognized general rule of evidence that all other things being equal, positive evidence is
stronger than negative evidence. Thus, negative evidence is a testimony that an alleged fact did not exist. The
established rule is that “denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are deemed negative and self-
serving evidence unworthy of credence.”

COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

Q. Distinguish competent from credible evidence.

A. Competent evidence is that which the very nature of the thing to be proven requires, as, the production of
a writing where its contents are the subject of inquiry. Also, generally, admissible (i.e. relevant and material) as
opposed to incompetent or inadmissible evidence. Whereas, credible evidence is not evidence which is necessarily
true, but is evidence worthy of belief, that is, worthy to be considered. It is often natural, reasonable and probable as
to make it easy to believe.

Q. What is needed to be established under the chain of custody rule for violations of R.A. No. 9165?
Explain.

A. Based on the chain of custody rule, the following links should be established: First, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; Second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; Third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and Fourth, the turnover
and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. (CICL et al. vs. People,
G.R. No. 230964, 2 March 2022) (Second Division) [Hernando, J.].

RULE 129 – WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

SEC. 1.–JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN MANDATORY

Q. When is judicial notice mandatory?

A. judicial notice is mandatory without the introduction of evidence in the following: (a) The existence and
territorial extent of states; (b) their political history; (c) forms of government and symbols of nationality; (d) the law
of nations; € the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals; (f) the political constitution and history
of the Philippines; (g) official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government
of the Philippines; (h) the laws of nature; (i) the measure of time; and (j) the geographical divisions. (SEC. 1)

SEC. 2.–JUDICIAL NOTICE WHEN DISCRETIONARY

Q. When is judicial notice discretionary?

A. In case of discretionary judicial notice, a court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public
knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions.

Q. Are the courts in the Philippines bound to take judicial notice of the diplomatic relations between our
country and Japan? Explain.

A. Yes. The courts of the Philippines are bound to take judicial notice of the existence of the diplomatic
relations between our country and Japan pursuant to both Section 1 and Section 2, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of
Evidence. Diplomatic relations form part of the official acts of the Executive Department of our Government. They
are also matters of public knowledge.

SEC. 4.–JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

Q. The defendants, in their answer, admitted that the plaintiff was the former owner of the
subject property before it was sold to them. Is the plaintiff still required to introduce evidence on the issue of
prior physical possession? Explain.

A. No. Section 4, Rule 129 of the RROE on judicial admission states that an admission, verbal or
written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

Q. What is the effect of judicial admissions?

A. Judicial admissions are evidence against the party who made them, and are considered conclusive
and binding as to the party making the judicial admission. A judicial admission bars the admitting party from
disputing it.

Q. How can judicial admission be contradicted?

A. As provided in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the RROE, the general rule that a judicial admission is
conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof admits of two exceptions: (1) when it is shown that
the admission was made through palpable mistake; and (2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact
made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such an admission. For
instance, if a party invokes an “admission” by an adverse party, but cites the admission “out of context,” then the
one making the admission may show that he made no “such” admission, or that his admission was taken out of
context. This may be interpreted as to mean “not in the sense in which the admission is made to appear.” That is the
reason for the modifier “Such”.

RULE 130 – A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

Q. What is meant by object evidence?

A. That which is perceived, known, thought of, or signified; that toward which a cognitive act is
directed. The term includes whatever may be presented to the mind as well as to the senses; whatever, also is acted
upon or operated upon affirmatively, or intentionally influenced by anything done, moved, or applied thereto. It may
be used as having sense of effect.

Q. How are object evidence classified?

A. Object evidence is classified into: (a) actual, physical or “autoptic” evidence are those which
have a direct relation or part in the fact or incident sought to be proven and those brought to the court for personal
examination by the presiding magistrate; and (b) demonstrative evidence are those which represent the actual or
physical object (or event in the case of pictures or videos) being offered to support or draw an inference or to aid in
comprehending the verbal testimony of a witness.

Q. During the initial stage of evidence gathering, the only readily available types of actual
evidence reasonably obtainable by law enforcers are unique objects and non-unique objects. What are unique
and non-unique objects?

A. Unique objects are either: (a) already exhibit identifiable visual or physical peculiarities such as a
particular paint job or an accidental scratch, dent, cut, chip, disfigurement or stain; or (b) have a readily
distinguishable mark such as a unit-specific serial number in case of an industrially manufactured item. Whereas,
non-unique objects such as narcotic substances, industrial chemicals, and body fluids cannot be distinguished and
are not readily identifiable; that is why they present an inherent problem of fungibility or substitutability and
contamination which adversely affects their relevance or probative value. This is the reason why non-unique objects
have to be made unique by law enforcers upon retrieval or confiscation in order for these articles to be authenticated
by a sponsoring witness so that trial and reviewing courts can determine their relevance or probative value.

Q. How should object evidence be authenticated?

A. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent

must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. (Rule
902 (a), FRE) The practice of testimonial sponsorship of object evidence in the Federal Rules is not specifically
mentioned in the Rules on Evidence. Nothing in the Rules on Evidence deals with the authentication of object
evidence during the trial. Apart from the requirement of formal offer, however, such practice is part and parcel of
having an object evidence admitted, because authenticity is an inherent attribute of relevance — a component of
admissibility. The obvious reason is that an object offered in court as evidence but without having any part in the
fact or event sought to be proven by the proponent is irrelevant because it has no “relation to the fact in issue as to
induce a belief in its existence or non-existence.”

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Q. What is the legal basis of the exclusionary rule?

A. The exclusionary rule is enshrined under Section 3(2), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution: 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
affirmation 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. (1) 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. (2) Any evidence obtained in
violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Q. Under our rules of procedure, in what instance can the exclusionary rule be applied? Explain.

A. It is applied in case of warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the 2000 Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Thus, it is required that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed
and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. Under
Section 5(b), Rule 113, it is essential that the element of personal knowledge must be coupled with the element
of immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through the search
incidental thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule of the 1987
Constitution.

RULE 130 – B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

SEC. 2. – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Q. Which will prevail between documentary and testimonial evidence in the appreciation of evidence?
Explain.

A. Documentary evidence will generally prevail over testimonial evidence. Documentary evidence has more
evidentiary weight as opposed to a testimony which can be easily fabricated.

SEC. 3.–ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE

Q. When is the original document rule applied?

A. The original document rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry.
Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances
relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule (now original document rule) does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to
account for the original. Moreover, production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court’s discretion,
whenever the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be
served by requiring production.

MEANING OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND DUPLICATE

Q. What is original of a writing?

A. An original of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have
the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An original or a photograph includes the negative or any print
therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight shown to
reflect the data accurately, is an original.

Q. Is there any exception to the original document rule? Explain.

 A. Yes. One of which is known as the “XEROX” RULE pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)
1003. The “Xerox” rule, says duplicate are generally admissible. This represents a major change from the common
law, under which the offeror had the burden of establishing an adequate excuse for failing to produce the original
before secondary evidence was admissible. Rule 1003 reverses this burden with respect to duplicate. In sum,
duplicates are typically admissible as originals. If the principal concern of the best evidence rule (now original
document rule) is the reliability of secondary evidence, the accuracy of modern technology should be taken
into account.

Thus, duplicates are admissible unless the adverse party raised the following: i. Authenticity questioned.
Duplicates are not admissible if there is a genuine question about the authenticity of the original — for example,
when it is “barely legible” or otherwise suspect. ii. Unfairness. Fairness is jeopardized “when only a part of the
original is reproduced and the remainder is needed for cross-examination or may disclose matters qualifying the part
offered or otherwise useful to the opposing party.” The Federal note cites two cases. In one, the Fourth Circuit
held it error to admit an incomplete photocopy of the check in a prosecution for theft of a Social Security check. In
the other, the Second Circuit ruled it proper to exclude photocopies of portions of business records in a civil fraud
case when the originals were in Japan and the defendant had no opportunity to determine whether omitted portions
might be relevant. Exclusion of a photocopy is also proper where the most critical part of the original is not
completely reproduced in the ‘duplicate.’

Q. What is a duplicate in contemplation of the rules of evidence? Explain.

A. Section 4(b) Rule 130 of the RROE was taken from Rule 1001(e) of the FRE. It defines duplicate as a
counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or
technique that accurately reproduces the original. Thus, handwritten copies are not duplicates. If a counterpart, no
matter how produced, is intended by the person executing or issuing it to have the same effect as the original, the
counterpart is an original under Rule 1001 (d) of the FRE. A counterpart, therefore, may be either an original or a
duplicate depending on the intent of the person executing or issuing it.

SECS. 5–6.–SECONDARY EVIDENCE

Q. When can a party be allowed to present secondary evidence? Explain.

A. Section 5, Rule 130 the RROE allows the presentation of secondary evidence when the original document
has been lost or destroyed and its unavailability has been duly established. In such a case, a party "may prove its
contents by a copy or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony witnesses the order
stated." (Heirs of Eliseo Bagaygay vs. Heirs of Paciente, G.R. No. 212126, 4 August 2021)(Second Division)
[Hernando, J.].
Q. What are the exceptions to the original document rule?

A. The exceptions are provided in Section 3(a-e) and reiterated in Sections 5-6, Rule 130 of the RROE are: (a)
When the original has been 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 control of the party against whom the evidence is offered,
and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice; (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; and (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office.

Q. When can the presentation of the original document be dispensed?

A. If the party never objected to the submission of the photostatic copies as evidence, the production of
the originals is dispensable. This was the ruling in Estrada vs. Hon. Desierto where the Supreme Court ruled that
the production of the original may be dispensed with if the opponent does not dispute the contents of the document
and no other useful purpose would be served by requiring its production. In such case, the secondary evidence of the
content of the writing would be received in evidence if no objection was made to its reception. [People vs.
Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), [665 SCRA 89, 7 February 2012](En Banc)[Brion, J.].

SEC. 7.–SUMMARIES (NEW PROVISION)

Q. What are the requisites for the summaries to be admitted as evidence?

A. The requisites are as follows: i. Voluminous requirement. While the writings that are summarized, it must
be voluminous, convenience (not necessity) is the standard in this Context.ii. Right of inspection. Rule 1006
explicitly provides that the underlying materials must be made available for inspection and copying by the other
parties. iii. Production of originals. Rule 1006 explicitly authorizes the trial judge to order in-court production of
the originals or duplicates, a decision left to the judge’s discretion. iv. Admissibility of underlying documents.
Although not explicitly stated in the rule, summary is not admissible if the originals upon which it is based are
inadmissible. v. Accuracy requirement. Although not explicitly required by the rule, a summary must “fairly
represent and be taken from” the originals. On one case, a summary of medical articles was ruled inadmissible
because the expert who prepared the summary had not read all the articles. In another case, summaries of figures
were excluded because “there was virtually no documentation.” vi. Experts. The use of summaries often requires
expert testimony (e.g., an accountant), in which case the expert must be qualified. Expert testimony, however, is not
always required.

SEC. 10.–PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Q. What is the concept of the parol evidence rule? Explain.

A. The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument
by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, at or before the execution of the parties' written
agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.
(Bacala vs. Heirs of Sps. Polino, G.R. No. 200608, 10 February 2021)(Third Division)[Hernando, J.].

Q. What is the plain meaning rule? Explain.

A. The plain meaning rule is applied by Pennsylvania courts, which assumes that the intent of the parties to
an instrument is embodied in the writing itself, and when the words are clear and unambiguous the intent is to be
discovered only from the express language of the agreement.It means that if the terms of a contract are clear and
leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.
(Article 1370 of the Civil Code)(Bacala vs. Heirs of Sps. Polino, G.R. No. 200608, 10 February 2021) (Third
Division)[Hernando, J.].

Q. What is the four corners rule? Explain.

A. Four corners rule is a principle that allows courts in some cases to search beneath the semantic surface for
clues to meaning. A court's purpose in examining a contract is to interpret the intent of the contracting parties, as
objectively manifested by them. The process of interpreting a contract requires the court to make a preliminary
inquiry as to whether the contract before it is ambiguous. A contract provision is ambiguous if it is susceptible to
two reasonable alternative interpretations. Where the written terms of the contract are not ambiguous and can only
be read one way, the court will interpret the contract as a matter of law. If the contract is determined to be
ambiguous, then the interpretation of the contract is left to the court, to resolve the ambiguity in the light of the
intrinsic evidence. (Bacala vs. Heirs of Sps. Polino, G.R. No. 200608, 10 February 2021)(Third Division)
[Hernando, J.]

WHEN PAROL EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED

Q. When can evidence aliunde be introduced?

A. A party may present evidence aliunde to modify, explain or add to the terms of a written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading any of the four exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule: 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. The
first exception applies when the ambiguity or uncertainty is readily apparent from reading the contract.” The
second exception pertains to instances where “the contract is so obscure that the contractual intention of the parties
cannot be understood by mere inspection of the instrument.”Under the third exception, the Parol Evidence Rule
does not apply “where the purpose of introducing the evidence is to show the invalidity of the contract.” And,
the fourth exception involves a situation where the parties agreed to other terms after the execution of the
written agreement.

PROBLEM:

Jess Dima and his co-heirs executed an Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate and Absolute Sale adjudicating
among themselves Lot 3154 (consisting of 469 sq.m.) and selling a 207 sq.m. portion of the same to Sps. Antonio
and Amalia Cabañes. The document did not, however, identify the portion being sold as Lot No. 3154-A.
Immediately after the sale, Sps. Cabañes sold Lot 3154-A to Ariel Gabarda by virtue of a Deed of Sale. Gabarda,
intending to have Lot 3154-A registered in his name, discovered that the portion occupied by him consists of 140
sq.m. only and not 207 sq.m. Gabarda claimed that the 207 sq.m. property sold by Sps. Cabañes to him consists of
Lot 3154-A with an area of 140 sq.m. and Lot 3154-C with an area of 67 sq.m. Thus, he filed against Dima and his
co-heirs a Complaint for Quieting of Title over Lot 3154-C. Gabarda, in order to further his case, rely on the failure
of the Absolute Sale to state that the 207-square meter portion conveyed by Dima and his co-heirs to Sps. Cabañes
was Lot 3154-A. Dima, on the other hand, puts emphasis on the fact that the Deed of Sale between Gabarda and the
Sps. Cabañes expressly stated that the lot subject of the sale was Lot 3154-A only. Plainly, the parties’ respective
arguments hinge on two relevant documents which they adopted as common exhibits: (1) the Absolute Sale subject
of which, among others, is the conveyance made by Dima and his co-heirs to the Sps. Cabañes; and (2) the Deed of
Sale between Sps. Cabañes and Gabarda. There is no dispute regarding the contents of these documents, that is,
neither of the parties contest that the Absolute Sale did not state that the 207-square meter portion sold to the Sps.
Cabañes was Lot 3154-A nor that the Deed of Sale between Gabarda and Sps. Cabañes expressly mentioned that the
subject of the sale between them was Lot 3154-A.

Will the parol evidence rule apply? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Petitioner Gabarda was not a party in the Extrajudicial Settlement and Absolute Sale executed by Dima
and his co-heirs. Likewise, Dima was not a party to the Deed of Sale entered into by and between Gabarda and Sps.
Cabañes. Hence, the inapplicability of the Parole Evidence Rule. What is really in issue is whether the admitted
contents of the said documents adequately or correctly express the true intention of the parties to the same.

It has been held that when the parties admit the contents of written documents but put in issue whether these
documents adequately and correctly express their true intention, the deciding body is authorized to look beyond
these instruments and into the contemporaneous and subsequent actions of the parties in order to determine such
intent. In view of this and since the Parol Evidence Rule is inapplicable in this case, an examination of the parties’
respective parol evidence is in order.

RULE 130 – C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

SEC. 21.–WITNESSES; THEIR QUALIFICATIONS

Q. What are the qualifications of a witness?

A. As the rules show, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to
others, may be witnesses. Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime,
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.

Q. Can an intellectually disabled person be qualified as a witness?

A. Yes. To qualify as a witness, the basic test is “whether he or she can perceive and, perceiving, can make
known his or her perception to others, may be witnesses.” [Sec. 21 RROE] Therefore, an intellectually disabled
person is not, solely by this reason, ineligible from testifying in court. ”He or she can be a witness, depending on his
or her ability to relate what he or she knows.” If an intellectually disabled victim’s testimony is coherent, it is
admissible in court.

Q. What is the rule in case of inconsistency between the Affidavit and the testimony of the witness in
open court?

A. If there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony
commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimonies in court, the former
being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions and sometimes
from want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected
circumstances necessary for his accurate recollection of the subject." (People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 248815, 23 March
2022) (Second Division) [Hernando, J.].

Q. What is the importance of the findings of the trial judge as regards the assessment of a witness?
Explain.

A. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his
unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand, a vantage point denied
appellate courts; and when his findings have been affirmed by the CA, these are generally binding and conclusive
upon the Supreme Court. (People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 248815, 23 March 2022) (Second Division) [Hernando, J.];
(People vs. Villegas, Jr., G.R. No. 218210, October 09, 2019) (Third Division) [Hernando, J.]; (People vs. XXX,
G.R. No. 255491, 18 April 2022) (Second Division) [Hernando, J.]; People vs. Catig, G.R. No. 225729, March
11, 2020) (Second Division) [Hernando, J.]; (Grana vs. People, G.R. No. 202111, November 25, 2019) (Second
Division) [Hernando, J.].

Q. What is the probative value of a child’s testimony who is a victim of rape or acts of lasciviousness?
Explain.

A. It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit because when a
woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that
rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. (People vs. Eulalio, G.R.
No. 214882, October 16, 2019) (Third Division) [Hernando, J.]; People vs. Galugay, G.R. No. 221428,
February 13, 2019 (February 13, 2019) (Third Division)[Hernando, J.]

DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES

Q. What are the grounds for disqualification of witnesses?

A. Specific rules of witness disqualification are provided under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence: 1. Section 23 disqualifies a witness by reason of marriage with exceptions; 2.
Section 24 disqualifies a witness by reason of privilege communications with exceptions; 3. Section 25 disqualifies
a witness by reason of parental and filial privilege, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against
that person or by one parent against the other; 4. Section 26 disqualifies a witness by reason of privilege relating to
trade secrets with exceptions. The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of
disability other than those mentioned in the Rules. The Rules should not be interpreted to include an exception not
embodied therein.

SEC. 23.–DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE

Q. What are the reasons for the marital disqualification rule?

A. The reasons given for marital disqualification rule are: 1. There is identity of interests between husband
and wife; 2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is consequent danger of perjury; 3. The policy of
the law is to guard the security and confidences of private life, even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice,
and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and 4. Where there is want of domestic tranquillity there is
danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other.

Q. What are the exceptions to the marital disqualification rule?

A. The exceptions, both in civil actions between the spouses and in criminal cases for offenses
committed by one against the other. Like the rule itself, the exceptions are backed by sound reasons which, in the
excepted cases, outweigh those in support of the general rule.

SEC. 24.–DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATIONS; RULE ON THIRD

PARTIES

SEC. 24 (a) - HUSBAND AND WIFE

Q. What is the rationale of the marital privilege communications rule? Explain.

A. In recognition of the significance of marriage to the Philippine society, testimonial privilege and
communication privilege have been granted to spouses. This is to preserve their harmonious relationship and to
prevent any party, including a spouse, to take advantage of the free communication between the spouses or of
information learned within the union. (Sanchez vs. Darroca, G.R. No. 242257, 15 October 2019)(En Banc)
[Leonen, J.].

Q. What are the two types of spousal privilege communication? Explain.

A. The two (2) types of spousal privilege communications are: 1) The spousal testimonial privilege
provides that a spouse may not be compelled to testify against a defendant-spouse in criminal prosecutions. The
spousal testimonial privilege, which is sometimes known as the anti-marital fact privilege, is based on the policy of
protecting the marital relationship from “dissension” and the “natural repugnance” for convicting a defendant upon
the testimony of his or her intimate life partner.” Unlike the confidential communication privilege, the testimonial
privilege applies only in criminal cases. If the testimonial privilege is inapplicable, the confidential
communication privilege remains intact in those jurisdiction that observe both.The testimonial privilege is
determined as of the time of trial. If there is a valid marriage, the privilege applies, and all testimony, including
testimony concerning events that predated the marriage, is excluded. If the charge offense involves a crime against
the other spouse or the children, the privilege typically does not apply. In such a case, the decision to testify is not
optional; the witness-spouse can be compelled to testify. This rule has a significant impact in domestic violence
cases where spouses sometimes change their minds about prosecution, often due to fear. If the crime is against both
a spouse and a third party, the exception applies, and the spouse may testify.

2) The second privilege involves confidential communications between spouses and applies in both civil
and criminal cases. The purpose of this rule is to promote marital discourse, an instrumental rationale. The efficacy
of this privilege, however, may be questioned. Most married couple does not know of the privilege, and thus it
cannot encourage spousal communications. In addition, the existence non vel of such privilege probably wouldn’t
affect their conduct one way or the other. Marital privacy is probably a better rationale but one raises other issues —
e.g. whether the privilege should be extended to parents, children, partners, or perhaps others. Unlike testimonial
privilege, which applies only in criminal prosecutions, the confidential communication privilege applies in both civil
and criminal cases. If the testimonial privilege is inapplicable, the confidential communication privilege remains
intact in those jurisdictions that honor both.

PROBLEM:

AAA is married to Jose Dima. They own a house and lot located in Barangay Sta. Justina, Buhi, Camarines
Sur. For a reason only known to Dima, he made it appear that his wife AAA signed a Dead of Sale in favor of
Anthony Tavern. At the time that the Deed of Sale was signed on 23 June 2018, AAA was in Taiwan working as a
domestic helper. Upon her return to the Philippines in January 2019, AAA learned about the falsification of her
signature committed by Dima. Thus, she filed a case of falsification of public document against Dima before the
Provincial Prosecutors Office of Camarines Sur in Naga City.

Can Jose Dima invoke the marital disqualification rule under Section 24(a) of the RROE? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. A criminal case for Falsification of Public Document filed against the husband — who allegedly forged
the signature of his wife in a deed of sale, thereby making it appear that the latter gave her marital consent to the sale
of a house and lot belonging to their conjugal partnership when in fact and in truth she did not — may be considered
as a criminal case for a crime committed by a husband against his wife, and, therefore, an exception to the rule on
marital disqualification.

SEC. 24(b) - ATTORNEY AND CLIENT; EXCEPTIONS

Q. When is the attorney-client privilege rule applicable? Explain.

A. The attorney-client privilege applies only where the communication is made for the purpose of
receiving legal advice. It protects a client disclosure of facts revealed in non-litigious as well as in litigation
consultation — e.g., in preparing a contract or will. The privilege extends to communications made to an attorney by
a person seeking legal services, even if the attorney decides not to represent that person. It applies to attorneys
serving pro bono as well as to in-house counsel. If an attorney is consulted for reasons unrelated to legal services
(e.g., as a friend or business advisor), the privilege is inapplicable. For instance, it does and extends to lobbying the
President for Pardons. The person asserting the privilege has the burden of establishing that the client consulted the
attorney for legal services.

Q. Who are covered by the attorney-client privilege communication?

A. Those covered are as follows: 1) A Lawyer who is a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the
client to be authorized, to practice law. 2) A representative of the lawyer who is one employed to assist the lawyer
in the rendition of professional legal services. 3) Agents who assist in providing legal services, such as associates
and secretaries, are included.

Q. What are the exceptions to the attorney-client privilege communication rule?

A. The exceptions are provided by Section 24 (b)(i-v), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence which
was taken from the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 503, viz: (1) Crime-Fraud Exception. The privilege
does not apply to communication concerning future criminal or fraudulent acts. Only when a client knowingly seeks
legal counsel to further a continuing or future crime does the crime-fraud exception apply. (2) Claimant through
Same Deceased Client. Normally the privilege survives the death of the client and may be asserted by his
representative. (3) Breach of Duty by Attorney or Client. In some cases, a client’s assertion of a claim,
counterclaim, or affirmative defense that places an otherwise privilege matter at issue may be deemed a limited
exception (“waiver”). (4) Document Attested by a Lawyer. The privilege does not apply where the attorney also
acted as a subscribing witness. (5) Joint Clients. An exception for joint representation is widely recognized in
situations where two clients subsequently disagree and litigation ensues — e.g., clients A and B retain an attorney to
draw up a partnership agreement, and they later have a dispute that results in a lawsuit.

SEC. 24 (c) - PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT (DOCTOR AND PSYCHOTHERAPIST PRIVILEGES)

Q. What is the purpose of the doctor-patient privilege communication rule? Explain.

A. The purpose is to facilitate and make safe full and confidential disclosure by the patient to the physician
of all facts, circumstances and symptoms, untrammelled by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced
disclosure and publication on the witness stand, to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion, and be
enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient. It rests in public policy and is for the general interest of the
community.

Q. Who are included in the physician-patient privileged communication rule?

A. The privilege has been expanded to include dentists in order to protect communications
concerning HIV and AIDS. The privilege may apply to doctor of medicine, doctors of osteopathic medicine, doctors
of pediatric medicine, and dentists. Sometimes nurses are also included. Frequently, other medical personnel who
work under a doctor’s supervision fall within the privilege’s protection. The privilege covers communications made
to a physician by a patient and usually covers advice given by the physician to a patient. Matters other than
communications and advice do not fall within the privilege, and a treating physician may be compelled to testify
about such other matters.

Q. What are the exceptions to the physician-patient privilege?

A. The exceptions are as follows: (1) required reports of gunshot, stab, or other wounds; (2)
required reports of suspected child abuse and neglect; (3) required reports of abuse of mentally disabled
persons; and (4) test results showing the presence of alcohol or drugs in a criminal suspect’s body.

Q. What is the purpose of the psychotherapist-patient privilege rule?

A. The purpose of the privilege is the public interest in facilitating treatment for individuals suffering
the effects of a mental or emotional problem. In Jaffee, the Supreme Court of United States extended the federal
privilege to clinical social workers. The reasons for recognizing a privilege for treatment by psychiatrists and
psychologists apply with equal force to treatment by a clinical social worker. Today, social workers provide a
significant amount of mental health treatment. Their clients often include the poor and those of modest means who
could not afford the assistance of a psychiatrist or psychologist, but whose counselling sessions serve the same
public goals.

All jurisdictions recognize psychotherapist-patient privilege. In Jafee vs. Redmond, the therapist was a
licensed clinical social worker who had counselled a police officer after she shot and killed a man on duty. In the
lawsuit filed by the victim’s family against the officer, the family sought to discover the social worker’s notes. The
Supreme Court of the United States concluded that the communications were protected by the
psychotherapist-patient privilege.

SEC. 24 (d) - PRIEST AND PENITENT

Q. What is the nature of the priest and penitent privilege?

A. The communication must be made for the purpose of obtaining spiritual guidance. Consultations for
other reasons do not fall within the privilege.

Q. What is not covered by the priest and penitent privilege rule?

A. Crime-fraud is an exception because the nature of what may reasonably be considered spiritual advice
makes it unnecessary to include in the rule a specific exception for communications in furtherance of crime fraud.

SEC. 24 (e) - PUBLIC OFFICERS

 Q. What is the purpose of the public officer privilege?

A. This common law privilege is intended to protect the public interest in effective law enforcement. The
privilege recognizes the obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law-
enforcement official and, by preserving their anonymity, encourages them to perform that obligation.

Q. What are the exceptions to the public officers privilege rule?

A. There are two (2) exceptions to the privilege, viz: First, once the identity of the informant becomes
known, the privilege ceases. Second, if the identity of the informant would provide substantial assistance to the
defense at trial, the state is required to reveal the identity of the informant or dismiss the prosecution.

Q. Can an informer’s identity be revealed without violating the public officers privilege rule?

A. Yes. In the 1957 case of Roviaro vs. US, the trial judge denied a defense motion to compel the
prosecution to disclose the informer’s identity. The Supreme Court of the United States held that where disclosure
is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the
privilege must give way. In these situations, the trial court may require disclosure and, the government withholds
the information, dismiss the action.

Q. What is the concept of executive privilege communication?

A. The concept is for the maintenance of the confidentiality of conversations of the President
which is necessary in the exercise of her executive and policy decision making process. The expectation of a
President to the confidentiality of her conversations and correspondences, like the value which we accord deference
for the privacy of all citizens, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt
or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. Disclosure of conversations of the President will have a chilling
effect on the President, and will hamper her in the effective discharge of her duties and responsibilities, if she is not
protected by the confidentiality of her conversations. [Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers and Investigations, et al., G.R. No. 180643 (25 March 2008) (En Banc)[Leonardo-De Castro, J.];
Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777(20 April 2006)(En Banc)[Carpio-Morales].

Q. Why is executive privilege communication necessary?

A. The privilege is said to be necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential advisors and to provide the
President and those who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and
making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. In United States
vs. Nixon, (Nixon and post-Watergate) the U.S. Court recognized a great public interest in preserving the
confidentiality of conversations that take place in the President’s performance of his official duties. It thus
considered presidential communications as presumptively privileged. Apparently, the presumption is founded on the
President’s generalized interest in confidentiality.

Q. What are the two kinds of executive privilege? Explain.

A. The two (2) kinds of executive privilege are: 1. The communication privilege pertains to
communications, documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that
the President believes should remain confidential. Presidential communications privilege applies to decision-making
of the President. It is rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of power and the President’s unique
constitutional role. 2. The deliberative process privilege includes advisory opinions, recommendations and
deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. The
deliberative process privilege to decision-making of executive officials. The communication privilege is based on
common law. Unlike the deliberative process privilege, the presidential communications privilege applies to
documents in their entirety, and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones. As a
consequence, congressional or judicial negation of the presidential communications privilege is always subject to
greater scrutiny than denial of the deliberative process privilege.

Q. Who are the officials covered by the presidential communication privilege?

A. Judicial Watch, Inc. vs. Department of Justice The Supreme Court held that: functionally they
are those officials performing a task directly related to the President’s pardon power, but concluded that an
organizational test was more appropriate for confining the potentially broad sweep that would result from the In
re: Sealed Case’s functional test. The majority concluded that, the lesser protections of the deliberative
process privilege would suffice. That privilege was, however, found insufficient to justify the confidentiality of
the 4,341 withheld documents. (1998 case of Chavez vs. PCGG, 2002 case of Chavez vs. Public Estates
Authority,) In Senate vs. Ermita, it was held that the claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases
where the subject of inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the Constitution to the President, such as
the area of military and foreign relations. Under our Constitution, the President is the repository of the
commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic powers. Consistent with the doctrine of separation of
powers, the information relating to these powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others.

Q. What are the limitations of the executive privilege?

A. The limitations are those provided for by law. Some of these laws are Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, Article
229 of the RPC, Section 3(k) of R.A. No. 3019, and Section 24 (e) of Rule 130 of the RROE. These are in
addition to what our body of jurisprudence classifies as confidential and what our Constitution considers as
belonging to the larger concept of executive privilege. Clearly, there is a recognized public interest in the
confidentiality of certain information. Further, the right to public information, like any other right, is subject to
limitation. Section 7 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Q. Will absolute privilege communication apply to pleadings submitted during the preliminary
investigation in criminal cases? Explain.

A. Yes, provided it is relevant. A communication is absolutely privileged when it is not actionable,

even if the author has acted in bad faith. This class includes allegations or statements made by parties or their
counsel in pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial and administrative proceedings, as well as answers
given by the witness in reply to questions propounded to them in the course of said proceedings, provided that said
allegations or statements are relevant to the issues, and the answers are responsive to the questions propounded to
said witnesses.

PROBLEM:

In a motion for reconsideration and disqualification of the Investigating Prosecutor Maruja Biglang-Awa, Jose
Dima, a respondent in an Estafa case before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iraga, alleges among others against
her the following: ACP Maruja Biglang-Awa should inhibit herself from further acting on the case because of: (1)
manifest bias for 20,000 reasons; (2) the Investigating Fiscal’s wrongful assumptions were tarnished in silver ingots;
(3) the slip of her skirt shows a corrupted and convoluted frame of mind; (4) corrupted and convoluted 20,000
reasons; (5) moronic resolution; (6) intellectually infirm or stupid blind; (7) manifest partiality and stupendous
stupidity; (8) idiocy and imbecility of the Investigating Fiscal; and (9) a fraud and a quack bereft of any intellectual
ability and mental honesty.

Sued for libel, Jose Dima reasoned that the pleading he submitted was covered by the privilege
communication rule. Is Jose Dima correct? Explain

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Jose Dima is wrong. The statements of Jose Dima fall short of the test of relevancy. These statements
are neither relevant grounds for a motion for reconsideration nor valid and justifiable reasons for
disqualification. These diatribes pertain to ACP Maruja Biglang-Awa’s honor, reputation, mental and moral
character, and are no longer related to the discharge of her official function as a prosecutor. They are devoid of any
relation to the subject matter of petitioner’s Omnibus Motion that no reasonable man can doubt their irrelevancy, and
may not become the subject of inquiry in the course of resolving the motion. (Belen vs. People G.R. No. 211120,
February 13, 2017(Second Division)[Peralta, J.]

SEC. 25.–PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE

Q. What is the applicability of parental and filial privilege rule?

A. Section 25, Rule 130 is an adaptation from a similar provision in Article 315 of the Civil Code that applies
only in criminal cases. But those who revised the Rules of Civil Procedure choose to extend the prohibition to
all kinds of actions, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, filed against parents and other direct
ascendants or descendants.
 Q. Can filial privilege be invoked or waived like other privileges? Explain.

A. Yes. This rule is not strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is not incompetent or
disqualified to testify against an ascendant. The rule refers to a privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or
waived like other privileges. (People vs. Invencion, G.R. No. 131636, 5 March 2003)(En Banc)[Davide, Jr., C.J.]

SEC. 26.–PRIVILEGE RELATING TO TRADE SECRETS

Q. What is a trade secret? Explain.

A. A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound known only to its owner and
those of his employees to whom it is necessary to confide it. The definition also extends to a secret formula or
process not patented, but known only to certain individuals using it in compounding some article of trade having a
commercial value. A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information that: (1)
is used in one’s business; and (2) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do
not possess the information.

Generally, a trade secret is a process or device intended for continuous use in the operation of the business,
for example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list or catalogue or specialized customer list. It is
indubitable that trade secrets constitute proprietary rights. The inventor, discoverer, or possessor of a trade secret or
similar innovation has rights therein which may be treated as property, and ordinarily an injunction will be granted
to prevent the disclosure of the trade secret by one who obtained the information “in confidence” or through a
“confidential relationship.” (Air Philippines Corporation vs. Pennswell, Inc., 540 SCRA 215, 13 December
2007)(Third Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.].

Q. When can an employer validly terminate an employee based on alleged unauthorized

disclosure of trade secrets?

A. Any determination by management as to the confidential nature of technologies, processes,

formulae or other so-called trade secrets must have a substantial factual basis which can pass judicial scrutiny.

Q. What are the other privileged information which cannot be disclosed but were not mentioned
in Rule 130 of the amended Rules of Evidence?

A. Among them are the following: (a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of
published news; (b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted; (c)information contained in tax
census returns; and (d) bank deposits.

Q. What are the provisions related to trade secrets in the Revised Penal Code?

A. These are the following articles: Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. — The penalty
of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000) shall be imposed upon any
manager, employee or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal
such secrets. Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. — The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000) shall be imposed upon the person
in charge, employee or workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the
owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.

Q. What is the provision related to trade secrets in the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code?

A. Under R.A. No. 8424, otherwise known as the NIRC of 1997, Section 278 thereof provides: Any person
who causes or procures an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to divulge any confidential
information regarding the business, income or inheritance of any taxpayer, knowledge of which was acquired by him
in the discharge of his official duties, and which it is unlawful for him to reveal, and any person who publishes or
prints in any manner whatever, not provided by law, any income, profit, loss or expenditure appearing in any income
tax return, shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand pesos (₱2,000), or suffer imprisonment of not
less than six (6) months nor more than five (5) years, or both. (Sec. 278, NIRC)

ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS [SECS. 27-34]

SEC. 27.–ADMISSION BY A PARTY

Q. Can the admission in the counter affidavit be considered a confession? Explain.

A. No. It is only an admission. In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or
by showing they were made by mistake. The party may also establish that the response that formed the admission
was made in a jocular, not a serious, manner; or that the admission was made in ignorance of the true state of
facts. Nevertheless, whether categorized as a confession or as an admission, it is admissible in evidence against him.

Q. Distinguish confession from admission.

A. Sections 27 (Admission) and 34 (Confessions) of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
distinguishes one from the other as follows: In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt; Whereas, in an
admission, there is merely a statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgment of guilt or of the criminal
intent to commit the offense with which one is charged. (People vs. Licayan, G.R. No. 144422, 28 February 2002)
(En Banc)[Per Curiam] A statement by the accused admitting the commission of the act charged against him but
denying that it was done with criminal intent is an admission, not a confession.

Q. What is the effect of admission of counsel?

A. The admission of counsel is considered as admission by client. The unbroken stream of judicial dicta is
that, in the conduct of their case, clients are bound by the actions of their counsels; save when the latter’s negligence
is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the former are deprived of their day in court. Also, clients, being bound by
the actions of their counsels, cannot complain that the result of the litigation might have been different had their
lawyers proceeded differently.

Q. Explain the concept of admission against interest.

A. An admission against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts
in dispute since no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true. Thus, an
admission against interest binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made through
palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it.

PROBLEM:

A court sheriff was charged administratively in the OCA for violations of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel. Section 2, Canon I provides that Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit
based on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions,
while Section 2 (e), Canon III states that Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount,
favor, hospitality or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of
the donor is to influence the Court personnel in performing official duties.

However, upon receipt of the notice to comment, he merely ignored the same and instead, he no longer
reported to work.

Would his failure to file comment be equivalent to admission? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Instead of facing the charges against him, he chose to ignore the accusations by no longer reporting for
work. Indeed, for his failure to file comment, he is deemed to have impliedly admitted the charges against him.
Thus, in Noces-De Leon vs. Florendo, an administrative case against a court employee, the High Court ruled: The
failure to file Comment if so ordered is equivalent to admission.

SEC. 29.–RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE; ADMISSION BY A THIRD PARTY

Q. Explain the res inter alios acta rule.

 A. The principle of res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another. This rule, however, applies to extrajudicial declarations or admissions. It does
not apply to testimonies given on the witness stand where the party adversely affected had the opportunity to cross-
examine the declarant.

Q. What is the effect of an extra-judicial confession?

A. An extra-judicial confession is binding only on the confessant. It cannot be admitted against his or her co-
accused and is considered as hearsay against them.

Q. What is the effect of the confession made by a party to the alleged co-accused? Explain.

A. It is not binding to the co-accused. On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts
are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only
be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized
strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as
evidence against him.

SEC. 30.–ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR AGENT

Q. What are the exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule?

A. The exceptions are as follows: (1) Admission by co-partner or agent under Section 30; (2) Admission
by Conspirator under Section 31; (3) Admission by privies under Section 32.

Q. As an exception to the res inter alios acta rule, what is necessarily required in the admission by the
conspirator?

A. The rule allowing the admission of a conspirator requires the prior establishment of the conspiracy
by evidence other than the confession.

Q. Is a joint venture akin to partnership and thus, falls under the exception to res inter alios
acta rule?

A. Yes. A joint venture is akin to partnership. A partnership is defined as two or more persons who bind
themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits
among themselves. Whereas, a joint ventures have been deemed to be akin to partnerships since it is difficult to
distinguish between joint ventures and partnerships.

SEC. 31.–ADMISSION BY A CONSPIRATOR

Q. What are the requisites for the admission of a conspirator to be received against his or her
co-conspirators?

A. The requisites are as follows: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the
admission itself; (b) the admission relates to the common object; and (c) it has been made while the declarant was
engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.

Q. Can the testimonies of the whistleblowers in the PDAF scam be given probative value during
the preliminary investigation without violating the res inter alios acta rule? Explain.

A. Yes. The res inter alios acta rule under Section 29, Rule 130 of the RROE, which states that the rights of a
party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, unless the admission is by a conspirator
under the parameters of Section 31 of the same Rule, constitutes a technical rule on evidence which should not be
rigidly applied in the course of preliminary investigation proceedings. In Estrada vs. Ombudsman, the
Supreme Court sanctioned the Ombudsman’s appreciation of hearsay evidence, which would otherwise be
inadmissible under technical rules on evidence, during the preliminary investigation as long as there is
substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. This is because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not
finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. Applying the same logic, and with the similar observation that
there lies substantial basis for crediting the testimonies of the whistleblowers herein, the objection interposed by the
Napoles siblings under the evidentiary res inter alios acta rule should falter. Ultimately, as case law edifies, the
technical rules on evidence are not binding on the fiscal who has jurisdiction and control over the conduct of a
preliminary investigation, as in this case. (Reyes vs. Ombudsman, 787 SCRA 354, 15 March 2016)(En Banc)
[Perlas-Bernabe, J.]

Q. Does the res inter alios acta rule under Section 29, Rule 130 of the RROE apply during the
preliminary Investigation?

A. No. In the case of Cambe vs. OMB and companion of cases, G.R. No. 212014-15, 6 December
2016)(En Banc) [Perlas-Bernabe, J.], the High Court said: Neither can the Napoles siblings discount the
testimonies of the whistleblowers based on their invocation of the res inter alios acta rule under Section 28, (now
Section 29 of the RROE) Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, which states that the rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, unless the admission is by a conspirator under the
parameters of Section 30 (now Section 31 of the RROE) of the same Rule.

SEC. 32.–ADMISSION BY PRIVIES

Q. What are the kinds of privies?

A. Traditionally there are six (6) kinds of privies: 1. Privies of blood, such as the heir to his ancestor; 2.
Privies in representation, as executors or administrators to their deceased testator or intestate; 3. Privies in estate,
as grantor and grantee, lessor and lessee assignor and assignee, etc; 4. Privies in respect to contract; 5. Privies in
respect of estate and contract, as where the lessee assigns his interest, but the contract between lessor and lessee
continues, the lessor not having accepted of the assignee; 6. Privies in law, as the lord by escheat, a tenant by the
curtesy, or in dower, the incumbent of a benefice, a husband suing or defending in right of his wife, etc.

Q. What is the effect of a person’s declaration if there exists a privity of estate between the
declarant and the party?

A. The declarations of a person are admissible against a party whenever a privity of estate exists
between the declarant and the party, the term privity of estate generally denoting a succession in rights.
Consequently, an admission of one in privity with a party to the record is competent. And where several co-parties to
the record are jointly interested in the subject matter of the controversy, the admission of one is competent against
all. The individual and separate admissions of each respondent bind all of them pursuant to Section 30 and Section
32, Rule 130 of the RROE. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 406 SCRA 190, 15 July 2003)(En Banc)[Corona, J.]

SEC. 33.–ADMISSION BY SILENCE

Q. What is the concept of admission by silence? Explain.

A. Failure of one not under arrest to respond by denial to accusation of crime, or element of
crime, maybe construed as admission of guilt if such person understood accusation and could have
responded. If a statement is made by another person in the presence of a party to the action, containing assertions of
facts which, if untrue, the party would under all the circumstances naturally be expected to deny, his failure to
speak traditionally been receivable against him as an admission. In People vs. Español, the Supreme Court
considered as another piece of evidence against appellant his silence when his wife’s nephew asked him why he
killed his wife. His silence on this accusation is deemed an admission under Section 33, Rule 130 of the RROE.

SEC. 35.–SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE

Q. What is meant by character evidence?

A. It means that evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character. It is not admissible for
the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.

Q. What is the effect of the admission by the accused on the acts of lasciviousness case filed by
his eleven-year old daughter, while he has a pending rape case filed by his six-year old daughter?

A. It only proves that such a case was filed and pending with the municipal court. It does not prove
the propensity of the accused-appellant to crave for his children. The pendency of another case, does not affect the
constitutional presumption of innocence afforded to the accused-appellant. As a rule, evidence is not admissible
which shows or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the
offense for which he is on trial. It is not competent to prove that he committed other crimes of a like nature for the
purpose of showing that he committed the crime charged in the complaint or information. An exception to this rule
is when such evidence tends directly to establish the particular crime, and it is usually competent to prove the
motive, the intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two
or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, or the identity of the person
charged with the commission of the crime on trial.

SEC. 28.– OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE

Q. Why is offer of compromise cannot be considered as evidence against the offeror?

A. Based on jurisprudence, the reasons are as follows: First, since the law favors the settlement of
controversies out of court, a person is entitled to buy his or her peace without danger of being prejudiced in case his
or her efforts fail; hence, any communication made toward that end will be regarded as privileged. Indeed, if every
offer to buy peace could be used as evidence against a person who presents it, many settlements would be prevented
and unnecessary litigation would result, since no prudent person would dare offer or entertain a compromise if his or
her compromise position could be exploited as a confession of weakness. Second, offers for compromise are
irrelevant because they are not intended as admissions by the parties making them. A true offer of compromise does
not, in legal contemplation, involve an admission on the part of a defendant that he or she is legally liable, or on the
part of a plaintiff, that his or her claim is groundless or even doubtful, since it is made with a view to avoid
controversy and save the expense of litigation. It is the distinguishing mark of an offer of compromise that it is made
tentatively, hypothetically, and in contemplation of mutual concessions.

Q. What is the effect of the offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases? Explain.

A. 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 implied admission of
guilt. If the offer of Compromise was made, prior to the filing of the criminal complaint against the offeror, the offer
of Compromise was clearly not made in the context of a criminal proceeding and, therefore, cannot be considered as
an implied admission of guilt.

Q. What is the effect of plea for forgiveness of the accused?

A. A plea for forgiveness is analogous to an attempt to compromise. In People vs. Español, a parricide case,
the Supreme Court considered appellant’s act of pleading for his sister-in-law’s forgiveness as analogous to an
attempt to compromise, which in turn can be received as an implied admission of guilt under Section 28, Rule 130
of the RROE.

Q. In an Estafa case under Art. 315(2)(a) of the RPC, will the accused be absolved from his criminal
liability if he returns the money involved?

A. No. The return by the accused of money belonging to the private complainant will not reverse a
consummated act of Estafa. Quite the contrary, such action may even uphold a conviction. Section 28, Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court states that in criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or 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. (Arriola vs. People, G.R. No. 199975, 24 February 2020) (Second Division)
[Hernando, J.].

SECTION 22. TESTIMONY CONFINED TO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. — 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. (36a) [correlate with Sec. 37. Hearsay]

Q. When is evidence considered hearsay? Explain.

A. 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. A person who
introduces a hearsay statement is not obliged to enter into any particular stipulation, to answer any question, to solve
any difficulties, to reconcile any contradictions, to explain any obscurities, to remove any ambiguities; and that
he/she entrenches himself/herself in the simple assertion that he/she was told so, and leaves the burden entirely
upon the dead or absent author. For this reason, the rule against hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that
there was no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. (Arriola vs. People, G.R. No. 199975, February 24,
2020)(Second Division)[Hernando, J.].

Hearsay evidence is defined as "evidence not of what the witness knows himself or herself but of what he [or
she] has heard from others." As a general rule, hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given
credence for it has no probative value. As a rule, a witness can testify only to those facts which one knows of his
or her own personal knowledge, i.e., which are derived from his or her own perception. Otherwise, such
testimony would be hearsay.

EXCEPTION:

The hearsay rule, however, does not apply to independently relevant statements. Thus, while the
testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth
of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement
on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless
of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the
hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the
statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially
relevant as to the existence of such a fact. This is the doctrine of independently relevant statements. (Arriola vs.
People, G.R. No. 199975, February 24, 2020) (Second Division) [Hernando, J.]

FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE RULE

The rule requires that a witness have knowledge of the subject about which the witness testifies. Firsthand
knowledge is not limited to a witness’s visual perception; it extends to all senses (e.g., what the witness heard or
smelled). Moreover, it is the witness knowledge at the time of trial, not necessarily at the time of the event, that
is determinative.

PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE

Section 36 (now Section 22), Rule 130 in relation to Section 42 (Part of Res Gestae), [now Sec. 44, under the
RROE] as one of the thirteen (13) exceptions of the Hearsay Rule, was explained by Mr. Justice Reyes, in the case
of People vs. Estiba (G.R. No. 208749, 26 November 2014)(Third Division)[Reyes, J.], a rape case, where the
accused was acquitted on automatic review by the Supreme Court, viz: Without the res gestae exception, the
evidence of the prosecution would consist mainly of hearsay statements by PO3 Cobardo, BSF Estudillo and BSF
Perlas all reiterating what AAA allegedly told them. The same question, whether res gestae as an exception to the
hearsay rule must be appreciated from the factual circumstances of the case, is now before this Court in this
automatic review.

To pardon her father, AAA chose to ignore the trial court’s subpoenas to testify in her rape complaint, thus
leaving missing a vital component in the prosecution’s case, her eyewitness account. But in itself, her pardon would
not have worked the dismissal of the rape case since it was given after the complaint was filed in court. AAA never
appeared at the trial proper despite several subpoenas for her to testify, and subsequent subpoenas could not be
served after her family moved to a new but unknown address on April 13, 2010. Recall that at the pre-trial, BBB
told the court that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case against the accused-appellant since her daughter
had already pardoned him. It has, however, been held that even if it is construed as a pardon, AAA’s desistance is
not by itself a ground to dismiss the complaint for rape against the accused-appellant once the complaint has been
instituted in court.

Q. What are the requisites in order to admit the evidence as part of the res gestae?

A. There are three (3) essential requisites to admit evidence as part of the res gestae, namely: (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.By res gestae, exclamations and statements made by either the
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime, immediately before, during or immediately after the commission of
the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements constitute nothing but spontaneous reaction or
utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion there being no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to
fabricate a false statement become admissible in evidence against the otherwise hearsay rule of inadmissibility.

Q. What are the solutions that will address the problem of controlling inadmissible hearsay as
evidence to establish the truth in a dispute while also safeguarding a party’s right to cross-examine her
adversary’s witness? Explain.

A. The Rules of Court offers two solutions. The first solution is to require that all the witnesses in a
judicial trial or hearing be examined only in court under oath or affirmation. Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court formalizes this solution, viz: The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in
open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a
different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (Sec. 1, Rule 132)
 The second solution is to require that all witnesses be subject to the cross-examination by the adverse party.
Section 6, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, as amended, ensures this solution thusly: Upon the termination of the
direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party on any relevant matter, with sufficient
fullness and freedom to test his or her accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse,
and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (Sec. 6, Rule 132) Although the second solution traces its
existence to a Constitutional precept relevant to criminal cases, i.e., Section 14, (2), Article III, of the
1987 Constitution, which guarantees that: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to meet the
witnesses face to face,” the rule requiring the cross-examination by the adverse party equally applies to non-criminal
proceedings.

HEARSAY AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

HEARSAY RULE (SEC. 37)

SECTION 37. Hearsay. — 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 testifies 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 influence or motive; or (c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him
or her. (n)

NOTES

Section 37, Rule 130 is a new provision introduced by the Revised Rules of Evidence. It has no equivalent in
Rule 130 of the old Rules of Evidence, although jurisprudence is abundant. However, the provision has long been in
existence in the United States under the Federal Rules of Evidence [FRE 801 (a), (b), (c), and (d); 805; 806].

Q. What is the declarant-focused definition of hearsay?

A. Hearsay can be defined as an out-of-court statement whose probative value depends on the credibility of
the declarant. Such a “declarant-focused” definition highlights the underlying policy of the hearsay rule.

Q. Who is a declarant?

A. Rule 801(b), FRE “Declarant” is defined as a “person who makes a statement.” This definition makes
clear that the hearsay rule does not apply to devices, such as radar, or to tracking dogs. The principal objection to
hearsay is the lack of cross-examination. It makes no sense to demand cross-examination of a machine or a dog,
even though both still raise reliability concerns. Nevertheless, those concerns are better addressed as problems of
scientific proof. Computer-generated records may also fall into this category if they do not contain an assertion of a
person – e.g., automated telephone logs.

OUT-OF-COURT (EXTRA-JUDICIAL) REQUIREMENT

Q. When is an out-of-court (extra-judicial) statement considered not a hearsay?

A. Hearsay is defined as a “statement,” other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or
hearing.” Hence, an out-of-court (extrajudicial) statement does not lose its hearsay character simply because the
declarant later becomes a witness at trial and testifies about the statement. For example, if an eyewitness to an
accident makes a statement at the time of the accident and later testifies at trial, the prior statement is hearsay if
offered for its truth; to be admissible, it must fall within an exception or exemption. The witness, of course, may
testify about what she saw; only the witness’s prior statement is hearsay. (Rule 801 (c), FRE)

DOUBLE HEARSAY: FRE 805

Q. When can multiple or double hearsay be admitted in evidence?

 A. The rule permits the admission of hearsay within hearsay if each part of the hearsay chain falls
within an exception. Multiple hearsay issues often arise in connection with the public and business records
exceptions. Those exceptions encompass a double-hearsay component if both declarants are under a business
duty or an official duty. In this situation, there is no need to resort to Rule 805. If, however, only the entrant is under
such a duty, the statement is inadmissible in the absence of another hearsay exception. Here Rule 805 comes into
play. The federal drafters provided several examples:

Thus, a hospital record might contain an entry of the patient’s age based on information furnished by his wife.
The hospital record would qualify as a regular entry except that the person who furnished the information was not
acting in the routine of the business. However, her statement independently qualifies as a statement of pedigree (if
she is unavailable) or as a statement made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment, and hence each link in the chain
falls under sufficient assurance. Or, further to illustrate, a dying declaration may incorporate a declaration against
interest by another declarant.

CALLING HEARSAY DECLARANT

Q. What is the right of a party against whom hearsay statement is admitted when the declarant is called
as a witness?

A. (Rule 806, FRE) If a party against whom a hearsay statement is admitted calls the declarant as a witness,
the party may examine the declarant “as if under cross-examination.” This provision provides an automatic
exception to Rule 611, which generally prohibits the use of leading question on direct examination.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE UNDER PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE

Q. What is the concept of the hearsay rule in this jurisdiction?

A. Under the hearsay rule, any evidence — whether oral or documentary — is hearsay if its probative value is
not based on the personal knowledge of the witness, but on that of some other person who is not on the witness
stand. Hence, information that is relayed to the former by the latter before it reaches the court is considered hearsay.
Jurisprudence instructs that evidence of statement made or a testimony is hearsay if offered against a party who has
no opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Hearsay evidence is excluded precisely because the party against
whom it is presented is deprived of or is bereft of opportunity to cross-examine the persons to whom the statements
or writings are attributed.

PROBLEM:

On 21 December 2018, Jose Dima and Anthony Tavern heard that Angelo Embestro admitted that he was the
one who ordered Ryan Nieva and Rodolfo Ordonio to cut five (5) narra trees in the upland property of Alexander
Santos. Embestro, Nieva and Ordonio were eventually apprehended. A case for violation of Section 68 of PD No.
705, otherwise known as The Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines, was filed against them. Dima and Tavern
testified in court that they heard Embestro admitting to have ordered the cutting of the trees. Embestro failed to
object when Dima and Tavern testified in court.

Are the testimonies of Dima and Tavern considered as hearsay? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Their testimonies cannot be considered as hearsay for three (3) reasons. First, they were indisputably
present and within hearing distance when he allegedly made the admission. Therefore, they testified to a matter of
fact that had been derived from their own perception. Second, what was sought to be admitted as evidence was the
fact that the utterance was actually made by Embestro, not necessarily that the matters stated therein were true. On
this basis, a statement attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand is admissible; it is not covered by the
hearsay rule. Gotesco Investment Corporation vs. Chatto ruled that evidence regarding the making of such statement
is not secondary but primary, because the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially
relevant as to the existence of that fact. Third, even assuming that the testimonies were hearsay, Embestro is barred
from questioning the admission of Dima and Tavern testimony, because he failed to object to it at the time it was
offered. It has been held that when parties fail to object to hearsay evidence, they are deemed to have waived their
right to do so; thus, it may be admitted.

Q. What is the evidentiary value of newspaper articles?

A. Newspaper articles amount to hearsay evidence, twice removed and are, therefore, not only inadmissible
but without any probative value at all whether objected to or not, unless offered for a purpose other than proving the
truth of the matter asserted. As it is, the news article is admissible only as evidence that such publication exists with
the tenor of the news therein stated. The same rules apply to news article published via the broadcast media or the
internet communication. (Ocampo vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 8 August 2017)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.]

Q What is the probative value of an affidavit? Explain.

A. An affidavit is commonly recognized as hearsay evidence. Since it is often prepared not by the affiant but
by another person who makes use of his or her own language in writing the statements, it is generally rejected unless
the affiant is placed on the witness stand to testify. Courts take judicial notice of the fact that an affidavit does not
purport to contain a complete narration of facts. Court testimonies, therefore, are favored because these can be
subjected to cross-examination. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Tormis, 801 SCRA 530, 30 August 2016)
(En Banc)[Per Curiam].

Q. Explain the doctrine of independently relevant statements.

A. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact that
such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as
evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may
constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. (Cambe vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, 812 SCRA 537, 6 December 2016)(En Banc) [Perlas-Bernabe, J.].

Thus, in the case of Cambe vs. Office of the Ombudsman, the Supreme Court said that: Undoubtedly, the
testimonies of the whistleblowers are independently relevant to prove the involvement of Sen. Revilla and his co-
accused in the present controversy, considering their respective participations in the entire PDAF scam. Therefore,
the statements made by whistleblowers Suñas, Sula, and Luy, who were employees of JLN Corporation and privy to
the financial transactions of Napoles concerning, among others, Sen. Revilla’s PDAF, should be given consideration
as they are directly, if not circumstantially, relevant to the issue at hand.

Q. Does the hearsay rule apply to independently relevant statements? Explain.

A. No. The hearsay rule does not apply to independently relevant statements. Thus: While the testimony of a
witness regarding a statement made by another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact
asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the
record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of the
truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule
does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is
not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to
the existence of such a fact. This is the doctrine of independently relevant statements. [Arriola vs. People, G.R. No.
199975 (24 February 2020)(Second Division)[Hernando, J.],citing People vs. Umapas].

13 EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECS. 38-50)

1. DYING DECLARATION (SEC. 38)

Q. What are the requisites of a dying declaration?

A. For a dying declaration to constitute as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, four (4) conditions must
concur: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) that at
the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending death; (c) the declarant was
competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide
where the declarant is the victim.

Q. Why is a dying declaration an exception to the hearsay evidence rule?

A. This is because a dying declaration is an evidence of the highest order; it is entitled to the
utmost credence on the premise that no person who knows of his impending death would make a careless and
false accusation. Further, the declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when
every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the
truth, the lawdeems this as a situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed
by an oath administered in court.

2. STATEMENT OF DECEDENT OR PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND (SEC. 39)

 Q. What is the concept of the dead man’s statute or dead person’s statute?

A. Under the Dead Man’s Statute Rule, if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from
testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the undue
advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.

Q. Can a party declared in default be disqualified as a witness?

A. No. There is no provision in the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default from taking the witness
stand. The law does not provide default as an exception. The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes
the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the Rules. It is a maxim of recognized utility and
merit in the construction of statutes that an express exception, exemption, or saving clause excludes other
exceptions. As a general rule, where there are express exceptions these comprise the only limitations on the
operation of a statute and no other exception will be implied. The Rules should not be interpreted to include an
exception not embodied therein.

PROBLEM:

Flora is the owner of a farm being tilled by her agricultural lessee, Eugenio, under a leasehold agreement.
Before Flora passed away, she appointed her niece, Amanda, as her attorney-in-fact. When Eugenio passed away, he
was succeeded by his children, Modesta, Christina, and Pedro. Amanda and Pedro entered into an agricultural
leasehold contract, installing and recognizing the latter as the lone agricultural lessee and cultivator of the land.
When Pedro passed away, his wife Dominga took over as agricultural lessee. Pedro’s sisters filed a complaint for
nullification of leasehold and restoration of rights as agricultural lessees against Pedro’s surviving spouse. The only
evidence presented was Amanda’s declaration in her Affidavit that Pedro falsely represented to Flora and to her that
he is the actual cultivator of the land, and that when she confronted him about this and the alleged alternate farming
scheme between him and his sisters, Pedro allegedly told her that he and his two sisters had an understanding about
it and he did not have the intention of depriving them of their cultivatory rights. There was no other evidence, other
than such verbal declaration, which proves the existence of such arrangement. No written memorandum of such
agreement exists, nor have they shown that they actually cultivated the land even for only one cropping. No receipt
evidencing payment to the landowners of the latter’s share, or any other documentary evidence, has been put
forward.

Is the Affidavit of Amanda, stating what Pedro told her during his lifetime, admissible as evidence?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Amanda’s declaration in her Affidavit covering Pedro’s alleged admission and recognition of the alternate
farming scheme is inadmissible for being a violation of the Dead Man’s Statute under Section 39, Rule 130 of the
Revised Rules of Evidence. Since Pedro is already deceased, Amanda’s declaration cannot be admitted and used
against Pedro’s surviving spouse. This is because she will be placed in an unfair situation for being unable to
contradict or disprove such declaration due to her husband-declarant Pedro’s prior death.

3. DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (SEC. 40)

Q. Will the confirmation of an extra-judicial partition be considered as admission against

interest?

A. Yes. Confirmation of an Extra-Judicial Partition partakes of the nature of an admission against a

person’s proprietary interest. As such, the same may be admitted as evidence against him and his successors-in-
interest. The theory under which declarations against interest are received in evidence, notwithstanding that they are
hearsay, is that the necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such evidence advisable and, further, that the
reliability of such declaration asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary or moral interest.

PROBLEM:

In July 1987, a case for Annulment of Sale of real property was filed by Mr. Teddy Bird, Sr. against Dima
Publishing Inc., and its President, Ret. General Laging Handa, in the City of Iraga, RTC. Bird, Sr. testified in court
and his testimony was corroborated by his son, Bird, Jr., to the effect that they were coerced by Gen. Handa when
they sold the 5,000 square meters property, the building and equipment thereon. Bird Sr., testified in court that Gen.
Handa acted for and in behalf of President Tan Sen Sen, who then declared Martial Law in the Republic of
Timbukto. However, at the time Bird, Sr. testified, Gen. Handa was already dead.

What is the probative value of the testimony of Bird, Sr.? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The narration of a witness of his conversation with a dead person is esteemed in justice the weakest. One
reason for its unreliability is that the alleged declarant cannot recall to the witness the circumstances under which his
statement were made. The temptation and opportunity for fraud in such cases also operate against the testimony.
Testimony to statements of a deceased person, at least where proof of them will prejudice his estate, is regarded as
an unsafe foundation for judicial action except in so far as such evidence is borne out by what is natural and
probable under the circumstances taken in connection with actual known facts. And a court should be very slow to
act upon the statement of one of the parties to a supposed agreement after the death of the other party; such
corroborative evidence should be adduced as to satisfy the court of the truth of the story which is to benefit
materially the person telling it.

4. ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE (SEC. 41)

PROBLEM:

In a case for violation of R.A. No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, the
victim was a minor. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the penalty of
life imprisonment and ordered to pay complainant AAA, also known as BBB (a) a fine of ₱2,000,000.00; (b)
₱500,000.00 as moral damages; (c) ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (3) interest at the legal rate of six
percent (6%) per annum on all the amounts of damages awarded from the finality of the decision until fully paid.
However, the prosecution failed to offer the Certificate of Live Birth of the victim to prove her minority.

a) What are the guidelines in case of failure of the prosecution to produce and offer the evidence to
prove the minority of the victim? Explain.

b) What other proofs can be considered by the court regarding the minority of the victim? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

a) The following are the guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a
qualifying circumstance: 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true
copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic
documents such as baptismal certificates and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice
to prove age. 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either
by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date
of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence (now Section 41, Rule 130
of the amended ROE, effective May 1, 2020) shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:

a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7
years old; b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than
12 years old; c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 18 years old.

4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or
relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and
clearly admitted by the accused.

5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused
to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.

6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.

b) The following proofs can be considered by the court during the proceedings: i) the testimony of the
victim during the trial that she was a minor at the time of the incident; ii) the express and clear admission of her age
during the pre-trial in the stipulation of facts; These stipulations are binding on the court because they are considered
judicial admissions within the contemplation of Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court; iii) The counsel for the
accused and the prosecution signed the stipulation of facts which is therefore recognized as a declaration
constituting judicial admission, a waiver of her right to present evidence to the contrary, and binding upon the
parties. "Although the right to present evidence is guaranteed by the Constitution, such right may be waived
expressly or impliedly." (People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 244048, 14 February 2022) (Second Division) [Hernando,
J.] citing the case of People v. Pruna439 Phil. 440 (2002)

Q. What are the requisites in order that pedigree may be proved by acts or declarations of relatives?

A. The requisites are as follows: (a) the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify; (b) the act or declaration
is made by a person related to the subject by birth or marriage; (c) the relationship between the declarant or the actor
and the subject is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration; and (d) the act or declaration was made ante
litem motam, or prior to the controversy.

Q. What is the purpose of filiation proceedings?

A. Filiation proceedings are usually filed not just to adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal right
associated with paternity, such as citizenship, support or inheritance. The burden of proving paternity is on the
person who alleges that the putative father is the biological father of the child.

Q. What are the procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action?

A. There are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action, viz: 1) a prima facie case —
A prima facie case exists if a woman declares that she had sexual relations with the putative father. In our
jurisdiction, corroborative proof is required to carry the burden forward and shift it to the putative father; 2)
Affirmative defenses — There are two (2) affirmative defenses available to the putative father: a. The putative
father may show incapability of sexual relations with the mother, because of either physical absence or
impotency. b. The putative father may also show that the mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of
conception.

3) Presumption of legitimacy — A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is presumed
legitimate. The child’s legitimacy may be impugned only under the strict standards provided by law.

4) Physical resemblance between the putative father and child — Physical resemblance between the
putative father and child may be offered as part of evidence of paternity. Resemblance is a trial technique unique to a
paternity proceeding. However, although likeness is a function of heredity, there is no mathematical formula that
could quantify how much a child must or must not look like his biological father. This kind of evidence appeals to
the emotions of the trier of fact.

5. FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE (SEC. 42)

Q. What are the two important features of Section 42, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence?

A. The two (2) important features of Section 42, Rule 130 are: 1. First, the portion which pertains to
testimonial evidence, under which the documents in question may not be admitted as the authors thereof did not take
the witness stand; and 2. Second, to qualify as entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings
on rights and family portraits. The Supreme Court holds that 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 reflective of a family’s reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones,
monuments or coffin plates.

Private documents not constituting family possessions as discussed above may not be admitted on the basis of
Rule 130, Section 42. Neither may these exhibits be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 43 regarding
common reputation, it having been observed that:
The weight of authority appears to be in favor of the theory that it is the general repute, the common
reputation in the family, and not the common reputation in community, that is a material element of evidence going
to establish pedigree. Thus, matters of pedigree may be proved by reputation in the family, and not by reputation in
the neighborhood or vicinity, except where the pedigree in question is marriage which may be proved by common
reputation in the community.

6. COMMON REPUTATION (SEC. 42)

Q. When can reputation be admitted to prove the location?

 A. When the location of boundaries of and is at issue, reputation is admitted to prove that location.
Traditionally, the reputation not only had to antedate the beginning of the present controversy, but also it had to be
ancient, i.e., to extend beyond a generation. Some recent cases suggest that the requirement is only that the
monuments or markers of the original survey must have disappeared. Federal Rule 803 (20) dispenses completely
with a requirement that the reputation be ancient or that the passage of time have rendered other evidence of the
boundaries unavailable.

Reputation is also admissible to prove a variety of facts which can best be described as mattes of general
history. Wigmore suggested that the matter must be one as to which it would be unlikely that living witness could
be obtained. Rule 803 (20) does not impose that requirement, although by use of the term history some requirement
of substantial age is imposed. In addition, the matter must be one of general interest, so that it can accurately be said
that there is a high probability that the matter underwent general scrutiny as the community reputation was formed.
Thus, when the navigable nature of a certain river was at issue, newspaper accounts and histories describing its use
during the nineteenth century were admissible to prove reputation for navigability at that time. In addition to these
well-developed exceptions, reputation evidence is sometimes admitted under statute or local law to prove a variety
of other miscellaneous matters. These include ownership of property, financial standing, and maintenance of a house
as an establishment for liquor-selling or prostitution.

Q. Will the ancient document rule apply in authenticating a writing?

A. Yes. In this jurisdiction, under Section 21, Rule 132 RROE, to qualify as an ancient document, a
private document must be more than 30 years old, is unsuspicious in appearance, and came from a place of
custody natural for such writing. Historically, the ancient document rule is related only to authentication. But,
American courts began recognizing a hearsay exception for written statements that met these requirements. Thus,
what originated as an aspect of authentication also became an exception to the hearsay rule in some jurisdictions.

7. PART OF THE RES GESTAE (SEC. 44)

Q. What is res gestae as an exception to the hearsay rule? Explain.

A. Res gestae means the “things done.” It refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of
the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or
utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to
deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. A spontaneous exclamation is defined as a statement or exclamation
made immediately after some exciting occasion by a participant or spectator and asserting the circumstances of that
occasion as it is observed by him.

PROBLEM:

In the midnight of October 29, 2021, MV Romeo and MV Juliet collided somewhere in the shore of Samar
near the pier. As a result of the collision, MV Romeo sunk near the pier of Tacloban City. In the course of the
damages suit instituted by MV Romeo, two witnesses were presented CH Lopez and Charizza Alombro. Lopez and
Alombro testified that, when the collision happened, they went to the pier the following day, only a few hours after
the incident, and that they interviewed those who witnessed the incident. In particular, Lopez was able to interview
M/V Romeo’s Chief Engineer, the stevedores and the port’s supervisors. Alombro was able to interview the M/V
Romeo’s chief mate. Their testimonies were based on the interviews they had.

Will the testimonies of Lopez and Alombro be considered as part of res gestae under Section 44, Rule
130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. The testimonies of the witnesses satisfy the requirements of the rule, in that: (1) the collision of the
vessels and sinking of M/V Romeo is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements made are with respect to the
collision; and (3) the statements of the declarants were made immediately after the incident.

Q. What are the acts which form part of the res gestae?

A. There are two (2) acts which form part of the res gestae: (1) in spontaneous exclamations where
the res gestae is the startling occurrence; and (2) in verbal acts where res gestae is the statement accompanying the
equivocal act.
 Q. What are the elements of the first act (spontaneous exclamations where the res gestae is the startling
occurrence) in order to be admitted as part of the res gestae?

A. To be admissible under the first class of res gestae, the following elements must be present: (1) that the
principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) that the statements were made before the declarant had
time to contrive or devise; (3) that the statements made must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances.

Q. What are the elements of the second act in order to be admitted as part of the res gestae?

A. Under the second class of res gestae, (verbal acts where res gestae is the statement accompanying the
equivocal act) the following requisites must be present: (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 significance to the equivocal act. In general, the test is whether or not an act,
declaration, or exclamation is “so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it
characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any
premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.”

Q. What is the importance of the element of spontaneity?

A. The element of spontaneity is critical because the admissibility of res gestae is premised on human
experience. The rule presumes that an utterance made, immediately following a strong and stressful stimulus, is an
honest and uncontrolled reaction.

Q. What are the requisites for res gestae to be given probative value?

A. There are two (2) requisites for applying the res gestae rule: (i) the act, declaration or exclamation is so
intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of
the transaction itself; and (ii) the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
testimony. In People vs. Jorolan, the Supreme Court stressed that there must be no intervening circumstance
between the res gestae occurrence and the time the statement was uttered that could have allowed the declarant an
opportunity to deliberate and reflect: An important consideration is whether there intervened between the occurrence
and the statement any circumstance calculated to divert the mind of the declarant, and thus restore his mental
balance and afford opportunity for deliberation. His statement then cannot be regarded as unreflected and instinctive,
and is not admissible as part of the res gestae. An example is where he had been talking about matters other than the
occurrence in question or directed his attention to other matters.

Q. What are the factors to be considered in determining whether the utterances were in fact
“spontaneous”?

A. There is no hard and fast rule by which spontaneity may be determined although a number of factors have
been considered, including, but not always confined to: (1) the time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the
act or transaction and the making of the statement; (2) the place where the statement is made; (3) the condition of
the declarant when the utterance is given; (4) the presence or absence of intervening events between the
occurrence and the statement relative thereto; and (5) the nature and the circumstances of the statement itself.

8. RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY (SEC. 45)

Q. How should the entries be made in the course of the business to qualify as an exception to the
hearsay rule?

A. Before entries made in the course of business may qualify under the exception to the hearsay rule and given
weight, the party offering them must establish that: (1) the person who made those entries is dead, outside the
country, or unable to testify; (2) the entries were made at, or near the time of the transaction to which they refer; (3)
the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein; (4) the entries were made in the professional capacity
or in the course of duty of the entrant; and (5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty.

Q. What is the rationale for admitting entries in the course of business and considering them as
exception to the hearsay rule?

A. Necessity is given as a ground for admitting entries, in that they are the best available evidence. Said
a learned judge: What a man has actually done and committed to writing when under obligation to do the
act, it being in the course of the business he has undertaken, and he being dead, there seems to be no danger
in submitting to the consideration of the court. The person who maybe called to court to testify on these entries
being dead, there arises the necessity of their admission without the one who made them being called to court be
sworn and subjected to cross-examination. And this is permissible in order to prevent a failure of justice.

9. ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS (SEC. 46)

Q. What is the probative value of the primary entry book in the Registry of Deeds? Explain.

A. The Primary Entry Book is an official record of all instruments filed with the Register of Deeds. As a
public document, it is entitled to a presumption of truth as to the recitals contained therein pursuant to Section 46,
Rule 130 of the ROC, which provides that "entries in official records made the performance of duty by a public
officer x x x are prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts therein stated. Thus, in the absence of strong,
complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity, the evidentiary nature of such a document must be sustained. For unless
there is evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed by the officer who
entered the details of the Deed of Sale pursuant to Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the ROC. (Heirs of Eliseo Bagaygay,
G.R. No. 212126, 4 August 2021)(Second Division)[Hernando, J.].

10. COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE (SEC. 47)

Q. When can a document be considered as a commercial list?

A. A document is considered as 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; (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. (Sec. 37, Rule 130, RROE)

11. LEARNED TREATISES (SEC. 48)

Q. Why are learned treatises admissible as evidence under Section 48, Rule 130 of the RROE? Explain.

A. The admissibility of a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the subject of history, science or art
without the writer being called to the stand, rests on two grounds: a) Necessity; and b) Trustworthiness. Necessity
because of the unavailability of expert witness to testify on the matter or if available, because of the tremendous
expense of hiring them; Trustworthiness because the learned witness in writing in his work or article has no motive
to misrepresent. Another reason is that the writer of a learned treatise is more careful of what he writes because he
knows that every statement he makes will be subject to criticism and open refutation. Still another reason is that
writers of learned treatise write with no view to litigation and not for a fee as expert witness.

12. TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER TRIAL (SEC. 49)

Q. What are the requisites for the admissibility of a testimony in a former proceeding?

A. In order that a testimony in a former proceeding involving the same parties and subject matter may be
given in evidence against the adverse party, the following requisites must be satisfied: (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 testified 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.

The reasons for the admissibility of testimony taken at a former trial or proceeding are the necessity for
the testimony and its trustworthiness. However, before the former testimony can be introduced in evidence, the
proponent must first lay the proper predicate therefor, i.e., the party must establish the basis for the admission of
testimony in the realm of admissible evidence.

13. RESIDUAL EXCEPTION (SEC. 50)

SECTION 50. Residual exception. — A statement not specifically 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, sufficiently 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.

NOTES

Section 50, Rule 130 is a new provision introduced in the Revised Rules of Evidence. However, the provision
was taken from Rule 807 (otherwise known as the CATCH ALL EXCEPTION) of the Federal Rules of Evidence of
the United States.

CONCEPT OF RESIDUAL EXCEPTION

A residual exception allows hearsay even if no other exception will allow it. If other circumstantial
guarantees trustworthiness of the evidence are offered to prove the material fact at issue in the statement, and if the
statement is more probative than other evidence reasonably available to the proponent, and if both the spirit of the
rules and the requirements of justice would be best served by admission, then the evidence should be heard. In a
criminal trial, the allowance of hearsay by an exception is no assurance of the statement’s final admissibility. A
statement otherwise admissible that is a testimonial statement that, if introduced would violate the confrontation
clause, is still barred.

OPINION RULE

SEC. 52.–OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS [PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN

EXPERT WITNESS]

Testimonies of expert witnesses are not absolutely binding on courts. However, courts exercise wide
latitude of discretion in giving weight to expert testimonies, taking into consideration the factual circumstances of
the case.The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all
the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given
controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to
the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that
discretion.

VALUE OF THE OPINION OF A HANDWRITING EXPERT

The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is
genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and
discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or
detection from an unpracticed observer.

The use of the word may in Section 49 [now Section 52], Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence signifies that
the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts.
Jurisprudence is also replete with instances wherein this Court dispensed with the testimony of expert witnesses to
prove forgeries. However, we have also recognized that handwriting experts are often offered as expert witnesses
considering the technical nature of the procedure in examining forged documents.
SECS. 53.–OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESSES [SUFFICIENT FAMILIARITY WITH THE
HANDWRITING]

While the testimony of a person, disavowing the genuineness of his signature may seem self-serving at first
blush, it cannot be ignored that such person is in the best position to know whether or not the signature was his, and
averments he would have on the matter, if adjudged as truthful, deserve primacy in consideration.

TESTIMONIES OF CHILDREN ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE SIGNATURE OF THEIR DECEASED

MOTHER CAN BE GIVEN PROBATIVE VALUE

It may be properly appreciated in evidence, as Section 50 (now Section 53), Rule 130 allows the opinion of an
ordinary witness to be received in evidence regarding a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity. Thus,
in the case of Lim vs. Chuatoco supra, the Supreme Court sustained the findings of the appellate court committed no
error in ruling that Eduardo would probably be the most reliable witness to testify on the handwriting of his mother
because he had worked closely with and exchanged papers and communications with Leoncia on a regular basis, the
latter being then the administrator of the properties left by Jose.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN EXPERT WITNESS AND AN ORDINARY OR LAY WITNESS

Under the Rules of Court, there is a substantial difference between an ordinary witness and an expert witness.
The opinion of an ordinary witness may be received in evidence regarding:

(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge; (b) a handwriting with which he has
sufficient familiarity; and (c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.Furthermore,
the witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. On the
other hand, the opinion of an expert witness may be received in evidence on a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, and experience or training which he shown to possess. However, courts do not immediately accord probative
value to an admitted expert testimony, much less to an unobjected ordinary testimony respecting special knowledge.
The reason is that the probative value of an expert testimony does not lie in a simple exposition of the expert's
opinion. Rather, its weight lies in the assistance that the expert witness may afford the courts by demonstrating the
facts which serve as a basis for his opinion and the reasons on which the logic of his conclusions is founded.

SEC. 54.–CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE; EXCEPTIONS

Q. In a rape case, is the fact that the victim has three previous boyfriends be taken against her?

A. No. It is the rule under Section 54(a)(1), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence that "the character of
the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any degree the probability or improbability of the
offense charged." It has been held in the rape case, that this argument may be raised only to show that there was
consent in a rape case. This does not apply when the woman's consent is immaterial such as in statutory rape or rape
with violence or intimidation. It must be added that consent would also be immaterial if the victim was persuaded,
coerced, or induced to do a particular act. (Cadajas vs. People, G.R. No. 247348, 16 November 2021)(En Banc)
[Lopez., J.J.]

CHARACTER AND GOOD MORAL CHARACTER DEFINED

Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing
him from others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people
who are acquainted with him; his reputation. Whereas, good moral character includes all the elements essential to
make up such a character; among these are common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse;
a character that measures up as good among people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to the
standard of the average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.

RULE AS REGARDS TO CHARACTER AND REPUTATION OF A PARTY IN A CASE

The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a
controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in the case were allowed to
be influenced by evidence of the character or reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a
popularity contest rather than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the business of the court is to try
the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may have a righteous cause. There are exceptions to this rule however
and Section 54, Rule 130 gives the exceptions in both criminal and civil cases.

ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL CASE CAN PROVE HIS GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

Section 54(a)(1), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence refers to the character of the offended party.
Character evidence, whether good or bad, of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. Such evidence is most commonly offered
to support a claim of self-defense in an assault or homicide case or a claim of consent in a rape case. In criminal
cases, Section 54 (a)(2), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence provides that: “(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.” When the accused presents proof
of his good moral character, this strengthens the presumption of innocence, and where good character and reputation
are established, an inference arises that the accused did not commit the crime charged. This view proceeds from the
theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not likely to have committed the act charged against
him.

Section 54(a)(2), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, provides that the prosecution may not prove the
bad moral character of the accused except only in rebuttal and when such evidence is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged. This is intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who might
otherwise be convicted not because he is guilty but because he is a person of bad character. The offering of character
evidence on his behalf is a privilege of the defendant, and the prosecution cannot comment on the failure of the
defendant to produce such evidence. Once the defendant raises the issue of his good character, the prosecution may,
in rebuttal, offer evidence of the defendant’s bad character. Otherwise, a defendant, secure from refutation, would
have a license to unscrupulously impose a false character upon the tribunal.

Section 54(a)(2), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence refers to character evidence of the accused. And
this evidence must be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged, meaning, that the character
evidence must be relevant and germane to the kind of the act charged, e.g., on a charge of rape, character for
chastity; on a charge of assault, character for peacefulness or violence; on a charge for embezzlement, character for
honesty and integrity.

SEX OFFENSES

In the Philippine setting, proof of the moral character of the offended party is applied with frequency in
sex offenses and homicide. In rape and acts of lasciviousness or in any prosecution involving an unchaste act
perpetrated by a man against a woman where the willingness of a woman is material, the woman’s character as to
her chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented to the man’s act. The exception to this is when the
woman’s consent is immaterial such as in statutory rape or rape with violence or intimidation. In the crimes of
qualified seduction or consented abduction, the offended party must be a virgin, which is presumed if she is
unmarried and of good reputation, or a virtuous woman of good reputation. The crime of simple seduction involves
the seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over twelve but under eighteen years of age.
The burden of proof that the complainant is a woman of good reputation lies in the prosecution, and the accused may
introduce evidence that the complainant is a woman of bad reputation.

HOMICIDE CASES

In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissible in two situations:
(1) as evidence of the deceased’s aggression; and (2) as evidence of the state of mind of the accused. The
pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful
nature, as the case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the accused was the aggressor. When
the evidence tends to prove self-defense, the known violent character of the deceased is also admissible to show that
it produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a
prompt defensive action was necessary.

Thus, in the case of People vs. Lee supra, the High Court said: 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. In light of the positive
eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the victim’s bad character he could have been killed by any one of
those from whom he had stolen is pure and simple speculation. Moreover, proof of the victim’s bad moral character
is not necessary in cases of murder committed with treachery and premeditation. In People vs. Soliman, a murder
case, the defense tried to prove the violent, quarrelsome or provocative character of the deceased. Upon objection of
the prosecution, the trial court disallowed the same. The Supreme Court held: While good or bad moral character
may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an offense (Section
15, Rule 123)now Section 54 (a)(1), Rule 130, such is not necessary in the crime of murder where the killing is
committed through treachery or 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 justifiable
conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary. This rule does not apply to cases of murder.

LIMITATION OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE

The provision on character evidence pertains only to criminal cases, not to administrative offenses. Thus,
in CSC vs. Belagan supra, it was held that not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be
proved under the provision of Section 51, Rule 130 of the ROC. Only those which would establish the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.

This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved in the
type of offense charged. Thus, on a charge of rape — character for chastity, on a charge of assault — character for
peaceableness or violence, and on a charge of embezzlement — character for honesty. In one rape case, where it was
established that the alleged victim was morally loose and apparently uncaring about her chastity, we found the
conviction of the accused doubtful.

RULE 131 - BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS

Q. If a person alleges that his signature is not genuine in a notarized document, can forgery be
presumed? Explain.
A. No. Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that the burden of proof is the duty of a party to
prove the truth of his claim or defense, or any fact in issue by the amount of evidence required by law. As a rule,
forgery cannot be presumed. An allegation of forgery must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence,
and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his
case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is
offered in opposition to it. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged
signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged.

SEC. 2.–CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS

Q. Distinguish conclusive presumptions from disputable presumptions.

A. The two may be distinguished as follows: Conclusive presumptions are presumptions that may not be
overturned by evidence, however strong the evidence is. They are made conclusive not because there is an
established uniformity in behavior whenever identified circumstances arise. They are conclusive because they are
declared as such under the law or the rules. Whereas, disputable, presumptions are presumptions that may be
overcome by contrary evidence. They are disputable in recognition of the variability of human behavior.
Presumptions are not always true. They may be wrong under certain circumstances, and courts are expected to apply
them, keeping in mind the nuances of every experience that may render the expectations wrong.

Q. What are the two conclusive presumptions under the RROE?

A. Rule 131, Section 2 of the RROE identifies two (2) conclusive presumptions as follows: a) The first one is
provided by Section 2(a), Rule 131, is the principle of equitable estoppels. The principles of equitable estoppel,
sometimes called estoppel in pais, are made part of our law by Art. 1432 of the Civil Code. An estoppel may arise
from silence as well as from words. ‘Estoppel by silence’ arises where a person, who by force of circumstances is
under a duty to another to speak, refrains from doing so and thereby leads the other to believe in the existence of a
state of facts in reliance on which he acts to his prejudice. Silence may support an estoppel whether the failure to
speak is intentional or negligent.

b) The second one is provided by Section 2(a), Rule 131 on prohibition against the tenant. Thus, what a
tenant is stopped from denying is the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the landlord-tenant
relation. If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the commence ment of that
33
relation, the presumption will not apply. Hence, the tenant may show that the landlord's title has expired or been
conveyed to another or himself; and he is not estopped to deny a claim for rent, if he has been ousted or evicted by
title paramount. Article 1436 of the Civil Code provides that a lessee or bailee is estopped from asserting title to the
thing leased or received, as against the lessor or bailor. In addition, the conclusive presumption found in Section
2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court known as estoppels against tenants.

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS

(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;

Q. What is the constitutional presumption in criminal cases?

A. When the constitutional presumption of innocence is not overcome by the prosecution, the accused must be
acquitted.

(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;

Q. What is the consequence if the element of “intent” in fraud cases, like estafa, was not proven during
the trial?

A. The accused must be acquitted. “Intent” is a requisite of the crime of estafa under Art. 315(1)(b), of the
RPC. The essence of estafa committed with abuse of confidence is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made. The words “convert” and
“misappropriate” connote the act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own, or of devoting it
to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one’s own use includes not only
conversion to one’s personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right.

(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his or her voluntary act;

Q. Will the act of the lawyer, such as charging a judge with graft and corruption solely based on the
adverse decision made, fall under Section 3(c), Rule 131? Explain.
 A. Yes. Unfounded charges against Judges are punishable by indirect contempt. It is presumed that a person
intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act and unless the requirements for proper substitution were
made, a lawyer enjoys the presumption of authority given him by his client.

(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns;

Q. What is the concept of Section 3(d), Rule 131 of the RROE?

A. Under Section 3(d), Rule 131 of the RROE, the legal presumption is that a person takes ordinary care of his
concerns. Further, under Section 3(p) of the same Rule, it is equally presumed that private transactions have been
fair and regular. This behooves every contracting party to learn and know the contents of a document before he signs
and delivers it. The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to
overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail. The natural
presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents and consequences.

(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;

Q. In administrative proceedings, what is the natural consequence in case of failure to present

the original copy of the document subject of the forgery?

A. Generally, photocopied documents can be admitted in evidence and be given probative value in
administrative proceedings, allegations of forgery and fabrication should prompt the adverse party to present the
original documents for inspection. Failure on the part of the respondent to present the originals raises the
presumption that evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;

Q. In case of payment by mistake by the debtor, can reimbursement be ordered by the court without the
application of Section 3(f), Rule 131 of the RROE?

A. No. In that case the burden of establishing its legal right to reimbursement becomes even more crucial in
the light of the general presumption contained in Section 3(f), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that “money paid by
one to another was due to the latter.”There is a further requirement that the payment by the debtor was made either
through mistake or under a cloud of doubt. In short, for the provisions on solutio indebiti to apply, there has to be
evidence establishing the frame of mind of the payor at the time the payment was made. Thus, to claim a refund of
payments made under the principle of solutio indebiti, the debtor must be able to establish that these payments were
made through mistake. This is however, a factual matter which cannot be raised to the Supreme Court, it being not a
trier of facts.

(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;

[Where a proof is adduced showing affirmatively that the thing delivered to another did not belong to the
latter, an implied contract known as ‘solutioindebiti’ is created, and the latter has the obligation to return the thing to
the former].

(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;

In a case, the possession of the respondent of the promissory note evidencing his debt to petitioners is prima
facie evidence of the payment of the same as provided in Section 3(h) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.

(i) That prior rents or instalments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced;

The provision of the Civil Code is explicit in this regard: Article 1176. The receipt of the principal by the
creditor without reservation with respect to the interest, shall give rise to the presumption that said interest has been
paid. The receipt of a later installment of a debt without reservation as to prior instalments, shall likewise raise the
presumption that such installments have been paid.

(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 possesses, or exercises acts of ownership
over, are owned by him or her;
 Q. Can the provision of Section 3(j) be applied in illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 11
of R.A. No. 9165?

A. Yes. A disputable presumption arises that if a person is in possession of the plastic bag containing
prohibited drugs without the requisite authority, she is the owner of the bag and its contents. It may be rebutted by
contrary proof that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question, and did not
intend to do so. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi.

(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;

This is similar to those stated in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h), Rule 131.

(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;

Q. What is the disputable presumption when a person acts in a public office?

A. The law presumes, in protecting such rights, that “a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed
or elected to it” and that “official duty has been regularly performed.” Moreover, the law specifically requires a
special civil action of quo warranto in the name of the Republic of the Philippines or in the name of the person
claiming right or title to a public office or position.

(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;

Q. Can the presumption of regularity be rebutted?

A. Yes. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity
or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every
reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer’s act being
lawful or unlawful; construction should be in favor of its lawfulness. Absent any showing of bad faith and malice,
there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. However, this presumption must fail in the
presence of an explicit rule that was violated.

Q. What is the time-honored presumption of factual findings of the administrative agencies of the
government?

A. Factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are afforded great
weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous
estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental
structure.

Q. When is the presumption of regularity of official acts not applicable?

A. The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is a disputable presumption under Rule
131, Section 3(m) of the RROE. Thus, the presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative
evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption of regularity in the performance of the CIR’s
official duties cannot stand in the face of positive evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.

Q. What is the probative value of a public document such as the Certificate of Live Birth?

A. A public document such as certificate of live birth generally enjoys the presumption of regularity. Accused-
appellant failed to present any evidence to overturn this legal presumption.

(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the
lawful exercise of jurisdiction;

Q. What is the presumption when a judge rendered a judgment?

A. It is presumed, in the absence of any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, that the trial court had
jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, and to have rendered a judgment valid in every respect.
 (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;

Q. What is the legal concept of sub silencio?

A. The legal concept of sub silencio provides that even if the ruling of the court is silent as to a particular
matter, for as long as said matter is within an issue raised in the case, it can be presumed, subject to evidence to the
contrary, that the matter in question was already laid before the court and passed upon by it.

(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;

Q. What is the essence of the disputable presumption under Section 3(p), Rule 131 of the RROE?

A. Section 3(p) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court provides a disputable presumption that private
transactions have been fair and regular. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the ordinary course of business is not
overturned in the absence of the evidence challenging the regularity of the transaction between the parties. However,
for the crime Fencing, which is malum prohibitum under P.D. No. 1612, creates a prima facie presumption of
fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or anything of value, which
has been the subject of robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.

(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;

Q. Can the provision of Section 3(q), Rule 131 of the RROE be invoked as justification for not
producing the original and only presenting the photocopy of the Deed of Sale of Shares of Stock? Explain.

A. No. A photocopy of a document has no probative value and is inadmissible in evidence without any
explanation as to why the original Deed of Sale of Shares of Stock could not be produced. The provision of Section
3(q), Rule 131 of the RROE on the disputable presumption that the ordinary course of business has been followed'
cannot be used as justification. The burden is on the presenter of the Deed of Sale to justify the non-production of
the original. Even if it could be assumed that the sale of shares of stock contained in the photocopies had indeed
transpired, such transfer is only valid as to the parties thereto, but is not binding on the corporation if the same is not
recorded in the books of the corporation as provided in Section 62 of R.A. No. 11232.

(r) That there was sufficient consideration for the contract;

Q. How can the presumption that there was a sufficient consideration for a contract can be overcome?

A. A contract is presumed to be supported by cause or consideration. The presumption that a contract has
sufficient consideration cannot be overthrown by a mere assertion that it has no consideration. To overcome the
presumption, the alleged lack of consideration must be shown by preponderance of evidence. The burden to prove
lack of consideration rests upon whoever alleges it, which, in the present case, is respondent.

(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;

Q. What does the term “given” mean under Section 3(s), Rule 131 of the RROE?

A. The term "given" does not pertain merely to a transfer of physical possession of the instrument. The phrase
"given or indorsed" in the context of a negotiable instrument refers to the manner in which such instrument may be
negotiated. Negotiable instruments are negotiated by "transfer to one person or another in such a manner as to
constitute the transferee the holder thereof. If payable to bearer it is negotiated by delivery. If payable to order it is
negotiated by the indorsement completed by delivery."

(t) That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at
the place where the instrument is dated;

There is presumption that an indorsement, made by a payee or indorsee without date, was before maturity, and
that the holder acquired the note or bill before maturity; and in the absence of proof, the indorsement is presumed to
have been at the time of execution of the note, and at the place where the instrument is dated. This, rule, however,
does not apply to non-negotiable paper.If the time of the indorsement becomes material for the purpose of defense, it
is incumbent on the maker to show that it was made after the maturity of the instrument, and thereby destroy the
legal presumption.
 (u) That a writing is truly dated;

Between a Manifestation and a dated Decision, the latter prevails. Thus, in a case, it was observed that: It is
true that in a Manifestation filed with the Court on 15 April 1976, counsel for the respondent company stated that
the decision in question was rendered on 30 December 1975. But, this mere manifestation is not sufficient to
overcome the presumption that the writing (decision) was truly dated. And the date on said decision is 30 December
1976. If the decision is dated 30 December 1976, logic dictates that it could not be received by the parties counsel on
23 March 1976 or eight (8) months before it was promulgated.

(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;

Q. What is the consistent ruling of the Supreme Court on mail matters?

A. On the basis of Section 3(v), Rule 131 of the RROE, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that when a
mail matter was sent by registered mail, there arises a disputable presumption that it was received in the regular
course of mail. The facts to be proved in order to raise this presumption are: (a) that the letter was properly
addressed with postage prepaid; and (b) that it was mailed.

(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-five years, an absence of five years shall
be sufficient 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 which 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 a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. In case of disappearance, where
there is a danger of death, the circumstances herein above provided, an absence of only two years shall be
sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again,
the spouse present must institute 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; The provision of Section 3(w), Rule 131 of the RROE has its correlative equivalent in our
substantive law. Articles 390-391 of the Civil Code of the Philippines are enlightening in this respect.

(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or
fact;

Q. What is the concept of adherence in good faith in this jurisdiction?

A. The presumption of good faith means, that under the rules on evidence, it is disputably presumed (i.e.,
satisfactory if uncontradicted and overcome by other evidence) that a person is innocent of crime or wrong, that a
person intends the ordinary con-sequence of his voluntary act, that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns, that
acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law and fact, that a man and
woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage, and that the law
has been obeyed. It is whimsical to easily attribute any illegal, irregular or immoral conduct on the part of a Filipino
just because he or she opted to marry a foreigner instead of a fellow Filipino. It is presumed that interracial unions
are entered into out of genuine love and affection, rather than prompted by pure lust or profit. (Republic vs.
Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, 24 April 2018)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].

(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of
life;

Q. Should the fact that a person's kidneys were both in their proper anatomical location at the time of
operation be proved?

A. No. It need not be proved as it is covered by mandatory judicial notice. The fact sought to be proved
thereby, that the two kidneys of a person were in their proper anatomical locations at the time he/she was operated
on, is presumed under Section 3(y), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.
The rules of evidence are merely the means for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact. Thus, they
likewise provide for some facts which are established and need not be proved, such as those covered by judicial
notice, both mandatory and discretionary. Laws of nature involving the physical sciences, specifically biology,
include the structural make-up and composition of living things such as human beings. The court can take judicial
notice that a person’s kidneys before, and at the time of, his/her operation, as with most human beings, were in their
proper anatomical locations.

Q. The statistics, provided by the Philippine Statistics Authority (formerly NSO), show that 99%
percent of the population in the Philippines are Filipinos. Does this mean that things have happened
according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life?

A. Yes. There is a disputable presumption that things have happened according to the ordinary course of
nature and the ordinary habits of life. All of the foregoing evidence, that a person with typical Filipino features is
abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos
such that there would be more than a 99% chance that a child born in the province would be a Filipino, would
indicate more than ample probability if not statistical certainty, that petitioner’s parents are Filipinos. That
probability and the evidence on which it is based are admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence. (Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC (786 SCRA 1, 8 March 2016)(En Banc)[Perez, J.].

(z) That persons acting as co-partners have entered into a contract of co-partnership;

Where several persons carry on the same business together, they are properly presumed to be partners.
Greenleaf says it is sufficient that they have acted as partners, and by their habit and course of dealings, conduct and
declarations, they have induced those with whom they have dealt to consider them as partners.

(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage;

Q. What is the disputable presumption between a man and a woman living together?

A. The presumption is that, persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, absent any counter
presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The fact that no marriage certificate was
submitted in evidence does not lead to the conclusion that the said parties were not legally married. The presumption
is that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage
under Section 3(aa), Rule 131, RROE. Every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage and
the legitimacy of children under the Family Code.
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who
live exclusively with each other as husband and wife, without the benefit of marriage or under a 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 property through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry, such
contributions and their corresponding shares, including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit, are
equal;

Q. What is the presumption over a property acquired by a man and a woman during their marriage?

A. The presumption is that property acquired during the subsistence of a valid marriage — and in the Civil
Code, there can only be one validly existing marriage at any given time — is conjugal property of such subsisting
marriage.

Q. What is the property relation of the parties if their marriage is void?

A. It is governed by the rules on co-ownership. In a void marriage, regardless of its cause, the property
relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the
Family Code. Article 147 of the Family Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred
by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void.

Q. What are the elements for the application of Art. 147 of the FC?

A. For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following elements must be present: 1. The man and the
woman must be capacitated to marry each other; 2. They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
3. Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void.

(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 marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred (300) days after the termination of the
former marriage;

Q. How is filiation determined?

A. Its determination relies not on physical proof, but on legal presumptions and circumstantial evidence. For
instance, a child is disputably or conclusively presumed legitimate, i.e. born of two married individuals depending
on the period that elapsed between the birth of that child and the celebration or termination of the spouses’ marriage.
The presumption of the fact of legitimacy is one of the strongest known to the law, and cannot be overthrown except
by stronger evidence.
Q. What is the presumption if a child is born during the marriage and the exception thereto? Explain.

A. The presumption is that children born in wedlock are legitimate. This presumption indeed becomes
conclusive in the absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of access between the spouses during the first
120 days of the 300 days which immediately precedes the birth of the child due to (a) the physical incapacity of the
husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife; (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separately in such
a way that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevents sexual
intercourse. Quite remarkably, upon the expiration of the periods set forth in Article 170, and in proper cases Article
171, of the Family Code (which took effect on 03 August 1988), the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child
would no longer be legally feasible and the status conferred by the presumption becomes fixed and unassailable.

Q. How can paternity and filiation be established?

A. Under the Family Code paternity and filiation can be established through any of the following methods:

(1) record of birth; (2) written admission of filiation; (3) open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate or an illegitimate child; or (4) other means allowed by the Rules or special laws.

Q. Is physical and scientific proof of blood relationship required to prove filiation?

A. No. Physical or scientific proof of a blood relationship to a putative parent is not required by law to
establish filiation or any status arising therefrom such as citizenship. In fact, DNA evidence is not absolutely
essential so long as paternity or filiation may be established by other proof. The same can be applied to a foundling.
Instead of requiring foundlings to produce evidence of their filiation — a nearly impossible condition —
administrative agencies, the courts and even Congress have instead proceeded on the assumption that these children
are citizens of the Philippines.

(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature;

Q. Does the presumption of existence continue absent any evidence to prove otherwise?

A. Yes. The presumption of ownership of a particular property continues absent any evidence that he divested
himself of the same. Under Sec. 3(ee), Rule 131 of the RROE, the ownership thereof is rightly to be presumed
because a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature. (Teves, et al. vs. The
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154182, 17 December 2004)(En Banc)[Davide, Jr., C.J.]. Whereas, the presumption
against a member of the judiciary to be married as stated in his personal data file remains, absent any showing that
his first marriage was dissolved. Thus, if a complaint about immorality was filed, and the said member of the
judiciary failed to rebut the presumption, it is safe to conclude that he is still married when he has an intimate
relationship with another woman. (Imbing vs. Tiongson, 229 SCRA 690, 7 February 1994)(En Banc)[Per
Curiam].

(ff) That the law has been obeyed;

Q. What is the presumption in implementing the writ of execution by the Sheriff?

A. Sheriffs enjoy the disputable presumption that in implementing the writ of execution in ejectment suit, it
obeyed the applicable law and rules in doing so.

(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 to 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;

Q. What is the presumption when a person in possession of a property appears to be entitled to its
ownership?
A. There is a presumption that every instrument has been executed. The circumstances which should concur to
raise this presumption are the following: (1) it must have been the duty of the trustee to convey; (2) there must be
sufficient reason to justify the presumption; (3) the object of the presumption must be to support a just title; (4) the
case must be clearly such that a court if called upon, would decree a reconveyance. Thus, where the beneficial
owner, for a long period, has dealt with the property as if possessed of the legal fee, it will be presumed that a
conveyance was executed.

(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as
wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances
from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the
strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:

1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;

2. If both were above the age of sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;

3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;

4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have
survived, if the sex be the same, the older; and

5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to
have survived.

EVIDENCE OF SURVIVORSHIP

It is manifest from the language of Section 3(jj), Rule 131 that the evidence of the survivorship need not be
direct; it may be indirect, circumstantial, or inferential. Where there are facts, known or knowable, from which a
rational conclusion can be made, the presumption does not step in, and the rule of preponderance of evidence
controls.

PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRED

Section 3(jj), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Evidence does not require that the inference necessary to
exclude the presumption therein provided be certain. It is the "particular circumstances from which it (survivorship)
can be inferred" that are required to be certain as tested by the rules of evidence. In speaking of inference the rule
cannot mean beyond doubt, for "inference is never certainty, but if may be plain enough to justify a finding of fact."
As the California courts have said, it is enough that "the circumstances by which it is sought to prove the
survivorship must be such as are competent and sufficient when tested by the general rules of evidence in civil
cases." "Juries must often reason," says one author, "according to probabilities, drawing an inference that the main
fact in issue existed from collateral facts not directly proving, but strongly tending to prove, its existence. The vital
question in such cases is the cogency of the proof afforded by the secondary facts. How likely, according to
experience, is the existence of the primary fact if certain secondary facts exist?" The same author tells us of a case
where "a jury was justified in drawing the inference that the person who was caught firing a shot at an animal
trespassing on his land was the person who fired a shot about an hour before at the same animal also trespassing."
That conclusion was not airtight, but rational. In fact, the circumstances in the illustration leave greater room for
another possibility than do the facts of the case at hand.

(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to
which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the
absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time. (3a)
 If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them
died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is
presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other. [Article
43, Civil Code]

Q. What is the presumption if the stolen property in a theft case was found in the possession of a
person?

A. There is a disputable presumption 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 thing which a person possesses, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him." Thus, when a person has possession of a stolen property, he
can be disputably presumed as the author of the theft.

PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS

SECTION 5. 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.

Section 5 is a new provision introduced in the Revised Rules of Evidence. However, its source can be traced
from the Federal Rules of Evidence of the United States.

Q. What is the rationale of presumptions?

A. Presumptions are created for a number of reasons: (1) policy; (2) fairness (possession of evidence), and (3)
probability. These are often called the three “Ps.” Possession of the evidence refers to one party’s greater access to
information. Probabilities, as used here, means a rough estimate of how the world generally functions.

PRESUMPTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

Q. What is the rationale of Sec. 6, Rule 131 on the presumption against an accused in criminal
cases?
A. Section 6 is a new provision introduced in this Revised Rules of Evidence. It has no counterpart in the old
rules. It finds reference however, in some commentaries of learned authors in procedural laws in the United States.
The Supreme Court therein proposed Federal Rule 303 on Criminal Presumptions. However, it was not enacted by
Congress. The Uniform Rules of Evidence of the United States contain a provision based on the Supreme Court
proposal—Uniform Rules of Evidence 303 (rev. 1999).

Q. Explain the presumption of innocence.

A. The presumption of innocence is not a true presumption; the accused is not required to prove any basic fact
in order to trigger this presumption. Rather, the presumption of innocence is the traditional way of stating that
the burden of persuasion is on the prosecution.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE

Q. How should the rules of evidence be construed?

A. The Rules of Procedure are liberally construed not to suit the convenience of a party, but "in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding." To this end, it has been rightly written: Procedural rules are not to be disregarded as mere
technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. It cannot be overemphasized that
procedural rules have their own wholesome rationale in the orderly administration of justice. Justice has to be
administered according to the rules in order to obviate arbitrariness, caprice and whimsicality.

RULE 132 - PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE [EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES]

SEC. 1.–EXAMINATION TO BE DONE IN OPEN COURT

 Q. How should the examination of the witness be done?

A. Examination of the witness should be by means of oral questions and answers. The questions should be
directed to eliciting of testimony which, under the general rules of evidence, is relevant to, and competent to prove,
the issue joined. There is no set or artificial method for asking questions of witnesses. The mode of examination is
addressed to the discretion of the court and is subject to his discretion and control, having due regard to the rights of
the party litigant. In examining his own witnesses in chief, the attorney should avoid asking leading questions,
although this is ordinarily discretionary with the trial court. In the examination of witnesses the courts give
considerable latitude and indulgence to characteristics of counsel. Ordinarily they are allowed to follow dictates of
common sense and to choose their own methods of effective presentation of their side of the case, but subject always
to the control of the trial judge.

Q. How should the questions be asked to the witness?

A. The questions asked to a witness should be definite and specific; questions which are so indefinite that they
fail to put the adverse party on notice of the testimony sought to be elicited, or which leave it almost entirely to the
discretion of the witness as to what matters he shall elucidate, are improper, and if a timely objection is made, the
trial court should not allow the witness to answer. Yet a distinction in this respect is sometimes made with regard to
questions dealing with introductory matters, where further examination will lead to other and bettered directed
questions and bring out the facts.

Q. Can the witness be asked with a question that calls for a conclusion?

A. No. Questions calling for conclusions of a witness or for conclusions of law should not be permitted.
Statements which are not in interrogative form, and which embody propositions of law, should not be made to
witnesses. No rule of evidence prevents the putting of a question in another form to understand the meaning or the
truth of an answer previously given.

Q. What is the purpose of requiring the witness to appear and testify orally during the trial?

A. It is in order to secure for the adverse party the opportunity of cross-examination. The opponent, according
to an eminent authority, demands confrontation, not for the idle purpose of gazing upon the witness, or of being
gazed upon by him, but for the purpose of cross-examination which cannot be had except by the direct and personal
putting of questions and obtaining immediate answers.

NOTA BINE: In the advent of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule), which took effect on 1 January
2013, Judicial Affidavit now serves as direct testimony of the witness subject to cross-examination of the opposing
counsel.

SEC. 2.–PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORDED

Q. What is the probative value of the transcript of records of the proceedings in court?

A. The transcript of records, being an official entry in the court’s records, is admissible in evidence and there
is no necessity to produce the concerned stenographer as a witness.

SEC. 3.–RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS

Q. What are the rights and obligations of a witness?

A. 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 be to 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 final conviction for an offense. (SEC. 3)

SEC. 4.–ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL WITNESS

Q. What is the order of examination of an individual witness?

A. The order in which an 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.

SEC. 10.–LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS

 Q. What is a leading question?

A. A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading
question. It is not allowed. [First paragraph Section 10, Rule 132, RROE]

Q. When are leading questions allowed?

A. The following are the instances when leading questions are allowed: (a) On cross-examination; (b) On
preliminary matters; (c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who
is ignorant, a child of tender years, is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute; (d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation, or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.

Q. What is a misleading question?

A. A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to
that which he or she has previously stated. It is not allowed. [Last paragraph Section 10, Rule 132, RROE]

IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES

SEC. 11.–ADVERSE PARTY’S WITNESS

Q. When can the witness of the adverse party be impeached? Explain.

A. The calling party may impeach an adverse witness in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse
party, except by evidence of his bad character. Under a rule permitting the impeachment of an adverse witness,
although the calling party does not vouch for the witness’ veracity, he is nonetheless bound by his testimony if it is
not contradicted or remains unrebutted.

Q. What does credibility mean under the rules of evidence?

A. Credibility means the disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony given. It refers to a person’s
integrity, and to the fact that he is worthy of belief. 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.

Q. How can a witness be discredited?

A. The witness can be discredited by evidence attacking his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity.

Q. Can the offended party be discredited in the witness stand? Explain.

A. Yes. By testifying in her own behalf, opened herself to character or reputation attack pursuant to the
principle that a party who becomes a witness in his own behalf places himself in the same position as any other
witness, and may be impeached by an attack on his character or reputation.

Q. Why can a witness not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts? Explain.

A. Such evidence is rejected because of the confusion of issues and the waste of time that would be involved,
and because the witness may not be prepared to expose the falsity of such wrongful acts.

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 final 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. (n)
NOTES
 Section 12, Rule 132 is a new provision introduced in this amended rules of evidence. There is no equivalent
provision under Rule 132 of the old rules. However, it finds reference from Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence of the United States.

Q. What are the requisites for a prior conviction to be admitted as evidence in impeaching a witness?

A. The requisites are as follows: i) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one year; or ii) the
crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty.
Q. What is the exception to rule that a prior conviction may not be used against the witness?

A. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or
nd
annulment of the conviction. [2 par., Sec. 12, Rule 132 of the RROE]

Q. What are the crimes embraced under Crimen Falsi?

A. The crimes, such as perjury, subornation of perjury, false statement, criminal fraud, embezzlement, false
pretenses, or any other offense, are in the nature of crimenfalsi. The commission of which involves some element of
deceit, untruthfulness, or falsification hearing on the accused’s propensity to testify truthfully. In addition to the
above crimes, forgery, counterfeiting, and tampering convictions are admissible under the rule, but assaults and
drugs offenses are not.

Q. What is the concept of moral turpitude?

A. The concept of “moral turpitude” has been described as an “act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the
private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man and man.”Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and
prior to 1976, Canada, that refers to “an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of
the community.” This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century.

Q. What is the significance of the period since the witness was convicted for purposes of impeachment?
Explain.

A. A one-year-old conviction is more probative than an eight-year-old conviction. The witness’ criminal
history after the prior conviction is also relevant; the remoteness theory does not apply if the defendant has been
convicted in the interval between the prior conviction and the current trial.

Q. What is the relevance of the similarity of crimes committed for purposes of impeaching a witness?
Explain.

A. The similarity between the prior offense and the charged offense is a relevant factor. If a defendant is
charged with a narcotics offense, evidence of a prior narcotics conviction is more unfairly prejudicial than a prior
rape conviction.

SEC. 13.–PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OR HER OWN WITNESS

Q. What is the basis for not allowing a party to impeach his own witness?

A. This rule is based on the theory that a person who produces a witness vouches for him as being worthy of
credit, and that a direct attack upon the veracity of the witness would enable the party to destroy the witness, if he
spoke against him, and to make him a good witness, if he spoke for him, with the means in his hands of destroying
his credit, if he spoke against him.

Q. What are the exceptions to the rule that a party is not allowed to impeach his own witness?

A. The exceptions are those with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, Rule
132, which provides that: i) Unwilling or hostile witness; or ii) A witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation, or of a partnership or association which is an adverse
party. Be that as it may, even if declared by the court as an unwilling or hostile witness, the third paragraph of
Section 13, in relation to Section 11 of Rule 132 of RROE, only allows the party calling the witness to impeach such
witness by contradictory evidence or by prior inconsistent statements, and never by evidence of his bad character.

Q. Can convicted criminals be called to testify as witness in court? Explain.

 A. Yes. In People vs. Dominguez, which, in turn, cited Cordial vs. People, the High Court held that: Even
convicted criminals are not excluded from testifying in court so long as, having organs of sense, they can perceive
and perceiving can make known their perceptions to others. The fact of prior criminal conviction alone does not
suffice to discredit a witness; the testimony of such a witness must be assayed and scrutinized in exactly the same
way the testimony of other witnesses must be examined for its relevance and credibility.

SEC. 14.–HOW WITNESS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS

Q. What are covered by prior inconsistent statements?

A. Any prior statement, whether oral, taped, or written, and whether sworn or unsworn, may be used to
impeach. It must, however, be the witness’ statement, not a third party’s statement.

Q. What do inconsistent statements mean? Explain.

A. It means that the prior statement must be inconsistent with the witness’s trial testimony. For example, in a
traffic accident case, a witness’s prior statement that the boys trying to beat the traffic should be admitted to impeach
the trial testimony that the boys crossed the street. Under this approach, the witness will have the opportunity to
explain away the inconsistency.

PROBLEM:

In his Appellant’s Brief, appellant contended that AAA’s testimony cannot be relied upon because: a) she
made inconsistent statements by declaring during the preliminary examination that she was raped by appellant in
the room where she and her siblings were sleeping, but in her testimony in court she stated that the rape occurred in
the room of her mother and appellant; b) she did not call for help when sexually assaulted; andc) it took her about
five (5) months from the time of rape before she revealed the incident to her grandmother and the police.

Is the accused-appellant correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. A rape victim’s testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since, customarily, Filipino
children revere and respect their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families that it is
unthinkable for a daughter to concoct brazenly a story of rape against her father if such were not true. Indeed, courts
usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who fell victim to sexual assault, especially a minor,
particularly in incestuous rape as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and bear
the concomitant shame, humiliation, and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not for the purpose of
condemning injustice and ensuring that the offender is punished.

In any event, the questioned inconsistency does not impinge on the essential elements of the offense charged.
What is important is that AAA’s narration (both in the preliminary examination and during the trial) of how she was
forced and intimidated by appellant into submission to his bestial cravings was indisputably consistent, direct,
positive and unwavering.

SEC. 16.–WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER TO MEMORANDUM

Q. What is the purpose of allowing a witness to refer to memorandum?

A. The rule is based on necessity and the practicalities of trial practice. In the heat of trial (actually, even
without much heat) witnesses forget, they omit facts, they get momentarily confused—even concerning important
matters and even when the attorneys have prepared them to testify.

Q. What is the basic requirement to allow the witness to refer to a writing?

A. It is the lack of memory requirement. The witness memory must be exhausted, or nearly exhausted, before
a writing may be used to refresh recollection. As an initial step, counsel could attempt to revive memory by leading
questions. If a document is used, it must, in fact, refresh the victim’s recollection; the witness may not simply read
aloud from a document. The trial court determines if the witness’s memory has been sufficiently exhausted.
 Q. Can a writing be used to impeach the witness? Explain.

A. Yes. A writing does not become admissible solely because it is used to refresh a witness’ recollection. The
opposing party, however, not only has the right to inspect the writing but also the right to cross-examine the witness
on the writing and to introduce into evidence the parts that relate to the witness’ testimony. In this situation, the
writing is used to impeach the witness’ credibility and not as substantive evidence.

Q. Can a writing be excluded from the hearsay rule? Explain.

A. Yes. The writing may also be introduced in evidence if it is independently admissible. For example, the
writing may qualify as an admission of a party-opponent, or come within an exception to the hearsay rule, the most
obvious of which is the recorded recollection exception.

Q. Can a writing be used to circumvent the hearsay rule? Explain.

A. No. The rule should not be used to circumvent the hearsay rule by having the witness read aloud from the
document. In Douglas vs. Alabama, the Supreme Court of the United States found a confrontation violation when
this tactic was employed. Under the guise of cross-examination to refresh Loyd’s recollection, the prosecutor
purported to read from the document, pausing after every few sentences to ask Loyd, in the presence of the jury,
“Did you make that statement?” Each time, Loyd asserted the privilege and refused to answer, but the Solicitor
continued this form of questioning until the entire document had been read.

Q. In case a writing is introduced as evidence, what is the right of the opposing counsel under the rules?
Explain.

A. The opposing party has the right to inspect any writing used during trial, including those used to refresh
memory. The right is mandatory for trial refreshment. Inspection is a safeguard against the misuse of writings (e.g.,
the direct examiner gives her witness a piece of paper telling the witness to answer “yes” to the next two questions).
If a party attempts to exercise the right of inspection and is met by an objection based on relevancy grounds, the trial
court is required to examine the writing in camera and excise any parts not related to the witness’s testimony.

Q. Can the court admit the memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness as a corroborative
evidence? Explain.

A. No. Under the provision of Section 16, Rule 132 of the RROE the memorandum used to refresh the
memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the
witness has just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. In other words, where the witness has testified
independently of or after his testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute, such
memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated
by any written statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be more credible just because he supports his open-
court declaration with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in
dispute, unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more, even where this
requirement has been satisfied, the express injunction of the rule itself is that such evidence must be received with
caution, if only because it is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly true
when the witness stands to gain materially or otherwise from the admission of such evidence.

SEC. 6.–CROSS-EXAMINATION; ITS PURPOSE AND EXTENT

Q. What is the importance of cross-examination?

A. In an adversary judicial system such as ours, the right to cross-examine a witness is essential to the
principle of due process. Indeed, no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses is available in either criminal or civil judicial
litigation, or in administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers.

PROBLEM:
The Republic represented by the PCGG filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to
nd
the Supreme Court. It seeks to nullify the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan 2 Division in Civil Case No. 0181
which granted respondent Bank of Commerce’s motion to strike out the testimonies of plaintiff’s witnesses for
violating the bank’s right to cross-examination.

The PCGG anchors its objection to the striking out of the testimonies of the witnesses on its allegation that the
Bank of Commerce and Traders Royal Bank are one corporate entity as a result of entering into a fraudulent
purchase agreement. Being one corporate entity, the PCGG posits that the cross-examination conducted by Traders
Royal Bank should be considered as cross-examination conducted by Bank of Commerce. In other words, the PCGG
claims that TRB and the Bank of Commerce have identity of interests, as an exception to the right to cross-
examination.

Is the PCGG correct? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The PCGG is incorrect. While principally adjudicating on the right to cross-examination in relation to a
former testimony or deposition, is nevertheless instructive on when substantial identity or identity of interest
between parties satisfies the requirement for the opportunity to cross-examine.

The function of cross-examination is to test the truthfulness of the statements of a witness made on direct
examination. The opportunity for cross-examination has been regarded as an essential safeguard of the accuracy and
completeness of a testimony. In civil cases, the right of cross-examination is absolute, and is not a mere privilege of
the party against whom a witness may be called. This right is available, of course, at the taking of depositions, as
well as on the examination of witnesses at the trial. The principal justification for the general exclusion of hearsay
statements and for the admission, as an exception to the hearsay rule, of reported testimony taken at a former hearing
where the present adversary was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine, is based on the premise that the
opportunity of cross-examination is an essential safeguard against falsehoods and frauds. In resolving the question
of whether the requirement of opportunity to cross-examine has been satisfied, we have to consider first the required
identity of parties and the present opponent.

To render the testimony of a witness admissible at a later trial or action, the parties to the first proceeding must
be the same as the parties to the later proceeding. Physical identity, however, is not required; substantial identity or
identity of interests suffices, as where the subsequent proceeding is between persons who represent the parties to the
prior proceeding by privity in law, in blood, or in estate. The term “privity” denotes mutual or successive
relationships to the same rights of property. Until such cross-examination has been finished, the testimony of the
witness cannot be considered as complete and may not, therefore, be allowed to form part of the evidence to be
considered by the court in deciding the case.

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS (MEANING OF AUTHENTICATION)

It means that: Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation
must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a
court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (SEC. 25)

SEC. 19.–CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS

Q. What are the classes of documents for purposes of presenting them in court?

A. For purposes of presenting documents as evidence before the courts, they are classified as either
public or private.

Public documents are: (a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, 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 be entered therein. All other writings are
private.

Q. What is the importance of classifying documents into public or private? Explain.

A. The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented as
evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has been
acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities
required by law, or because it is a public record of private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and
requires no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court.

In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is
proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed
by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its
acceptance as evidence in court.

Whether a document is public or private is relevant in determining its admissibility as evidence. Public
documents are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due execution and genuineness. On the
other hand, private documents are inadmissible in evidence unless they are properly authenticated. (Disini vs.
Republic, G.R. No. 205172, 15 June 2021) (En Banc) [Hernando, J.].

Q. Is admissibility of evidence different from probative value? Explain.

A. Yes. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all,
while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue." "Thus, a particular
evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines
provided by the rules of evidence."

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or the rules on
evidence. Before any private document offered as authentic, is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. "During authentication in court, a witness positively
testifies that a document presented as evidence is genuine and has been duly executed or that the document is neither
spurious nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress." (Disini vs. Republic, G.R. No. 205172, 15 June
2021) (En Banc)[Hernando, J.]; (Section 20, Rule 132).

Q. What is the probative value of a notarized document? Explain.

A. A document acknowledged before a notary public indeed enjoys the presumption of regularity. It carries the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. As such, a party who assails the regularity of
a public document must present evidence that is clear and convincing to overcome the presumption. Otherwise, the
presumption must be upheld. (Cardinez vs. Sps. Prudencio, G.R. No. 213001, 4 August 2021) (Second Division)
[Hernando, J.]

SEC. 20.–PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

Q. How should a private document be authenticated? Explain.

A. A private document must be authenticated in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its
acceptance as evidence in court. It must be authenticated in accordance with Section 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court. Before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by the person who
executed it, the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it
executed, or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the parties to the
instruments had previously confessed execution thereof. (Seming vs. Alamag, G.R. No. 202284, 17 March 2021)
(Third Division) [Hernando, J.]

SEC. 21.–WHEN EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT NOT NECESSARY

(ANCIENT DOCUMENT RULE)

Q. What are the requisites of an ancient document?

A. The requisites of an ancient document under Section 21, Rule 132 of the RROE are as follows:

1) The document is more than 30 years old; 2) It is produced from custody in which it would naturally be
found if genuine; and 3) It is unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance of suspicion.

Q. What are the instances when the authentication of a private document can be excused?

A. It can be excused only in four (4) instances: (a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of
Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document
have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the
document have been admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as genuine. It is basic that any
material presented as evidence will not be considered unless duly admitted by the court before which it is presented.
Just as basic is that a private document offered as authentic evidence shall not be admitted unless its due execution
and authenticity are established in the manner specified by Rule 132, Section 20 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

SEC. 22–HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED

 Q. How should the genuineness of handwriting be proved?

A. Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the RROE, the genuineness of handwriting may be proved in the following
manner: (1) by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person
write; or he has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged; (2) 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. Corollary thereto,
jurisprudence states that the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery and fraud.

In Lamsen vs. People, the high court declared that: As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a
witness who was physically present at the signing of the contract, and who had personal knowledge thereof, “the
testimony of an expert witness constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence at best."As can be gleaned from the
above-cited rule and jurisprudence, it is clear that the testimony of a witness who was physically present at the
signing of the questioned document prevails over the comparison made by a witness or the court of the alleged
forged handwriting or signature against the writings admitted to be genuine. (People vs. Taroba, G.R. Nos. 249564
and 249568-76, 21 March 2022) (Second Division) [Hernando, J.] (Accused Toroba et al are ACQUITTED of the
crimes of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, and Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171 (4) of the
Revised Penal Code.) [The SC did not agree with the finding of the Sandiganbayan that Roflo acted in evident bad
faith when she signed the DTRs, ARs, and contracts of services of Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona. As
sufficiently established by the evidence on record, they were actually engaged by the provincial government of
Davao Oriental under job contracts as evidenced by their service records and the testimony of Bicoy who signed as a
witness to their contracts of services. Thus, they were legitimate job order employees of the agency.]

Q. What is the effect of the lapse of time in the comparison of a signature of a person?

A. The passing of time and the increase in age may have a decisive influence on the writing characteristics of a
person. It is for these reasons that the authorities are of the opinion that in order to bring about an accurate
comparison and analysis, the standards of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected
signature. The closeness or proximity of the time in which the standards are used to that of the inspected signature is
essential to arrive at an accurate analysis and conclusion. Moreover, the passing of time and the increase in age may
have a decisive influence on writing characteristics. (Seming vs. Alamag, G.R. No. 202284, 17 March 2021)
(Third Division) [Hernando, J.].

Q. What is the duty of the court if the authenticity of the signature is at issue? Explain.

A. The judge is duty bound to conduct an independent examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a
reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. As such, Section 22 of Rule 132 of the RROE explicitly authorizes the
court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting with writings admitted or treated as genuine by
the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine.

SECS. 23-24.–PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE; PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD

Q. What are considered public records?

A. Public records refer to governmental records sometimes also known as official records. The term public can
be misleading because these records need not be open to the public.

Q. What is the rationale of the rule on public records?

A. The rationale for the exception is the assumption that a public official will perform his duty properly and
the unlikelihood that he will remember details independently of the record.

Q. What are the types of public records?

A. There are three (3) recognized types of public records: (1) those setting forth the activities of the office or
agency; (2) those recording matters observe pursuant to a legal duty; and (3) investigative report.

Q. What are the limitations on the admissibility of public records?

A. The rule contains two limitations: First, otherwise admissible public records may be excluded if the
sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. Second, certain types of police
records are inadmissible in criminal cases.

Q. Can the certification issued by the USAID be considered public document? Explain.
 A. Yes. It is considered as a public document which does not require authentication pursuant to the provision
of Section 19 (a) in relation to Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence. Paragraph (a) of Section 19,
Rule 132 of the RROE classifies the written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country, as public
documents. USAID is the principal United States agency that extends assistance to countries recovering from
disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms and that it is an independent federal
government agency that receives over-all foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State of the United States.

Thus, the chief of USAID’s Human Resources Division in the Philippines, who issued a certification is
actually a public officer. The certification was made in the performance of his official functions, he having charge of
all employee files and information as such officer. In view of these, it is clear that the USAID Certification is a
public document pursuant to paragraph (a), Sec. 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the authenticity and due
execution of said Certification are already presumed.

SEC. 24.–PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD

Q. What are the requirements before a foreign divorce can be recognized by our courts in this
jurisdiction? Explain.
A. The party pleading, must first prove the fact of divorce and its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. As
both of these purports to be official acts of sovereign authority, the required proof is their official publications or
copies attested by the officers having legal custody thereof, pursuant to Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
(Republic vs. Kikuchi, G.R. No. 243646, June 22, 2022) (First Division) [Hernando, J.]. [Here, the Filipina spouse
Jocelyn, was unable to establish the law of Japan on divorce. Hence, the case was ordered remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings. The High Court invoking the liberality of the application of the Rules of Court.]
Q. Is the Acceptance Certificate accompanying Authentication issued by the Philippine Embassy abroad
as regards the divorce decree not enough as it does not comply with the rules on authentication?
A. No. The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce issued by the Philippine Embassy abroad is
admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce between the party who is a Filipino and his/her foreign spouse.

Q. What is required for the admission as evidence of record kept in a foreign country?

A. Under Rule 132, Section 24 of the RROE, the admissibility of official records that are kept in a foreign
country requires that it must be accompanied by a certificate from a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice consul, consular agent or any officer of the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in that
foreign country. In the case of Racho vs. Tanaka, supra, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce
was accompanied by an Authentication issued by the Consul of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, certifying that
KazutoyoOyabe, Consular Service Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan was an official in and for Japan. The
Authentication further certified that he was authorized to sign the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce
and that his signature in it was genuine. Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report
of Divorce is admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce between petitioner and respondent.

Q. What kind of document is an Ordinance? Explain.

A. An Ordinance is classified as a public document. Under Rule 132, Section 19 (a) of the Rules of Court,
written official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers of the Philippines are
public documents. Public documents are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Pursuant to Rule 132,
Section 23 of the Revised Rules of Evidence.

Q. How is a self-authenticating document classified?

A. A self-authenticating document is either public or private. The class of document determines how it may be
presented as evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has
been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities
required by law, or because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self authenticating and
requires no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. On the other hand, a private
document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary
or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the
official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document
requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in
court.

Q. Explain the rationale of Sections 24-25, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence.

A. Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be
proved by: (1) an official publication thereof; or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof.
Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the
authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.
Section 25 of the same Rule states that whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or aspecific part
thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or
if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.

Worthy to remind in this regard is that the power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the courts of the
Philippines with caution, and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in the negative.

SEC. 27.–PUBLIC RECORD OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT

Q. How can public record of a private document be proven?

A. It may be proved by: i. the original record; or ii. a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the
record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.

Q. What is the importance of the attestation by the legal custodian of the public record of a private
document? Explain.

A. The attestation of the record custodian will serve as an assurance that the public record of a private
documents is in his custody to be given probative value. Thus, in case of a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office, an official publication thereof or a copy attested by the officer having
the legal custody of the record or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certification that such officer has the custody, or in the case of a public record of a private document, the original
record, or a copy thereof attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer
has the custody.

SEC. 28.–PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD

Q. How can the absence of record be proven?

A. It can be proven by a written statement signed by the officer having the custody of an official record or by
his or her deputy that: i. after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the
records of his or her office; and ii. there must be a certification of the said officer who is the custodian of the
official records for its non-existence.

PROBLEM:

Jose Dima contracted a second marriage with Salome without his first marriage with Amalia being annulled.
When a case for bigamy was filed against him by Amalia, Dima presented a Certification from the Civil Registrar of
the City of Iraga written in this way: After a diligent search on the files of Registry Book on Application for
Marriage License and License Issuance available in this office, no record could be found on the alleged issuance of
this office of Marriage License No. 8683519 in favor of Mr. Jose D. Dima and Ms. Amalia M. Gana dated July 17,
1987.
Is this Certification admissible in compliance with Section 28, Rule 132 of the RROE? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The Certification does not prove that Dima’s first marriage was solemnized without a marriage license. It
does not categorically state that Marriage License No. 8683519 does not exist. The certification issued by the local
civil registrar must categorically state that the document does not exist in his office or the particular entry could not
be found in the register despite a diligent search. The certification to that effect complies with the provision of
Section 28, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence.

SEC. 29.–HOW A JUDICIAL RECORD IS IMPEACHED

Q. What are the grounds for impeachment of a judicial record?

A. Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or
judicial officer; (b) collusion between the parties; or (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
proceedings. Thus, any person adversely affected by a judgment to maintain an action to enjoin its
enforcement and to have it declared a nullity on the ground of fraud and collusion practiced in the very
matter of obtaining the judgment when such fraud is extrinsic or collateral to the matters involved in the
issues raised at the trial which resulted in such judgment; and fraudulent collusion between an administrator
and a third person resulting in an order or judgment whereby an interested person is unjustly deprived of his
rights in or to the estate under administration, has always been recognized as a sufficient ground for the grant
of relief from the order or judgment thus fraudulently procured.

SEC. 30.–PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS

Q. What is the effect of notarizing a Deed of Sale with the thumb mark of the seller?

A. Notarization enables a notary public to ascertain the voluntariness of the party’s act and to verify
the genuineness of his or her signature. Through notarization, the public and the courts may rely on the face of the
instrument, without need of further examining its authenticity and due execution. It is an act that is imbued with
public interest.

Q. What is the presumption under the rules of evidence on the allegation of forgery of a notarized
document?

A. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity. Settled is the rule that a duly notarized contract
enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. It is presumed valid, regular, and genuine with
the end view of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.

NOTARIAL WILL

Q. What is the applicability of Section 19 in relation to Section 30, Rule 132 of the RROE on a notarial
will? Explain.

A. Under the Rules on Evidence, notarized documents are clothed with the presumption of regularity; that is,
that the notary public had the authority to certify the documents as duly executed. A last will and testament,
however, is specifically excluded from the application of Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court. This implies
that when the document being presented as evidence is a last will and testament, further evidence is necessary to
prove its due execution, whether notarized or not. The formalities required by law to prove a notarial will’s
authenticity do not pertain to the notarization, but to the attestation and subscription of the testator and the attesting
witnesses. Hence, an authentic attestation clause must not only contain the names of the instrumental witnesses.
Mere mention of their names in the attestation clause will not accurately represent the fact of their attestation and
subscription. Instead, the instrumental witnesses must also sign the instrument before it is notarized by the notary
public.

SEC. 31.–ALTERATIONS IN DOCUMENT, HOW TO EXPLAIN

PROBLEM:

Amalia Dima, married to Jess Dima, mortgaged their 350 sq.m. house and lot in San Pedro, Laguna on 15
January 2018, to Sps. Antonio and Magdalena Cabañez, who are engaged in a lending business, in the amount of ₱2
Million, payable in one (1) year with 12% interest per annum. When Amalia failed to redeem the property, it was
extra-judicially foreclosed by Sps. Cabañez. Later, it was sold to Reggie Oliver.

Amalia received a demand letter to vacate the property from the new owner, Reggie. However, Amalia did not
heed the demand. Instead, they filed a case for Annulment of Mortgage and Deed of Sale against Sps. Cabañez and
Reggie Oliver. She alleged that what she signed was only a blank paper which was supposedly a Promissory Note
but turned out to be a Real Estate Mortgage. She further alleged that the blank paper has no signature of her
husband. Hence, the REM is null and void.

During the trial, Sps. Cabañez and Reggie presented Atty. Laurence Buelo, the Notary Public who notarized
the REM, and attested that although the title of the property was in the name of Sps. Amalia and Jess Dima, there
was an attached Special Power of Attorney (SPA) signed by Jess, empowering Amalia to mortgage, sell or sign a
Deed of Absolute Sale. In fact, the SPA was annotated at the back of the title of the subject property.

Did Sps. Cabañez and Reggie comply with the requirements of Section 31, Rule 132 of the RROE?
Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Sps. Cabañez and Reggie were able to show that there was already an annotation on the title anent the
SPA executed by Jess Dima in favor of his wife Amalia. Amalia was empowered to sell as well as to mortgage, as
inscribed at the back of the title before the transaction with Sps. Cabanez. Thus, Sps. Cabanez and Reggie were able
to comply with the requirements of Rule 132, Section 31 of the RROE and were able to show, by convincing
evidence that the insertions in the SPA were already existing when it was given to them by Amalia.
PROBLEM:

Augusto, Ariel, and Ferdi Ebron own two (2) parcels of land all located at Barangay Sampaga, Municipality of
Iraga. The lands consisting of 5,000 square meters and 10,000 square meters are covered by two (2) Transfer
Certificates of Title. They sold one parcel of land consisting of 5,000 square meters to Roco Bato, married to Sharon
Bato, in the amount of ₱500,000.00 on 15 April 2003. The Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized by Judge William
Halili, the MTC Judge of the Municipality.

As Judge Halili was in a hurry, he made instructions to his Clerk of Court to fill up the Deed of Sale according
to the parties’ agreement. However, problem ensued from the statement in the Deed of Sale that the two (2) parcels
of land were sold by the Ebron brothers to Bato in the amount of ₱2 Million but in reality, there was no
consideration made as to the second parcel of land. A case for Annulment of Deed of Sale was filed with the RTC of
Iraga only on January 2013. To prove that there was intercalation of the Deed of Sale without their consent, the
Ebron brothers presented Judge Halili and his Clerk of Court as their witnesses. Judge Halili testified that when he
left his Office in a hurry, the document was already filled up and signed by the parties. However, the Clerk of Court
passed away before the case was heard.

Did the Ebron brothers comply with the requirements of Section 31, Rule 132 of the ROC? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. It was clear that the real intention of Ebron brothers was to sell only one parcel out of their two (2)
parcels of land to Sps. Bato. However, without their knowledge, Sps. Bato caused alterations in the assailed copy of
the Deed of Sale, which they later signed. It appeared that the two (2) parcels of land were sold to Sps. Bato with a
payment made intended for only one parcel.

While it is true that a notarized deed of sale is a public document and has in its favor the presumption of
regularity and that to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear and convincing. One of the essential
requirements of a valid contract, including a contract of sale, is the consent of the owner of the property. Absent
such consent, the contract is null and void ab initio. A void contract is absolutely wanting in civil effects; it is
equivalent to nothing. It produces no effects whatsoever either against or in favor of anyone; hence, it does not
create, modify, or extinguish the judicial relation to which it refers.

SEC. 33.–DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE

PROBLEM:

Jess Dima applied for work in Saudi Arabia as truck driver through ANA MARIE EMPLOYMENT AGENCY
in Ermita, Manila. Dima was then referred to BATANG BATO MEDICAL CENTER, an accredited medical and
dental service provider in Saudi Arabia, for his medical examination. After his medical examination, Dima was
issued a Medical Certificate which states that he is “fit for work”. Thus, he was deployed to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia as
truck driver. After three (3) months, the company subjected Dima to medical examination. He was purportedly
found to be positive for HCV or the hepatitis-C virus. Another examination was conducted and the result was the
same. Thus, he was repatriated back to Manila.
ANA MARIE EMPLOYMENT AGENCY filed a case for damages in the MTC of Manila against BATANG
BATO MEDICAL CENTER for allegedly issuing a false medical certificate. The agency attached to the Complaint
the result of Dima’s medical examination issued by the Saudi government, which was partly written in English and
partly in Arabic.

Is the Medical Certificate issued by the Saudi Government admissible as evidence? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. While there was a medical certificate issued, it was partly written in English and partly in Arabic. Sans
any translation in English or Filipino, the same is inadmissible as evidence. Thus, the contents thereof could not be
given probative value and deemed to constitute proof of the facts stated therein. The said medical certificate, partly
written in English and Arabic languages, is considered an unofficial language, proscribed by Section 33, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court.

Q. What is the effect if the document offered as evidence bears a title in Spanish language and
no timely objection was made by the opposing party?

A. Where such document, not so accompanied with a translation in English or Filipino, is offered in
evidence and not objected to, either by the parties or the court, it must be presumed that the language in which the
document is written is understood by all, and the document is admissible in evidence. The requirement that
documents written in an unofficial language must be accompanied with a translation in English or Filipino as a
prerequisite for its admission in evidence must be insisted upon by the parties at the trial to enable the court, where a
translation has been impugned as incorrect, to decide the issue.

Q. What is the rule on exhibits written in a language other than English or Filipino?

A. The rule is that when there is presented in evidence an exhibit written in any language other than
the official language (Filipino or English), if there is an appeal, that exhibit should be translated by the official
interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and translation sent
to the court. If there is no objection thereto, and the parties and the judicial authorities or personnel concerned
appeared to be familiar with or knowledgeable of Cebuano in which the document was written, such extrajudicial
confession can be appropriately considered by the trial court as evidence for the prosecution.

OFFER AND OBJECTION

OFFER OF EVIDENCE (SEC. 34); WHEN TO MAKE OFFER (SEC. 35)

Q. What does formal offer of evidence mean?

A. Formal offer means that the offeror shall inform the court of the purpose of introducing its exhibits into
evidence. Without a formal offer of evidence, courts cannot take notice of this evidence even if this has been
previously marked and identified.
Q. What is the importance of a formal offer of evidence?

A. The importance of a formal offer of evidence is that courts are mandated to rest their factual findings and
their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. The formal offer enables the
judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. It also affords the
opposing parties the chance to examine the evidence and to object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review
as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court.

Q. What are the exceptions from the requirement of a formal offer of evidence?

A. The exceptions from the requirement of a formal offer of evidence are as follows: (a) the evidence must
have beenduly identified by testimony duly recorded; and (b) the evidence must have been incorporated in the
records of the case.

Q. What is the proper procedure for the formal offer of evidence?

A. The RROE lays down the procedure for the formal offer of evidence as follows: 1. Testimonial evidence is
offered at the time a witness is called to testify. 2. Documentary and object evidence, on the other hand, are offered
after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. Offer of documentary or object evidence is generally done
orally unless permission is given by the trial court for a written offer of evidence. More importantly, the Rules
specifically provides that evidence must be formally offered to be considered by the court. Evidence not offered is
excluded in the determination of the case. Failure to make a formal offer within a considerable period of time shall
be deemed a waiver to submit it.

Q. What is the effect if documentary exhibits marked during the pre-trial were not formally offered in
evidence?

A. It cannot in any manner be treated as evidence. Neither can such unrecognized proof be assigned any
evidentiary weight and value.
 Q. Distinguish identification of documentary evidence from formal offer.

A. Identification is done in the course of the pre-trial, and trial is accompanied by the marking of the
evidence as an exhibit. While formal offer is done only when the party rests its case. The mere fact that a particular
document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the
evidence. It must be emphasized that any evidence which a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court
must formally be offered by the party; otherwise, it is excluded and rejected.
Q. Will the rule on formal offer apply in tax cases filed with the CTA? Explain.

A. Yes. Under Section 8 of R.A. No. 1125, the CTA is categorically described as a court of record. As cases
filed before it are litigated de novo, party-litigants shall prove every minute aspect of their cases. Indubitably, no
evidentiary value can be given the pieces of evidence submitted by the BIR, as the rules on documentary evidence
require that these documents must be formally offered before the CTA.

The presentation of the BIR’s evidence is not a mere procedural technicality which may be disregarded
considering that it is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the truth of BIR’s claims against the
Estate. The BIR’s failure to formally offer these pieces of evidence, despite CTA’s directives, is fatal to its cause.
Such failure is aggravated by the fact that not even a single reason was advanced by the BIR to justify such fatal
omission.

SEC. 40.–TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE

Q. What is the purpose of the rule on tender offer of excluded evidence?

A. If a party’s offered documentary or object evidence is excluded, he may move or request that it be
attached to form part of the records of the case. If the excluded evidence is oral, he may state for the record the
name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. These
procedures are known as offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence and are made for purposes of appeal. If
an adverse judgment is eventually rendered against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign as error the rejection of
the excluded evidence.

It has been repeatedly ruled that where documentary evidence was rejected by the lower court and the offeror
did not move that the same be attached to the record, the same cannot be considered by the appellate court, as
documents forming no part of proofs before the appellate court cannot be considered in disposing the case. For the
appellate court to consider as evidence, which was not offered by one party at all during the proceedings below,
would infringe the constitutional right of the adverse party — in this case, the CIR, to due process of law.

Q. What are the forms of offer of proof? Explain.

A. An offer of proof may take several forms:

First, an offer of testimonial evidence often takes the form of a statement by counsel as to the expected
content of the excluded testimony. There is, however, a real danger that such an offer will be inadequate. Second,
the trial court may require or be asked to take the offer by an examination of the witness, including cross-
examination. For example, some of the early DNA evidence cases involve several weeks of expert testimony before
a decision on admissibility was made. Third, an affidavit which the witness’s expected testimony and signed by the
witness is another way to make an offer of proof. Finally, excluded documentary evidence should be marked for
identification and appended to the record of trial.

Q. What are the exceptions to the offer-of-proof requirement?

A. There are several exceptions to the offer of proof requirement: First, an offer is not necessary when the
substance of the excluded evidence is apparent from the context within which questions were asked. However, trial
counsel can never assume that an appellate court will later find that the substance of the offer is obvious from the
context; counsel must make a record. Second, although not explicitly stated, more leeway is typically given to the
cross-examiner. Frequently, a cross-examiner, conducting a proper but exploratory examination, will be unable to
state what the witness would have said if permitted to answer. In such cases, to require an offer of proof would be
impracticable and unfair. Third, the offer of proof requirement is subject to the plain error doctrine.

Q. What does tender of a witness mean?

A. The tender of a witness is for an attorney to yield to another attorney the right to examine the witness then
under oath.

Q. What is the remedy of a party if the trial court erroneously rejected the introduction of a certain
document as evidence?
 A. There are two (2) school of thoughts in this respect: First, if an exhibit sought to be presented in evidence
is rejected, the party producing it should ask the court’s permission to have the exhibit attached to the record. The
party can avail the remedy provided for in Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Second, the trial court cannot
consider the excluded evidence to resolve the issues, such evidence may still be admitted on appeal provided there
has been tender of the excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

Q. Does the court’s denial of further presentation of evidence constitute denial of due process? Explain.

A. No. Due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard. Due process is satisfied when the parties are
afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. Where an opportunity
to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due
process. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have
been denied due process of law for the opportunity to be heard is the better accepted norm of procedural due
process.

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M. NO. 12-8-8-SC) (EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2013)

Q. Does the JAR require the inclusion of the offer or statement of the purpose of the witness' testimony
and does it impose a fine on a party for failure to include the same?
A. No. The contents of a judicial affidavit are those listed under Section 3 of the JAR, while Section 6 thereof
provides that the party presenting the witness' judicial affidavit in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of
the same at the start of the presentation of the witness.

Q. In what instances can a fine be imposed under the JAR rule?

A. The fine under Section 10 of the JAR is only imposable in the following instances: (a) the court allows the
late submission of a party's judicial affidavit; and (b) when the judicial affidavit fails to conform to the content
requirements under Section 3 and the attestation requirement under Section 4.

Q. What is the scope of the applicability of the Judicial Affidavit (JA) Rule?

A. This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari’a Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari’a District Courts; (3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the
Court of Appeals, and the Shari’a Appellate Courts; (4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the
Supreme Court to receive evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and (5) The special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their
existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule. For the purpose of brevity, the above courts,
quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall be uniformly referred to here as the “court.” (SEC. 1)

SUBMISSION OF JA

Q. What is the period for the submission of the JA?

A. (a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier
service, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to
motions and incidents, the following: (1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such
witnesses’ direct testimonies; and (2) The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to
the judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and
as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.

(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his possession, he
may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit that the
copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that original. In addition, the
party or witness shall bring the original document or object evidence for comparison during the preliminary
conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted. This is
without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when allowed by existing rules.
(SEC. 2)

CONTENTS

Q. What are the required contents of the Judicial Affidavit of the witness/es?
 A. A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino,
accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the following: (a) The name, age, residence or
business address, and occupation of the witness; (b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises
the examination of the witness and the place where the examination is being held; (c) A statement that the witness is
answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal
liability for false testimony or perjury; (d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers,
consecutively numbered, that:

(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies; (2) Elicit from
him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and(3) Identify the attached documentary and
object evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court; (e) The signature of the
witness over his printed name; and (f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an
officer who is authorized by law to administer the same. (SEC. 3)

OFFER AND OBJECTION

Q. How should the JA, in lieu of the oral testimony of the witness, be offered and objected during its
presentation?

A. The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose
of such testimony at the start of the presentation of the witness. The adverse party may move to disqualify the
witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall
promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in
brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under
Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. (SEC. 6)

Q. How are the exhibits offered and objected?

A. (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer
of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or
purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit. (b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall
state the legal ground for his objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling
respecting that exhibit. (c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe
and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the
objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit. (SEC. 8)

APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES

Q. What is the applicability of the JA rule in criminal cases?

A. It is applicable in the following instances: (1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not
exceed six years; (2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved;
or (3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are. (b) The prosecution shall
submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies if the same
upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object
evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary,
or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial. (c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of
the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of
his witnesses to the court within ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and
private prosecutor, including his documentary and object evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on.
These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they appear before the court
to testify. (SEC. 9)

EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Q. What is the effect of non-compliance with the JA rule?

A. (a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have
waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the
delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not
less than ₱1,000.00 nor more than ₱5,000.00 at the discretion of the court. (b) The court shall not consider the
affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to
appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his client’s right to confront by cross-
examination the witnesses there present. (c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not
conform to the content requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or
trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and provided further,
that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than ₱1,000.00
nor more than ₱5,000.00, at the discretion of the court. (SEC. 10)

Q. What is the purpose of the judicial affidavit Rule?

A. The JAR was promulgated to address case congestion and delays in courts. To this end, it seeks to reduce
the time needed to take witnesses’ testimonies.
Q. When was the effectivity of the JAR and the extent of its applicability?

A. The JAR took effect on January 1, 2013 and would also apply to pending cases pursuant to Section 12. The
Supreme Court En Banc gave the public prosecutors in first and second level courts one year of modified
compliance. The JAR thus took full effect on 1 January 2014. In Ng Meng Tam vs. China Banking Corporation
(G.R. No. 214054, 5 August 2015) (Third Division) [Villarama, Jr., J.], the parties were presenting their evidence
for the RTC’s consideration when the JAR took effect. Therefore, pursuant to Section 12 the JAR applies to their
case, a collection suit.

Q. Does Section 5 of the JAR apply to hostile or adverse witness?

A. No. The JAR primarily affects the manner by which evidence is presented in court. Section 2(a) of the JAR
provides that judicial affidavits are mandatorily filed by parties to a case except in small claims cases. These judicial
affidavits take the place of direct testimony in court. Under Section 10, parties are to be penalized if they do not
conform to the provisions of the JAR. Parties are however allowed to resort to the application of a subpoena
pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Court in Section 5 of the JAR in certain situations.

Q. What does Section 5 of the JAR contemplate?

A. Section 5 of the JAR contemplates a situation where there is: (a) government employee or official; or (b)
requested witness who is not the:(1) adverse party’s witness; nor (2)a hostile witness. If this person either: (a)
unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit; or (b) refuses without just cause to make the relevant documents
available to the other party and its presentation to court, Section 5 allows the requesting party to avail of issuance of
subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. Thus, adverse party witnesses and
hostile witnesses being excluded they are not covered by Section 5. Expressiouniusest exclusion alterius: the express
mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others.

Q. What is the proper procedure to be followed if the requested witness is the adverse party’s witness or
a hostile witness? Explain.

A. The JAR being silent on this point, we turned to the provisions governing the rules on evidence covering
hostile witnesses specially Section 13, Rule 132 of the RROE (effective 1 May 2020) provides: SEC. 13.–PARTY
MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OR HER OWN WITNESS. Unless thereafter allowed by the court for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the
adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal.

Q. In civil cases, can the adverse party be called to the witness stand?

A. No. In civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed, unless
written interrogatories are first served upon the latter.

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES (SEC. 6)

Q. What is the purpose of requiring written interrogatories to be first served before the adverse party
can be called to the witness stand? Explain.

A. One of the purposes of the rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there to maintain
order and facilitate the conduct of trial. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on
the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call the
adverse party to the witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be treated as a fishing expedition or an
attempt at delaying the proceedings; it produces no significant result that a prior written interrogatories might
bring.Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written interrogatories, the court may limit the inquiry to
what is relevant, and thus prevent the calling party from straying or harassing the adverse party when it takes the
latter to the stand.

Thus, the rule not only protects the adverse party from unwarranted surprises or harassment; it likewise
prevents the calling party from conducting a fishing expedition or bungling its own case. Using its own judgment
and discretion, the court can hold its own in resolving a dispute, and need not bear witness to the parties perpetrating
unfair court practices such as fishing for evidence, badgering, or altogether ruining their own cases. Ultimately, such
 29
unnecessary processes can only constitute a waste of the court’s precious time, if not pointless entertainment. (Sps.
Afulugencia vs. MBTC, supra)

Q. Should the purpose or offer be stated in the judicial affidavit? Explain.

A. No. The JAR does not require the inclusion of the offer or statement of the purpose of the witness’
testimony in the judicial affidavit and thus there is no basis for the termination of the proceedings and the imposition
of the fine. However, in Miranda vs. Oca (A.M. No. MTJ-17-1899, 7 March 2018) (Second Division) [Caguioa, J.],
Judge Oca denied outright the said oral motion, excused the witness, and adjourned the proceedings. Atty. Miranda
asserted that Judge Oca is grossly ignorant of the law since the JAR neither requires the inclusion of the offer or
statement of the purpose of the witness’ testimony in the judicial affidavit nor does it impose a fine on the party for
failure to do the same.

Q. Should the documentary or object evidence be attached to the JA?

A. Yes. Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the attachment of documentary or object evidence to the affidavits
is required when there would be a pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing. Where a defendant
fails to file an answer, the court shall render judgment, either motu proprio or upon plaintiff’s motion, based solely
on the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for. Thus, where there is no answer, there is no
need for a pre-trial, preliminary conference or hearing. Reference can be made to Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit
Rule.

Q. Can grave abuse of discretion be ascribed to the Judge if he ordered the submission of Judicial
Affidavits of witnesses of the parties? Explain.

A. No. In issuing the order, the Judge was actually enforcing the Judicial Affidavit Rule, promulgated by the
Court. Therefore, by no stretch of the imagination may a Judge who faithfully observe of the rules of procedure, be
regarded as a capricious, whimsical or arbitrary act.

Q. Can the JA rule and the demurrer to evidence co-exist?

A. Yes. Both the Judicial Affidavit Rule and Demurrer to Evidence can co-exist harmoniously as tools for a
more efficient and speedy administration of trial procedures. On the one hand, the Judicial Affidavit Rule simply
dispenses with the direct testimony; thereby reducing the time at which a case stands for trial, in the same way that
the Demurrer to Evidence abbreviates proceedings by allowing the defendant to seek for an early resolution of the
case should the plaintiff be unable to sufficiently prove his complaint. These rules do not conflict, and when used
hand in hand will lead to an efficient administration of the trial.

Q. Can the non-inclusion of judicial affidavit of witnesses in a petition for continuing mandamus be a
ground for dismissal of the petition? Explain.

A. No. There is nothing in Rule 8 of the Rules Procedure for Environmental Cases that compels the inclusion
of judicial affidavits, albeit not prohibited. It is only if the evidence of the petitioner would consist of testimony of
witnesses that it would be the time that judicial affidavits (affidavits of witnesses in the question and answer form)
must be attached to the petition/complaint.

Q. When is the party required to file and serve the Judicial Affidavit of his/her witness/es to the court?

A. Section 2(a) of the JAR mandates the parties to file and serve the Judicial Affidavits of their witnesses,
together with their documentary or object evidence, not later than five (5) days before pre-trial or preliminary
conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents.

Q. What is the effect of failure to timely submit the Judicial Affidavits and documentary evidence?

A. It shall be deemed as a waiver of their submission pursuant to Section 10(a) of the JA Rule.

EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (SECTION 10)

Q. Can the court allow belated filing of Judicial Affidavits?

A. Yes. Jurisprudence explains that “when no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay is not
manifest with the corresponding submission xxx, it is sound judicial discretion to allow the same to the end that the
merits of the case may be fully ventilated.” In this relation, the Supreme Court has held that “courts have the
prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the
need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties’ right to due process. In numerous cases, the High Court has
allowed liberal construction of the rules when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity,” as
in this case.

RULE 133 - WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

SEC. 1.–PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW DETERMINED

Q. What does preponderance of evidence mean?

A. It means that the testimony of one side is more believable than that of the other side and that the probability
of truth is on one side than on the other. Thus, the determination of preponderance of evidence depends greatly on
the credibility of the witnesses. Hence, in the evaluation of their testimonies, The court must be guided by the well-
settled doctrine that "[w]hen it comes to [the witnesses'] credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great
weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence." (Cathay Pacific Builders Steel Corporationvs. Uy, G.R. No. 219317, 14
June 2021) (Second Division) [Hernando, J.]; Disini vs. Republic, G.R. No. 205172, 15 June 2021) (En Banc)
[Hernando, J.]; Caranto vs. Caranto, G.R. No. 202889, March 02, 2020) (Second Division) [Hernando, J.].

Q. What is the weight of the findings of facts by the trial court if the case is on appeal? Explain.

A. Factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to
great weight and respect by the High Court, particularly when the CA affirmed such findings. After all, the trial
court is in the best position to determine the value and weight of the testimonies of witnesses. The absence of any
showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result
of the case, or that its assessment was arbitrary, impels the Court to defer to the trial court's determination according
to credibility to the prosecution evidence. [A case for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale where not all the private
complainants testified.] (People vs. Liwanag, G.R. No. 232245, 2 March 2022) (Second Division) [Hernando,
J.]; People vs. XXX (G.R. No. 246194, November 04, 2020) (Third Division) [Hernando, J.]; (Albotra vs.
People, G.R. No. 221602, November 16, 2020) (Third Division) [Hernando, J.].

Q. What is to be considered by the court in determining whether there is a preponderance of evidence?

A. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is a preponderance of evidence, the court
may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying,
their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the
facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number
of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number. (Heirs of Jesus
Magsaysay vs. Sps. Perez, G.R. No. 225426, 28 June 2021) (Third Division) [Hernando, J.].

Q. What is the constant truism in civil litigations?

A. The general proposition in all civil litigations is that the burden of proof lies in the party who asserts, not in
the party who denies because the latter, by the nature of things, cannot produce any proof of the assertion denied.
Equally true is the dictum that mere allegations cannot take the place of evidence. The party making an allegation in
a civil case has the burden of proving the allegation by preponderance of evidence.

SEC. 2.–PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Q. What is the required quantum of proof in criminal cases? Explain.

A. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This quantum of proof imposes upon the prosecution the burden to
overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence of an accused and must abide by the doctrinal stance that it
must do so by presenting its own evidence, without relying on the weakness of the arguments and proof of the
defense. Failure to overcome this burden equates to the liberty of the accused. (People vs. Padilla, et al., G.R. No.
247824, 23 February 2022)(Second Division)[Hernando, J.].

Q. In the determination of the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt, what are the factors that
may be considered by the court?

A. The courts are given wide latitude of discretion to analyse and weigh the evidence presented by both parties
to determine and resolve the criminal charge against the accused. In other words, courts may utilize all evidence
presented, including admissions of the parties, to resolve the judicial controversy presented before it and not solely
rely on the evidence laid by the prosecution. Axiomatic to this, jurisprudence has emphatically maintained that the
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because
of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under
grilling examination. These are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth,
especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. (People vs. Padilla, et al., G.R. No. 247824, 23 February 2022)
(Second Division) [Hernando, J.].
 Conviction must rest on hard evidence showing that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged. In criminal cases, moral certainty-not mere possibility-determines the guilt or the innocence of the
accused. Even when the evidence for the defense is weak, the accused must be acquitted when the prosecution has
not proven guilt with the requisite quantum of proof required in all criminal cases.

Q. What does reasonable doubt mean? Explain.

A. A reasonable doubt is exactly what it says -a doubt based on reason – on the logical processes of the mind.
It is not a fanciful or speculative doubt, nor is it a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice. It is the sort of doubt
which, if you ask yourself "why do I doubt?"-you can assign a logical reason by way of an answer. A logical
reason in this context means a reason connected either to the evidence itself, including any conflict you may find
exists after considering the evidence as a whole, or to an absence of evidence which in the circumstances of this
case you believe is essential to a conviction.

You must not base your doubt on the proposition that nothing is certain or impossible or that anything is
possible. You are not entitled to set up a standard of absolute certainty and to say that the evidence does not measure
up to that standard. In many things it is impossible to prove absolute certainty. (Sama et al. vs. vs. People, G.R. No.
224469, 5 January 2021)(En Banc)[Lazaro-Javier, J.] (Violation of Section 77 of Presidential Decree 705 (PD 705)
or the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines-accused was acquitted on reasonable doubt)

Q. What is the task of the prosecution in a criminal case?

A. In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold: (1) to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the
person or persons responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of the crime is a given, there can be no
conviction without the identity of the malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained.

The greatest care should be taken in considering the identification of the accused, especially when this
identification is made by a sole witness and the judgment in the case totally depends on the reliability of the
identification. This level of care and circumspection applies with greater vigor when, as in the present case, the issue
goes beyond pure credibility into constitutional dimensions arising from the due process rights of the accused.

Q. What is the importance of positive identification of the accused in criminal proceedings?

A. To convict an accused, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to present a positive identification by a
witness during trial due to the frailty of human memory. It must also show that the identified person matches the
original description made by that witness when initially reporting the crime. The unbiased character of the process
of identification by witnesses must likewise be shown.

PROBLEM:

The determination of the guilt of an accused hinges on how a court appreciates evidentiary matters in relation
to the requisites of an offense. Determination of guilt is, thus, a fundamentally factual issue. The Supreme Court
however, is not a trier of facts. Consistent with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as a rule, only questions of law, not
questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.”More specifically, “in a
criminal case, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially
when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record.”

Are there exceptions for the Supreme Court to overturn the factual findings of the trial court?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, the Supreme Court will re-calibrate
and evaluate the factual findings of the lower courts. Some of the recognized exceptions are as follows: (1) When
the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, and conjectures; (2) When the inference
made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the CA, in
making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant
and appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition
as well as in the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings
of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
SEC. 4.–CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN SUFFICIENT

Q. Is circumstantial evidence weaker than direct evidence? Explain.

 A. No. Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker in persuasive quality than direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason
from circumstantial evidence. To be clear, then, circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct
testimony would ultimately lead to setting a felon free.

The Rules of Court makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from
which the existence of a fact may be inferred; hence, no greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is
circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of
the guilt of the accused. Nor has the quantity of circumstances sufficient to convict an accused been fixed as to be
reduced into some definite standard to be followed in every instance. (People vs. Magbitang, G.R. No. 175592, 15
June 2016)(En Banc)[Bersamin, J. - Every child of sound mind with the capacity to perceive and make known his
perception can be believed in the absence of any showing of an improper motive to testify.]

Q. What is the standard in the appreciation of circumstantial evidence? Explain.

A. No general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will
suffice. All the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other
rational hypothesis except that of guilt. (People vs. Magbitang, G.R. No. 175592, 15 June 2016)(En Banc)
[Bersamin, J.](Every child of sound mind with the capacity to perceive and make known his perception can be
believed in the absence of any showing of an improper motive to testify.)

Q. Is direct evidence indispensable in the prosecution of crimes like murder?

A. No. Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not indispensable to criminal prosecutions; a contrary
rule would render convictions virtually impossible given that most crimes, by their very nature, are purposely
committed in seclusion and away from eyewitnesses.

Q. What are the requisites for circumstantial evidence?

A. The requisites are as follows: 1. there is more than one circumstance; 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. Simply put, an accused may be convicted when the circumstances established form an unbroken
chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing to the accused — to the exclusion of all others — as the
guilty person.

Q. What are the guidelines when the court is faced with circumstantial evidence in deciding criminal
cases?

A. The following guidelines must be observed by the courts when faced with circumstantial evidence in
deciding criminal cases: a. Circumstantial evidence should be acted upon with caution; b. All the essential facts
must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; c. The facts must exclude every other theory but that of the guilt of
the accused; andd. The facts must establish with certainty the guilt of the accused so as to convince beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator of the offense.

The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the series of events pointing to the commission of a felony is
appreciated not singly but collectively. The guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one
particular piece of evidence. They are like puzzle pieces which when put together reveal a convincing picture
pointing to the conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime. Thus, the determination of whether
circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt is a qualitative test and not a quantitative one. The
proven circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty,
and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis
except that of guilt. In this wise, the Court has held that circumstantial evidence is like a ‘tapestry made up of
strands which create a pattern when interwoven.’ Each strand cannot be plucked out and scrutinized individually
because it only forms part of the entire picture.

Q. Can the corpus delicti be proven by circumstantial evidence? Explain.

A. Yes. Corpus delicti is the body, foundation or substance of a crime. It refers to the fact of the commission of
the crime, not to the physical body of the deceased. Because corpus delicti may be proven by circumstantial
evidence, it is not necessary for the prosecution to present direct evidence to prove the corpus delicti. Nevertheless,
the prosecution must present the following elements: (a) that a certain result or fact has been established, i.e., that a
man has died; and (b) that some person is criminally responsible for it.

Q. Can motive be considered as circumstantial evidence against the accused?

 A. Yes. Although motive is not an element of a crime, it is a “prospectant circumstantial evidence” that may
help establish intent. In Napoles vs. De Lima (G.R. No. 213529, 13 July 2016) (Second Division)[Leonen, J.], the
High Court explained: In this case, the Review Resolution sufficiently explained why it was “contrary to human
nature” for Benhur Luy to go on a three (3) month spiritual retreat with priests that have close ties with Napoles;
and, instead, Benhur Luy had been detained at Bahay ni San Jose, transferred from place to place until he was
rescued in Pacific Plaza because he knew first-hand of Napoles’ involvement in the pork barrel scam.

Q. In the prosecution of rape with homicide, is circumstantial evidence weaker than direct evidence?

A. No. Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker in persuasive quality than direct evidence. The Rules
of Court makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the
existence of a fact may be inferred; hence, no greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is
circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of
the guilt of the accused. Nor has the quantity of circumstances sufficient to convict an accused been fixed as to be
reduced into some definite standard to be followed in every instance.

Q. What are the requisites for circumstantial evidence to support a conviction?

A. For circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict an accused, the following requisites must concur: (1) there
is more than one circumstance; (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.

Circumstantial evidence may support a conviction if they afford as basis for a reasonable inference of the
existence of the fact thereby sought to be proved. To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, 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 the others, as the guilty person. The circumstantial
evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the crime.

SEC. 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined. — 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:
(a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case; and
(d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such determination.

NOTES

Section 5 is a new provision with no equivalent under Rule 133 of the old Rules of Evidence. However, its
source is Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

SEC. 6.–SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Q. What is substantial evidence?

A. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It should attain the level of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. (Destriza vs. Fair Shipping Corp. G.R. No.
203539, 10 February 2021)(Third Division)[Hernando, J.]. There is substantial evidence – which only entails
evidence to support a conclusion, "even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise."
(Villola vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 230047, October 09, 2019)( Third Division)[Hernando, J.].

Q. In administrative proceedings, like election cases, who has the burden of proof? Explain.

A. The burden of proof falls on the complainant. When the complainant fails to show in a satisfactory
manner the facts upon which he bases his claims, the respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or
defense. (Marquez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 258435, 28 June 2022) (En Banc) [Lazaro-Javier, J.]. [In this case, the
COMELEC relied on bare allegations by its Law Department in concluding that Marquez is a nuisance candidate,
thus: (a) Marquez has no bona fide intention to run for Senator as he is virtually unknown to the entire country; and
(b) Marquez is running for a national position as an independent candidate, which only "adds a burden to the task of
making himself known to the entire country within the short span of time during the campaign period." To be sure,
an allegation, without more, is not evidence.]

Q. Is an administrative tribunal duty bound to provide the person under investigation with counsel?

A. No. There is nothing in the 1987 Constitution stating that a party in a non-litigation proceeding is entitled
to be represented by counsel. The assistance of a lawyer, while desirable, is not indispensable. Further, in Remolona
vs. CSC, the Supreme Court held that a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel,
irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent’s capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on
such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel. Hence, the administrative body is under no duty to
provide the person with counsel because assistance of counsel is not an absolute requirement. (Cudia vs. The
Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy, 751 SCRA 469, 24 February 2015)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].
The right to counsel under Section 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution applies in criminal proceedings, but
not in administrative proceedings. It is a right given to persons accused of an offense during criminal investigation.
Any proceeding conducted by an administrative body is not part of the criminal investigation or prosecution.
(Gutierrez vs. COA, G.R. No. 200628, 13 January 2015)(En Banc) [Leonen, J.].

Q. What is the weight of evidence required in labor cases?

A. The evidence required in labor dispute in substantial evidence. Grave abuse of discretion may be
ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by
substantial evidence. This requirement is clearly expressed in Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.

Q. What is the required quantum of proof in administrative proceedings?

A. In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required. The standard of substantial evidence
is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained
of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. [Office of the Court Administrator vs.
Ruiz, 782 SCRA 630 (2 February 2016)(En Banc)[Per Curiam]; In Re: Allegations Made Under Oath at the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S.
Ong, Sandiganbayan, 736 SCRA 12 (23 September 2014) (En Banc) [Per Curiam]; Sison-Brias vs. Rubia, 726
SCRA 94 (10 June 2014) (En Banc ) [Per Curiam]; Barcelona vs. Lim, 724 SCRA 433 (3 June 2014) (En Banc)
[Sereno, C.J.]; INC Shipmanagement, Inc. vs. Moradas, 713 SCRA 475 (15 January 2014) (Second Division)
[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].

Q. In an administrative case, who has the burden of proof?

A. The complainants have the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence.
While the Court will never tolerate or condone any conduct, act, or omission that would violate the norm of public
accountability or diminish the people’s faith in the judiciary, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in
administrative cases is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion. [In Re: Verified Complaint dated July 13, 2015 of Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. vs. Hernandez,
784 SCRA 483 (23 February 2016)(En Banc)[Brion, J.]; Tuldague vs. Pardo, 707 SCRA 622 (17 October 2013)
(En Banc)[Carpio, J.].

Q. How should the findings of quasi-judicial agencies, like the COA, be treated by the highest court?

A. It is the general policy of the High Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially
one which is constitutionally-created, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also fortheir
presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. Findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA,
which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not
only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence, and the decision and
order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. [Versoza, Jr.
vs. Carague, 665 SCRA 124 (7 February 2012)(En Banc)[Villarama, Jr.]; Delos Santos vs. COA, 703 SCRA
501 (13 August 2013)(En Banc)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.]

Q. Can text messages be considered as substantial evidence for extortion against an erring court officer?

A. Yes. Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule. Otherwise stated, a finding
of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence
that the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial
evidence is justified when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct
complained of, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant.

In previous administrative cases involving other court personnel, text messages were admitted as evidence and
given probative value by this court. In those cases, the court considered the content of the text messages and the
identification of the person sending them as substantial evidence to prove the commission of administrative
offenses. [Astorga and Repol Law Offices vs. Villanueva, 751 SCRA 410(24 February 2015)(En Banc)[Per
Curiam], citing Menor vs. Guillermo]

Q. What is the required quantum of proof in administrative cases filed with the Office of the
 . It is substantial evidence. In administrative proceedings, complainants carry the burden of proving their
allegations with substantial evidence or “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.”

SEC. 7.–POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER EVIDENCE; SEC. 8.–EVIDENCE ON MOTION

Q. Explain Evidence on Motion.

A. Evidence on Motion has been explained by Justice Teehankee in his concurring opinion in the case of
Baguio vs. Vda de Jalagat (42 SCRA 337, 29 November 1971)(En Banc)[Fernando, J.], in this wise: I concur in the
main opinion of Mr. Justice Fernando affirming the lower court’s order of dismissal of the case below, on motion of
defendants-appellees, on the ground of its being barred by a prior judgment.

The lower court properly took judicial notice of the case resolved by it wherein admittedly the same lower
court dismissed an identical complaint filed over the same property by the same plaintiff against the same
defendants (who are the legal or forced heirs of the now deceased Melecio Jalagat, defendant in the prior case).Such
judicial notice taken by the lower court is sanctioned under Rule 129, Section 1. It, in effect, supplants the evidence
on motion that Rule 133, Section 7 authorizes a trial court to receive “when a motion is based on not appearing on
record.”

The appeal’s sole assignment of error, viz, that a bar by prior judgment cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss
when such ground does not appear on the face of the complaint, is clearly bereft of basis or merit. Such limitation of
the dismissal motion to what appears on the face of the complaint applies only when it is based on ground that the
complaint fails to state a valid cause of action. Rule 16, section 3 precisely provides for a hearing of the motion to
dismiss, wherein its ground (other than lack of cause of action) may be proved or disproved in accordance with the
rules of evidence and specifically Rule 133, Section 7, which provides that “When a motion is based on facts not
appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but
the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.”

When the ground of the dismissal motion is, a prior judgment rendered by the same court — a fact known to
the court and to the parties as well, as in the case at bar — the taking of judicial notice of said prior judgment by the
same court constitutes the very evidence needed to dispose of the dismissal motion.

RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC) (EFFECTIVE 1 AUGUST 2001); MEANING OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE;
ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE

Q. What is electronic document?

A. Electronic document refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation
extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output,
readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For
purposes of these Rules, the term “electronic document” may be used interchangeably with “electronic data
message”. [Section 1(h), Rule 2, ROEE]

Q. What is electronic data message?

A. Electronic data message refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or
similar means. [Section 1(g), Rule 2, ROEE]

Q. What is the probative value or evidentiary weight of electronic documents?

A. 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. (SEC. 2)

Q. What is the classification of an electronic document?

A. An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule [now original document rule] if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to
reflect the data accurately.(SEC. 1, RULE 4) Except 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. (SEC.
2)
 Q. Who has the burden of providing the authenticity of an electronic document?

A. The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving
its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule.(SEC. 1, Rule 5 of the ROEE)

Q. What is the manner of authenticating private electronic document before it is introduced as

evidence?

A. Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be
proved by any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same; (b) by
evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law
for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or (c) by other evidence showing its
integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. (SEC. 2, Rule 5 of ROEE)

Q. What is the probative value of electronically notarized document?

A. A document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall
be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court. (SEC. 3, Rule 5 of
ROEE)

Q. Is an electronic signature admissible in evidence as signature of the person in a written document?

A. Yes. An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticated in the manner prescribed here under is
admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document. (SEC. 1,
Rule 6 of ROEE)

Q. What is the manner of authenticating an electronic signature?

A. An electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the following manner: (a) By evidence that a
method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and verify the same; (b) By any other means provided
by law; or (c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic
signature. (SEC. 2, Rule 6 of ROEE)

Q. What are the factors in assessing the evidentiary weight of electronic documents?

A. The following factors may be considered: (a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was
generated, stored or communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures, controls, tests and
checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or document, in the light of all the circumstances
as well as any relevant agreement; (b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified; (c) The
integrity of the information and communication system in which it is recorded or stored, including but not limited to
the hardware and computer programs or software used as well as programming errors; (d) The familiarity of the
witness or the person who made the entry with the communication and information system; (e) The nature and
quality of the information which went into the communication and information system upon which the electronic
data message or electronic document was based; or (f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the
accuracy or integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message. (SEC 1, Rule 7 - Evidentiary weight of
electronic document of the ROEE].

Q. What are the factors to be considered in assessing the information and communication system when
there is a dispute on its integrity?

A. In any dispute involving the integrity of the information and communication system in which an electronic
document or electronic data message is recorded or stored, the court may consider, among others, the following
factors: (a) Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was operated in a manner
that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document, and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the
integrity of the information and communication system; (b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored
by a party to the proceedings with interest adverse to that of the party using it; or (c) Whether the electronic
document was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party to the
proceedings and who did not act under the control of the party using it. (SEC. 2, Rule 7 of the ROEE)

Q. If electronic evidence of business records is introduced, will the hearsay rule apply?

A. No. A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses,
made by electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of
information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of 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 qualified witnesses, is excepted
from the rule on hearsay evidence. (SEC. 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule)

Q. How can the presumption under Section 1, Rule 8 of the ROEE may be overcome?

A. The presumption provided in Section 1 of this Rule may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness
of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof.
(SEC. 2, Rule 8 of the ROEE)

Q. How can an electronic document introduced as evidence be established?

A. All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document may be
established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records.
The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein.
(SEC. 1, Rule 9 - Method of Proof)

AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE

Q. What is ephemeral electronic communication?

A. 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.

Q. How should audio, photographic, and video be introduced as evidence?

A. After summarily hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules, the court may authorize the
presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic means. Before so authorizing, the court shall determine the
necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and conditions as may be necessary under the circumstances,
including the protection of the rights of the parties and witnesses concerned. (SEC. 1, Rule 11 - Audio,
Photographic, Video, and Ephemeral Evidence)

Q. How should ephemeral electronic communications be proven?

A. Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the
same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent
evidence may be admitted. A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall
be covered by the immediately preceding section. If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an
electronic document, then the provisions of Rule 5 shall apply. It may be proven by the testimony of a person who
was a party to the communications or has personal knowledge thereof.
Q. Are facsimile printouts considered electronic documents under the ROEE?

A. No. Electronic document’ refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols
or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any printout or
output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic
document. For purposes of these Rules, the term ‘electronic document’ may be used interchangeably with ‘electronic
data message’.

The terms “electronic data message” and “electronic document,” as defined under the Electronic Commerce
Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as
electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule (now Original
Document Rule) and is not admissible as electronic evidence.

Since a facsimile transmission is not an “electronic data message” or an “electronic document,” and cannot be
considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission not
electronic evidence. (Section 1(h), Rule 2 of the ROEE)

Thus, in MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs. Ssangyong Corporation (G.R. No. 170633, 17 October 2007)
(Third Division) [Nachura, J.], it was held that: The Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-
POSTS0401-2 (Exhibits “E” and “F”), which are mere photocopies of the original fax transmittals, are not electronic
evidence, contrary to the position of both the trial and the appellate courts.
30