2021 Evidence Reviewer

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
2021 Evidence-Reviewer Evidence-Reviewer
Juris Doctor (San Beda College Alabang)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|31058984
1|EVIDENCE
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES A means of ascertaining the truth not in all types of

(Rule 128) proceedings, but specifically, in a “judicial proceeding.”
Basic Concepts of Evidence Purpose of Evidence: to ascertain the truth respecting a

Definition: matter of fact in a judicial proceeding.
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting The truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily
a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1) the actual truth but one aptly referred to as the judicial
or legal truth.
Nature and Characteristics
1. Procedural; Liberal Construction
2. Waivable in character; These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to
3. Subject to stipulation; promote their objective of securing just, speedy, and
4. Mostly exclusionary. inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
(Rule 1, Sec. 6)
Sources:
A. Rules of Court: Rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate the
1. Rule 115 (Rules on Criminal Procedure) attainment of justice, and courts must avoid their strict
2. Rule 128-134 (Rules on Evidence) and rigid application which would result in technicalities
(amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC) that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial
B. Special issuance of the SC: justice. It is proper where the lapse in literal observance
1. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. of a rule of procedure has not prejudiced the adverse
No. 004-07-SC); party and has not deprived the court of its authority.
2. Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01- (Dauglas F. Anamavs Philippine Savings Bank, G.R. No.
SC); 187021, January 25, 2012)
3. Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC);
4. Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC). It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal
application, or suspension of the application of
C. Statute Containing Provisions on Evidence: procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the
1. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA. 9165) well settled principle that the rules must be complied
specifically provisions on the chain of custody with for the orderly administration of justice. (Building
rule; Care Corporation/Leopard Security & Investigation
2. Anti- Wiretapping Law (RA. 4200) Agency and/or Ruperto Protocio vs. Myrna Macaraeg,
3. Human Securities Act (RA 9372) G.R. No. 198357, December 10, 2012)
D. Constitutional Provisions Construction of the Electronic Evidence Rule:

1. Due Process of Law; The Rules shall be liberally construed to assist the parties
2. Equal Protection of the laws; in obtaining a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of
3. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and every action and proceedings. (Rule 1, Sec.2)
Seizure;
4. Right to Privacy of Communication and Construction of the Child Witness Examination Rule:
Correspondence; This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold the best
5. Right to Remain Silent and to Counsel During interests of the child and to promote maximum
Custodial Investigation; accommodation of child witnesses without prejudice to
6. Right to Bail; the constitutional rights of the accused. (Rule on
7. Right to Due Process and Presumption of Examination of Child Witness, Sec.3)
Innocence;
8. Right Against Self-Incrimination; Source: (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench
9. Right to Speedy Trial; and the Bar; p. 4-5.)
10. Rule Making Power of the SC.
E. Substantive and Remedial Statute
F. Judicial Decisions
EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
2|EVIDENCE
Scope of the Rules of Evidence The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence, even
The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and for the first time on appeal, because technical rules of
in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by procedure are not binding in labor cases.
law or these rules. (Rule 128 Sec.2)
Even if not bound by the technical rules of procedure,
It is guided by the Principle of Uniformity. As a general “the findings of facts of administrative bodies are,
policy, the rules on evidence shall be the same in all however, respected as long as they are supported by
courts and in all trials and hearings. Only evidence that substantial evidence, even if such evidence is not
has been formally offered shall be considered by the overwhelming or preponderant.”
court. (Rule 132, Sec. 34)
Note: Parole evidence rule should not be strictly applied
Applicability: in labor cases.
The Rules on evidence generally applies in a Judicial
Proceedings. It does not apply to: Application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence:
1. Election cases; 1. Civil actions and proceedings
2. Land Registration cases; 2. Quasi-judicial cases
3. Cadastral proceedings; 3. Administrative cases
4. Naturalization proceedings;
5. Labor cases;  However, in People v Enojas, G.R. No. 204894, March
6. Impeachment cases; 10, 2014, applied Rules of Electronic Evidence to
7. Insolvency proceedings; criminal cases in conformity with A.M. No. 01-7-01,
8. Other cases not mentioned in Sec 4, Rule 1 of the September 4, 2012)
ROC.
There is no vested right in the rules on evidence because
Exception: said rules are subject to change by the Supreme Court
May apply by analogy or in a suppletory character and pursuant to its power to promulgate rules concerning
whenever practicable and convenient. Examples of pleading, practice and procedure. (Sec 5[5], Art VIII)
suppletory application:
1. Impeachment cases (Art. 6, Rules of impeachment The change in the rules on evidence is, however, subject
Trial in the Senate); to the constitutional limitation on the enactment of ex
2. Civil Forfeiture cases in relation to Anti-Money post facto laws. (Sec. 22, Art. III)
Laundering Act when not inconsistent with
provisions of the special rules; Waiver of the Rules on Evidence
3. Labor cases when there is absence in the applicable The rules on evidence may be waived. When otherwise
provision in the Rules (Sec. 3, Rule 1 of NLRC Rules of objectionable evidence is not objected to, the evidence
Procedure). becomes admissible because of waiver.
Rules on evidence are NOT applicable in administrative May the parties stipulate waiving the rules on evidence?
or quasi-judicial bodies (Art 6, CC) As long as no law or principles of morality,
Administrative bodies are not bound by technical niceties good customs and public policy are transgressed or no
of the rules obtaining in a court of law. (El Greco Ship rights of third persons are violated, the rules on evidence
Maning and Management Corporation vs. CIC) may be waived.
It is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly Kinds of Evidence
applied in proceedings before administrative bodies such The kinds of evidence under the rules and existing law
as the BOM. (Atienza vs. BOM) and jurisdiction are as follows:
Technical rules of evidence are not binding in 1. Object or Real Evidence is the kind of evidence which
administrative proceedings, and the NLRC and the labor is directly addressed to senses of the court and consist of
arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to tangible things exhibited, viewed, or demonstrated in
ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively open court. (Rule 130, Sec. 1)
and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure,
all in the interest of due process. (Abosta Ships vs. NLRC) 2. Documentary Evidence is an evidence which consist of
writing, recordings, photographs or any material
containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures,

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
3|EVIDENCE
symbols or any mode of written expression offered as 6. Demonstrative Evidence is the kind of evidence which
proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, demonstrate the real thing.
drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
videos. (Rule 130, Sec. 2, amended) 7. Corroborative Evidence is kind of evidence which
merely supplements evidence which has already been
3. Testimonial Evidence is an oral evidence given by the given tending to strengthen the same. It is deemed
witness on the witness stand or in any proceeding. necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the
suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his
4. Direct Evidence is a kind of evidence if proves the fact observation had been inaccurate.
in issue. It is not only the source of the conclusion of the
trial court. Direct evidence of the crime is not the only 8. Cumulative Evidence is kind of evidence in which is of
matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion the same kind and character tending to prove the same
and findings of guilt. The rules of evidence allow the trial proposition.
court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion of guilt. 9. Positive Evidence (Testimony) is kind of evidence in
which a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. In
5. Circumstantial Evidence is that evidence which proves rape cases, Positive identification of rape victim prevails
a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may over alibi/denial of the accused if not substantiated by
be established by inference. clear and convincing evidence.
 Four Basic Guidelines in the Appreciations of 10. Negative Evidence is a testimony that certain fact did
Circumstantial Evidence: not exist. Denial and alibi are negative evidence. The
1. It should be acted upon with caution well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-
2. All the essential facts must be consistent with the serving negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the
hypothesis of guilt spontaneous, positive, and credible testimonies of the
3. The facts must exclude every other theory but prosecution witness who pointed to and identified the
that of guilt accused-appellant as the malefactor.
4. The facts must establish such a certainty of guilt
of the accused as to convince the judge beyond 11. Prima facie evidence are evidence which, if
reasonable doubt that the accused is the one unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain the
who committed the offense. proposition it supports or establish a facts – prima facie
means it is ‘’sufficient to establish a fact or raise a
 Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for presumption unless disproved or rebutted.’’
conviction provided the following requisites concur:
1. There is more than one circumstance 12. Conclusive Evidence is evidence which establishes
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived the fact.
are proven
3. The combination of all circumstances is such as to 13. Substantial Evidence is the level of relevant evidence
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
*Inferences cannot be based on other inferences justify a conclusion. In proceedings before administrative
(Sec.4, Rule 133, RoC) and quasi-judicial agencies, the quantum of the evidence
required to establish a fact is substantial evidence.
All the circumstance proved must be considered with (Sec. 6, Rule 133)
each other, and they are not to be taken together a
proved. 14. Preponderance of Evidence refers to the comparative
weight of the evidence presented by the opposing
Circumstantial evidence may be a basis for conviction and parties. As such, it has been defined as “the weight,
such conviction can be upheld provided the credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either
circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain side,” and is usually considered to be synonymous with
which leads to one fair and erasable conclusion that the term greater weight of the evidence or greater
points to the accused to the exclusion of all others as the weight of the credible evidence. It is proof that is more
guilty person. convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto.(Republic vs.
Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker defense vis-a-vis Bakunawa)
direct evidence.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
4|EVIDENCE
15. Proof of Beyond Reasonable Doubt is the required (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
quantum of evidence in order to convict an accused. A corroborative, or impeaching; and
judgement of conviction must rest on nothing less moral (d) the evidence must affect the merits of the case and
certainty in unprejudiced mind that it was the accused produce a different result if admitted.
who committed the crime, failing which the accused must
be exonerated. If the prosecution failed to discharge its Source: (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench
burden of establishing the guilt of the accused, it is and the Bar, p 6-11.)
unnecessary to still pass on the accused’s defense.
16. Clear and Convincing Evidence is a kind of evidence

which establishes in the minds of a trier of facts a firm
belief on the existence of the fact in issue. It is more than Evidence in Civil Cases vs. Evidence in Criminal Cases
preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond Although the rules of evidence are the same in all courts
reasonable doubt. and in all trials and hearings, there are certain differences
in the evidence in civil and criminal case.
17. Competent Evidence is kind of evidence which is not
otherwise excluded bylaw or by the rules. (Rule 128, Sec. Civil Criminal
3) No presumption as to Accused is presumed
either party innocent until proven
18. Incompetent evidence is kind of evidence which is otherwise
excluded by law or by the rule Offer of compromise does Offer of compromise is
NOT amount to admission implied admission of guilt
19. Relevant Evidence is a kind of evidence which has of liability
relation to the fact in issue. (Rule 128, Sec 3) The quantum of proof is The quantum of proof is
preponderance of guilt beyond reasonable
20. Material Evidence is one that is directed to prove a evidence doubt
fact in issue as determined by the rules on substantive
“Patient-Physician” “Patient-Physician”
law and pleadings.
privilege may or may not cannot be invoke by the
be applied Physician or the accused
21. Rebuttal Evidence is any component evidence to
Dying declaration is not In certain cases, dying
explain, repel, counteract, or disprove adversary’s proof.
admissible declaration is admissible
It is receivable only where new matters have been
developed by the evidence of one of the parties and is
Evidence Proof
generally limited to a reply to new matters.
Evidence is the means Proof is the effect or
22. Sur-Rebuttal Evidence are evidence in reply to or to sanctioned by the Rules, result of evidence, the
rebut new matter introduced in rebuttal. to ascertain in a judicial persuasion from
proceeding, the truth consideration of
23. Primary Evidence is a kind of evidence which assures respecting a matter of evidence.
the greatest certainty of fact sought to be proved, and fact.
which does not in itself, indicate the existence of other
and better proof. Factum Probandum vs Factum Probans
Factum Probandum is the ultimate fact to be established
24. Secondary Evidence is any evidence other than the and the result of factum probans. Being the end result, it
document itself; 1.a copy; 2.recital of its contents in some is subject to being weight.
authentic document; or 3.recollection of the witness.
Factum Probans is the evidentiary fact or facts by which
25. Evidence in chief is the primary and main evidence factum probandum is to be established. It is subject to
presented by the parties to prove their cause or defense. the rules of admissibility.
26. Newly Discovered Evidence is a ground for new trial, Admissibility of Evidence
and requires the concurrence of the following conditions: Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and
(a) the evidence must have been discovered after trial; is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these
(b) the evidence could not have been discovered at the rules. (Rule 128, Sec. 3)
trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
5|EVIDENCE
COMMENT: The exclusionary rule under the Constitution May a private document be offered and admitted in
was included, but even before the amendment, the term evidence both as documentary evidence and as object
“law” was understood to encompass the constitution. evidence? Yes, depending on the purposed for which the
(Señga) document is offered.
REQUISITES 2. Conditional Admissibility - where the evidence at the

a. It must be relevant to the issue sought to be proved; time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant,
b. It must be competent or not otherwise excluded by unless it is connected with the other facts to be
the Constitution, the law or the rules. subsequently proved, such evidence may be admitted on
the condition that the other facts shall be proved
COMPETENT EVIDENCE thereafter.
Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by the
Constitution, law or rules in a particular case. The test of 3. Curative Admissibility - this doctrine treats upon the
competence is the laws or rules. In relation to evidence in right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his
general, competence refers to the eligibility of an behalf where the court admitted the same kind of
evidence to be received as such. evidence adduced by the adverse party.
When applied to a witness, competence refers to the Does the concept of curative admissibility refer to a
qualifications of the witness. The objection should specify situation where incompetent evidence was erroneously
the ground for its incompetence such as leading, hearsay received by the court despite absence of objection from
or parol. the other party? The principle of curative admissibility
should not be made to apply the evidence admitted
For purposes of trial objections, evidence is never without objection because the failure to object
incompetent. It is people who are. constitutes a waiver of the inadmissibility of the
evidence.
In the case of Diokno vs. Stonehill, the court laid down
the principle that materials seized by virtue of a “general Time to determine Admissibility of Evidence
search warrant” is violative of the constitutional right 1. At the time it is offered to the court and must be
against unreasonable searches and seizure which offered orally. (Rule 132, Sec. 35)
requires that a warrant should particularly describe the 2. In case of documentary or object evidence, when it
place to be search and person and things to be seized. is presented to the court for viewing or evaluation;
Any evidence obtained in violation of this right shall not 3. In case of testimonial evidence, at the time the
be admissible for any purpose in any proceedings. witness is called at the witness stand/ to testify;
4. In case of documentary evidence, when it is formally
Test to determine admissibility: offered and before resting of the case. (Tan,
The purpose to which the evidence is offered must be Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench and the Bar)
considered. Evidence may be admissible for one purpose
and inadmissible for another. Note: Objection not made is deemed waived. Further, the
objection on the admissibility of evidence cannot be
KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY raised for the first time on appeal. (Pp vs. Salak, G.R. No.
181249, March 14, 2011)
1. Multiple Admissibility - where the evidence is relevant
and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence
Admissibility of Evidence DISTINGUISHED from
must be admitted for any or all of the purposes for which
Probative weight of Evidence:
it was offered.
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of
whether or not the circumstance is to be considered at
Examples: Declaration of a dying person: As a dying
all, on the other hand, probative value of evidence refers
declaration, part of the res gestae or declaration against
to the question of whether or not it proves an issue. (Rico
interest.
Rommel Atienza vs. Board of Medicine and Editha
Sioson, G.R. No. 177407, February 2011)
Evidence may also be admissible against one party but
not against another.
Admissibility of Evidence DISTINGUISHED from
Credibility of Evidence:
It must be remembered that the purpose for which the
Refers to the duty of the court to receive or allow the
evidence is offered must be specified because such
evidence, while credibility of evidence refers to the
evidence may be admissible for several purposes.
worthiness of belief of the evidence.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
6|EVIDENCE
Admissibility under the Anti-Wiretapping Law (RA 4200) who is authorized by the Anti-Terrorism Council to file
1. Evidence obtained in violation of RA 4200 shall not be such application. It only requires an ex parte application.
admissible in evidence:
a. Judicial Before the written order is issued, the applicant and the
b. Quasi-judicial witnesses he may produce shall be examined under oath
c. Legislative or affirmation to establish the ff matters:
d. Administrative a) There is a probable cause to believe that the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been
A person who did not participate in tapping wire or cable committed, or is being committed, or is about to be
or using dictaphone may be liable under Sec 1 of RA committed.
4200. This is because the law also considers it unlawful to b) There is a probable cause to believe based on
knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that
record, or any such record or copies. evidence essential to the conviction of the charged or
suspected person, or evidence that would solve or
It is also unlawful to replay the same to any other person. prevent the crime, will be obtained
Even communicate, either verbally or in writing to c) There is no other effective means readily available for
another. Also the furnishing of transcriptions of the acquiring such evidence. (Sec 8, RA 9372)
recorded communication, whether complete or partial, to
any other person. And also those who willfully or The authorization shall be effective for the length of time
knowingly aid, permit or cause to be done the act specified in the written order which shall not exceed 30
described. days from the date of receipt of the written order by the
applicant. The period may be renewed for a non-
The acts mentioned as punishable would NOT constitute extendible period of 30 days from the expiration of the
a violation of the law if done by a peace officer original period upon proper application (Sec 10, RA 9372)
authorized by a written order of the court in cases
involving: Inadmissible evidence in connection with arrests,
a) Treason searches and seizures
b) Espionage A 1988 landmark case, People v Aminnudin demonstrates
c) Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war the inadmissibility of evidence due to the legal infirmity
d) Piracy of an arrest for noncompliance with the requisites of the
e) Mutiny in the high seas flagrante delicto exception. The SC ruled that the accused
f) Rebellion was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime
g) Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion nor was it shown that he was about to do so or had just
h) Inciting to rebellion done so.
i) Sedition
j) Conspiracy to commit sedition It is settled that reliable information alone, absent any
k) Inciting to sedition overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
l) Kidnapping presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is
m) Violations of CA 616 not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would
n) Other offenses against national security. justify an in flagrante delicto.
Surveillance of suspects, interception and recording of In Lagman, the Court likewise ratiocinated that illegal
communications under the Human Security Act of 2007: possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as
Sec 7, RA 4200 notwithstanding, a police or law such, criminal intent is not an essential element, but the
enforcement official may listen to, intercept and record, prosecution must prove the intent to posses (animus
any communication, message, conversation, discussion, possidendi)
or written or spoken words bet the ff:
a) Members of a judicially declared and outlawed Possession is not only actual. Constructive possession
terrorist organizations, assoc, or group of persons exists when the drug is under the dominion and control
b) Any person charged with or suspected of the crime of of the accused or when he has the right to exercise.
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism
Whether a person should be liable under RA 4200 for
The above acts may be done only with written order of listening to a conversation which he was not authorized
the CA. Such written order shall be granted only upon a to listen to using a telephone extension line? No.
written application by a police or law enforcement official Telephone party lines were deleted from the final
provisions of the law. It was held that an extension

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
7|EVIDENCE
telephone line cannot be placed under the category of As decided by the SC in the case of Cambe vs. Office of
the enumerated devices. the Ombudsman, In preliminary investigation and
determination of probable cause conducted by the
Whether or not illegally wire-tapped recordings are Ombudsman,the doctrine of independently relevant
admissible in impeachment proceedings? Not settled. An statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact
impeachment proceeding is SUI GENERIS (of its own kind that such statements have been made is relevant. The
or class) If an impeachment proceeding in the Philippines hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are
is a class of its own, there would seem to be no reason admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of
therefore, to prevent the admissibility of illegally- such statement is not secondary but primary, for the
procured recordings. statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be
It does not consider it unlawful to record open and public circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a
communication. fact.
If only one party authorizes the recording and the other Relevance of evidence on the credibility of a witness
does not, there is a violation of the law. 1. Evidence on the credibility of a witness, or the lack of
RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AND COLLATERAL MATTERS it, is always relevant.
RELEVANT EVIDENCE 2. The importance of the credibility of a witness in a
A kind of evidence which has relation to the fact in issue judicial proceeding is highlighted by rules which allow
(Sec. 3, Rule 128). There is no precise and universal test the adverse party to test such credibility through a
of relevancy provided by law. Determination of relevancy process called “cross-examination”
is largely at the discretion of the court in accordance to 3. Questions outside the subject matter of the direct
the teachings of logic and every day experience. examination are not allowed.
Relevance is a matter of relationship between the Types of collateral matter

evidence and the fact in issue. The determination of 1. Prospectant collateral matter is a matter which
relevance is a matter of inference and not of law. precedes the fact in issue but pointing forward to it, such
as moral character, motive, conspiracy, plan and design.
In the case of OCA vs. Judge Lerma the court ruled that
Relevancy is determinable by the rules of logic and 2. Retrospectant collateral matter is a matter which
human experience. Relevant evidence is any class of succeeds the fact in issue but pointing backward to it,
evidence which has rational probative value to the issue such as flight and concealment, behavior of the accused
in controversy. upon being arrested, or fingerprints or footprints which
may identify the culprit.
As a general rule, only relevant evidence is admissible
and evidence on collateral matter is not allowed. 3. Concomitant collateral matter accompanies the fact in
However, collateral matter may be allowed when tends issue and pointing to it, such as opportunity and
in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or incompatibility and alibi. (Domondon, Evidence, p 16-17)
improbability of the facts in issue
Collateral Evidence when it is on a “parallel or diverging II. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
line,” merely “additional” or “auxiliary”. The term (Rule 129)
connotes a direct connection between the evidence and
the mater in dispute. What need not be Proved
A. Facts that do not need introduction of evidence.
Example: Although evidence of character is generally 1. Facts which a court shall or may take judicial notice
inadmissible, the accused may provide his good moral (sec 1 &2, Rule 129);
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in 2. Judicial admission (ibid., sec 4);
the offense charged. 3. Facts which may be presumed from proven facts (sec
2&3, Rule 131)
In civil cases, evidence of the moral character of a party 4. Where the facts are deemed established as a result
is admissible when pertinent to the issue of character of a refusal to comply with an order to make
involved in the case. Also it is admissible when the recovery (ibid., sec 3 (a), 29)
character of a witness has been previously impeached. 5. Upon failure to seasonably respond to a notice of
admission (ibid., sec 2 (1), 26)

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
8|EVIDENCE
6. When no factual issue exists in a case, there is no 10. The geographical divisions. (Rule 129, Sec. 1)
need to present evidence because where the case
presents a question of law, such question is resolved COMMENT: The new rule clarifies that only the official
by the mere application of the relevant statutes or acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments
rules of this jurisdiction to which no evidence is of the National Government are those subject of
required. mandatory judicial notice. Consequently, the official acts
7. When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of
issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted since local government units are generally not subject of
there is no more reason to present evidence. The mandatory judicial notice. (Señga)
case is then ripe for judicial determination through a
judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34 ROC) Other matters that the court should take judicial notice
8. Presentation of evidence may be dispensed with by mandatorily:
the agreement of the parties. 11. Amendment of the Rules of Court; decision of the
9. Evidence is not also required when a law or rule Supreme Court;
presumes the truth of a fact. Ex. Presumption of 12. Decision of the Supreme Court;
negligence and Presumption of Innocence 13. Official acts or declaration of the President;
14. Banking practices;
Matters of Judicial Notice 15. Financial status of the Government;
JUDICIAL NOTICE 16. Powers of the President;
It means what is known need not be proved.” It means no 17. Court Records. (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for
more than the court will bring to its aid and consider the Bench and the Bar)
without proof of the facts, its knowledge of those matters
of public concern which are known by all well-informed In the case of Atienza vs. BOM, the SC held that Laws of
persons. (People vs. Lotis, 1991-CR, December 13, 1982) nature involving the physical sciences, specifically biology,
which include the structural make-up and composition of
Requisites: living things such as human beings, and the proper
1. It must be a matter of general or common anatomical locations of human organs, should be within
knowledge; the court’s mandatory judicial notice.
2. In case of foreign law, it must be proved like any
other fact except when the court has actual In the case of Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, the court
knowledge of the foreign law or when the court has stated that the Court will take judicial notice of the fact
already ruled upon in a case involving the said that the people’s ratification of the 1987 Constitution on
foreign law. February 2, 1987 signalled the return to normalcy of the
political situation in the Philippines. Hence, petitioner
Purpose: cannot excuse their failure to file an answer to a
1. Taking the place of proof in connection with the subpoena issued to them in the year 1991 on the premise
issue in the case; that it was due to the threat to their lives during the
2. To abbreviate the proceedings. EDSA revolution.
WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE MANDATORY? WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY?

A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction A court may take judicial notice of matters which are:
of evidence: 1. Public knowledge; or
1. The existence and territorial extent of states; 2. Are capable of unquestionable demonstration; or
2. Their political history; 3. Ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
3. Forms of government and symbols of nationality; functions.(Rule 129, Sec.2)
4. The law of nations;
5. The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and Things of “common knowledge” of which the courts take
their seals; judicial matters coming to the knowledge of men
6. The political constitution and history of the generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life,
Philippines; or. They may be matters which are generally accepted by
7. The official acts of the legislative, executive and mankind as true and are capable of ready and
judicial departments of the National Government of unquestioned demonstration.
the Philippines;
8. The laws of nature; In the case of Salazar vs J.V. Brothers Marketing
9. The measure of time; Corporation, because the Negotiable Instruments Law is

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
9|EVIDENCE
silent with respect to crossed checks, although the Code which they sit. Likewise with the RTC, but only when
of Commerce makes reference to such instruments, the so required by law.
court has taken judicial cognizance of the practice that a 2. The CA may take judicial notice of. Municipal
check with two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner Ordinances because nothing in the Rules prohibits it
means that it could only be deposited and could not be from taking cognizance of an ordinance which is
converted into cash. Thus, the effect of crossing a check capable of unquestionable demonstration.
relates to the mode of payment, meaning that the drawer
had intended the check for deposit only by the rightful No judicial notice if records of other cases; Exceptions:
person, i.e., the payee named therein. The change in the a) In the absence of any objection and knowledge of the
mode of paying the obligation was not a change in any of opposing party, the contents of said other case are
the objects or principal condition of the contract for clearly referred to by title and number in a pending
novation to take place. action and adopted or read into the record of the
latter
Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration b) When the original record of the other case or any part
pertain to fields of professional and scientific knowledge. of it is actually withdrawn from the archives at the
court’s discretion upon the request, or with the
Judicial Notice and Knowledge of the Judge consent, of the parties, and admitted as part of the
Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges ought record of the pending case.
to know because of their judicial functions. But judicial
notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal The Court may take Judicial Not of its Own Acts and
knowledge of the judge is not judicial knowledge of the Records in the same case.
court and he is not authorized to make his individual In the case of BSP vs. Legaspi, the SC held that a court
knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the
known. same case, of facts established in prior proceedings in the
same case, of the authenticity of its own records of
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS; DOCTRINE OF another case between the same parties, of the files of
PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION related cases in the same court, and of public records on
It is well settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot file in the same court. Since a copy of the tax declaration,
take judicial notice of foreign laws. It must be alleged and which is a public record, was attached to the complaint,
proved. In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be the same document is already considered as on file with
presumed to be the same as the laws of the jurisdiction the court, thus, the court can now take judicial notice of
hearing the case under the doctrine of processual such.
presumption.
In the case of De Llana vs. Biong, it was held that courts
Exception: However, where the foreign law is within the cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause
actual knowledge of the court such as when the law is whiplash injuries. This proposition is not public
generally well known, has been ruled upon in previous knowledge, or is capable of unquestionable
cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise, demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because
the court may take judicial notice of the foreign law. of their judicial functions. We have no expertise in the
field of medicine. Justices and judges are only tasked to
When the foreign law is part of a published treatise, apply and interpret the law on the basis of the parties’
periodical or pamphlet and the writer is recognized in his pieces of evidence and their corresponding legal
profession or calling as expert in the subject, the court, it arguments.
is submitted, may take judicial notice of the treatise
containing the foreign law (Sec. 46, Rule 130). When is hearing necessary in Judicial Notice?
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAW OF NATIONS During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio
or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of
Under the Philippine Constitution (Sec. 2, Art II). Being
taking judicial notice of any matter.
parts of the law of the land, they are therefore,
technically in the nature of local laws and hence, are
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or
subject to mandatory judicial notice.
upon motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and
shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES a material issue in the case.
1. Municipal courts must take judicial notice of
municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
10 | E V I D E N C E
1. During pre-trial and trial, the court motu proprio, or 2. Certain;

upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety 3. And unequivocal.
of taking judicial notice of any matter.
2. After trial, and before judgment or on appeal – the Instances of Judicial Admissions
court, motu proprio, or upon motion may take 1. Admissions made in the pleadings;
judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the 2. Admissions made during pre-trial conference;
parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a 3. Admissions made in motions filed before the court;
material issue in the case. (sec 3, Rule 129) 4. Admissions made by the witness on the witness
stand;
COMMENT: 5. Admissions made in answer to written request for
Even during the pre-trial, matters sought to be taken admission;
judicial notice of may be heard. The old rule provided 6. Admissions made in the answer in the written
that the hearing on matters sought to be taken judicial interrogatories;
notice of may take place during trial, without mentioning 7. Admissions made in open court during trial;
pre-trial. 8. Admissions on testimonies, deposition and affidavits;
9. Agreement of facts by the parties.
With the amendment changing the term “may” to “shall”,
it appears that the intention is to make mandatory the Judicial Admission vs. Judicial Confession
hearing on the matter sought to be taken judicial notice Judicial Admission Judicial Confession
of, whether it be during pre-trial, trial, at any time before Is an admission, verbal or Acknowledgement of
judgment and even on appeal. written, made by the one’s guilt in the same
party in the course of the case
Note that generally, theories, issues and arguments not proceedings in the same
brought to the attention of the trial court will not be case
considered by a reviewing court, except when their Does not result in liability Connotes admission of
factual bases would not require presentation of any one’s liability
further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable May be express or Always express or tacit
him to properly meet the issue raised, such as when the implied
factual bases of such novel theory, issue or argument is More broader in scope Limited to the confession
(a) subject of judicial notice; or (b) had already been which includes judicial of a person
judicially admitted. (Borromeo v. Mina, G.R. No. 193747, confession
June 5, 2013) Maybe made by any Made by an accused in a
(Señga) party criminal proceedings
Judicial Admission Source: (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench

It is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in and the Bar, p 85, 91-97.)
the course of the proceedings in the same case which
dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the As a general rule, facts alleged in a party’s pleading are
matter or fact admitted. It may be contradicted only by a deemed admissions of the party and are binding upon
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or him, but this is not an absolute and inflexible rule. An
imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (Sec 4, Rule answer is a mere statement of fact which the party filing
129) it expects to prove, but it is not evidence.
EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS An admission may likewise be inferred from the failure to
1. They do not require proof specifically deny the material allegations in the other
2. They cannot be contradicted because they are party’s pleadings.
conclusive upon the party making it
Implied Admissions of Actionable Documents:
EXCEPTIONS The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of
1. Upon showing that the admission was made through the said documents amounts to a judicial admission
palpable mistake pursuant to Section 8, Rule 8 of the ROC (Bell Carpets
2. When the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. International vs. CA). However it does not preclude the
party from arguing against the document by evidence of
Requisites: fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of
1. Must be definite; limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration. He is

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
however precluded from arguing the document is a the blade of a knife to know whether or not it could have
forgery because genuineness of the document has been produced the incision characteristic of sharp blades.
impliedly admitted by his failure to deny the same under
oath and sets forth what he claims to be the facts. When the object evidence is relevant to the fact in
issue, it may be;
Note: Requirement of an oath does not apply when the 1. Exhibited to
adverse party does not appear to be a party to the 2. Examined
instrument or when compliance with an order for an 3. Viewed by court
inspection of the original instrument is refused.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of (a) The evidence must be relevant;
the allegations of the complaint. (b) The evidence must be authenticated;
Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a (c) The authentication must be made by a competent
client. Exception, in case where reckless or gross witness; and
negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process (d) The object must be formally offered in evidence.
of law, or when its application will result in outright
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property or when The requirements of relevance and the testimony by a
interests of justice so require. competent witness rarely pose a problem. Relevance is a
matter of reasoning and the court will draw an inference
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot. Later of the relevancy of the evidence from the issues of the
challenge the fact, as judicial admissions are waiver of case. Also, almost no party would offer a witness who has
proof, productions of evidence is dispensed with. no personal knowledge of the object to be authenticated.
The problem commonly lies in showing that the object
sought to be admitted is in fact the real thing and not a
III. SPECIFIC RULE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE mere substitute or representation of the real thing. This
(Rule 130) problem of authentication is commonly called "laying the
foundation" for the evidence.
A. Object Evidence (Real)
The authentication of the object by a competent witness
Object as evidence are those addressed to the senses of is to comply with the element of competence as an
the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, essential ingredient of admissibility. After its
it may be exhibited or viewed by the court. authentication, the object needs to be offered in
evidence at the appropriate time.
NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
The formal offer of evidence is particularly a vital act
Object evidence does not refer the perception of the
before the admission of evidence because the court
witness and a recollection of that perception. It is not a
"shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
reconstruction of past events as related by a witness on
offered". (Rule 132, Sec. 34)
the stand. Real or object evidence is not a verbal
description of something. It is not a replica or a mere
1. The admissibility of object or real evidence like any
representation of something.
other evidence requires that the object be both relevant
and competent. To be relevant the evidence must have a
Object or real evidence appeals directly to the senses of
relationship to the fact in issue. To be competent it must
the court. Instead of relying on the recollection of the
not be excluded by the rules or by law.
witness, an object evidence will enable the court to have
its own firsthand perception of the evidence. If the court
2. For the object not to be excluded by the Rules, the
wants to know whether the bolo used in the crime is long
same must pass the test of authentication. The threshold
or short, big or small, sharp or blunted, the object
foundation for real evidence is its being authenticated. Is
evidence would be the bolo itself.
it the real thing? In other words, is it the actual object it
is claimed to be? To authenticate the object, it must be
Object evidence is not visual alone. It covers the entire
shown that the object is the very thing that is either the
range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell and touch.
subject matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to
In a case where the issue is infringement of a musical
prove an issue in the case.
composition, the court may listen to the composition
involved. The court may not only look at but also touch
Illustration:

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
If the prosecution wants the admission of the gun used in 2. When the purpose is to prove the nature of the
the murder, it must prove that it was the very same gun handwriting in the document
used by the accused. Another gun although identical with 3. When the intention of the party is to determine the
the actual gun in all respects, would not satisfy the age of the paper or material used.
requirements of authentication. 4. When its purpose is to prove the alterations,
blemishes or forgery in a document.
How to authenticate the object:
This is a very basic rule. In layman's term, the evidence CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
must be "sponsored" by a witness. To authenticate the 1. For purposes of authentication of an object or for
object, the witness must have capacity to identify the laying the foundation for the exhibit, object evidence may
object as the very thing involved in the litigation. Better be classified into the following (29A Am Jur, §§945-947):
still, he must have actual and personal knowledge of the (a) Objects that have readily identifiable marks (unique
exhibit he is presenting for admission. This is because "a objects);
witness can only testify to those facts which he knows of (b) Objects that are made readily identifiable (objects
his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from made unique); and
his own perception..." (c) Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be
marked (non-unique objects).
Even a supposedly ancient document (a private
document that is more than thirty years old produced 2. If the object has a unique characteristic, like the serial
from a custody in which it would naturally be found if number of a caliber 45 pistol, it becomes readily
genuine and is unblemished by any alterations or identifiable.
circumstances of suspicion), requires a witness to testify
on the characteristics of the document even if the So long as the witness testifies that the object has a
document no longer requires authentication. (Rule 132, unique characteristic, he saw the object on the relevant
Sec. 21). date, remembers its characteristics, asserts that the
object shown to him in court is the same or substantially
Object Evidence and the Right Against Self-incrimination in the same condition as when he first saw it and alleges
The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked that those characteristics are those of the object he is
against object evidence. identifying in court, the authentication requirement is
In one early case, in his assignment of error, the accused satisfied.
appellant asseverates that the admission as evidence of
the victim's wallet together with its contents, viz., 3. If the object does not have a unique characteristic, like
(1) his residence certificate; the typical kitchen knife that has no serial number, is
(2) his identification card; and commonplace, and is identical with a lot of knives of the
(3) bunch of keys, violates his right against self- same kind and quality, the witness may be able to
incrimination. identify the same in court if he claims that he made the
thing acquire a unique characteristic like placing
The Court held that the right against self-incrimination identifying marks on it. All he has to do in court is to
guaranteed under our fundamental law finds no testify as to what he did to make the object identifiable
application in this case because no testimonial and that the object presented to him for identification in
compulsion was involved. court has the characteristics he made on the object.
Said the Court: "This right, as put by Mr. Justice Holmes in DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245,
1. Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing but it is
". . . is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral
referred to as "demonstrative" because it represents or
compulsion, to extort communications from him . It is
demonstrates the real thing. It is not strictly "real"
simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from
evidence because it is not the very thing involved in the
the accused's own lips, against his will, admission of his
case. A map, a diagram, a photograph and a model, fall
guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the
under this category.
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating
statement but an object evidence. ’’
2. The admissibility of this type of evidence largely
depends on laying the proper foundation for the
Instances where a document is considered as object
evidence. The rule boils down to one basic question:
evidence;
Does the evidence sufficiently and accurately represent
1. When it tends to prove the existence or non –
existence of the document

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
the object it seeks to demonstrate or represent? If it Under the electronic evidence rules, photographic
does, the evidence would be admissible. evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be
admissible in evidence provided:
a. Photographs — Photographs of persons, things and (a) It shall be presented, displayed and shown to the
places when instructive to the understanding of the case, court; and
will be admitted in evidence. For a still photograph to be (b) It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by
admitted, the same must be relevant and competent. It is either;
competent when it is properly authenticated by a witness (i) The person who made the recording, or by
who is familiar with the scene or person portrayed and (ii) Some other person competent to testify on the
who testifies that the photograph faithfully represents accuracy thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 11, Electronic Rules of
what it depicts. Evidence).
Some courts insist on requiring the photographer to The admissibility of photographs is within the discretion
testify but this view has been eroded by the tendency of of the trial court, and its ruling in this respect will not be
modern courts to admit as a witness one who has interfered with except upon a clear showing of an abuse
familiarity with the scene portrayed. of discretion. In determining whether photographs
should be admitted, a trial judge must determine
b. Motion pictures and recordings — The rules that apply whether they are relevant, and whether a proper
to photographs generally apply to motion pictures and foundation has been laid.
recordings. Because of the possibility of tampering and
distortion, courts have traditionally required a stricter c. Diagrams, models and maps— These types of
standard for laying the foundation for motion pictures demonstrative evidence are presented to indicate the
and tape recordings. relative locations or positions of objects and persons.
Aside from the requirement of relevance, a diagram,
Courts then would require detailed testimony as to the model or map must be identified by a witness who is
qualifications of the operator, a detailed description of familiar with what the evidence depicts, and that the
the equipment used, the conditions under which the same is an accurate representation of the scene it
photograph and the recordings were taken. Modern portrays.
courts however, have taken judicial notice of how motion
cameras and tape recorders work and their general Like any other exhibit, the touch stone for admissibility of
reliability and their prevalent use. maps, diagrams and models is the ability of the witness
to authenticate the exhibit. Some courts may require that
Court practices regarding motion pictures and tape the model, diagram or map be made or drawn to scale. If
recording shave been liberalized and the testimony of a not drawn to scale, the court must be so informed. The
person present when the activities of taking the picture question as to the sufficiency of the authentication is a
and the recording has been held sufficient. He must matter of judicial discretion (29A Am Jur 2d, Evidence,
testify that the motion picture accurately, faithfully §§989, 990).
represents the place or person, it purports to portray.
d. X-ray pictures — X-ray pictures, also referred to as "ski
In the case of tape recordings, the witness should identify graphs" or "radiographs" are admissible when shown to
the speakers, state how he recognizes their voices and have been made under circumstances as to assure their
that recording was not taken in violation of the Anti Wire- accuracy and where relevant to a material issue in the
Tapping Law (R.A. No. 4200).The modern approach to case. Authenticated x-rays are normally involved in
motion pictures and recordings is reflected in local rules. personal injury cases to show the location and the extent
of the injury. X-rays are properly authenticated by the X-
Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the ray technician or the physician who testifies to the
authentication process need not involve the person who competence of the person taking it, the procedure taken
actually made the recording. It can be done by some and that the X-ray picture shown is that of the person,
other person as long as he is one who can testify as to its the anatomical part or the object involved in the case.
accuracy.
Because the science of taking X-ray pictures is now well-
There is also a requirement that the recording be shown, founded and generally recognized, almost all courts no
presented or displayed to the court (Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules longer require testimony as to the reliability of an X-ray
on Electronic Evidence). machine ( 29A Am Jur 2d, Evidence, §§977).

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
e. Scientific tests, demonstrations and experiments — by her at the time of the offense speak well of the use of
The issue of refusing or granting requests for force and the presence of a struggle. As the trial court
demonstrations, experiments and tests in open court is a noted:
matter subject to judicial discretion. In-court re-
enactment of material events by witnesses has been held Her T-shirt was torn which corroborates her testimony
permissible to help illustrate the testimony of a witness. that it was forcibly removed. It also proves that she
offered resistance to the criminal advances of the
NOTE: accused. Her shorts, like her panty, had blood stains. Her
Recordings, photographs are now considered panty was detached from her shorts. Her bra was torn,
documentary evidence under the amended rules of also denoting that it was forcibly removed. These physical
evidence. evidence . . . are consistent only with the force and
Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored compulsion applied on her; they prove she offered
images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos. (Sec. 2, resistance and her defloration was against her will.
Rule 130)
VIEW OF AN OBJECT EVIDENCE
JURISPRUDENCE View of an Object or Scene
1. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 130, when an object is relevant to
Romeo S. Sison et. al vs. People of the Philippines the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or
The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when viewed by the court.
presented in evidence, must be identified by the
photographer as to its production and testified as to the 2. Courts have recognized that there are times when a
circumstances under which they were produced. The party cannot bring an object to the court for viewing in
value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct the courtroom. In such a situation the court may take a
representation or reproduction of the original, and its view of an object. The court may make an ocular
admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying inspection of a contested land to resolve questions of fact
the scene at the time of the crime. raised by the parties.
The photographer, however, is not the only witness who The court may inspect a crime scene to clarify itself with
can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of certain matters raised by the litigants. It may view the
the photograph as a faithful representation of the object conditions of vehicles involved in a civil case for damages.
portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the Going out of the courtroom to observe places and objects
testimony of the person who made it or by other is commonly termed a "view."
competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it The "view" is expressly authorized by Sec. 1 of Rule 130
subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Photographs, and even without this express provision; it is well-
therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by recognized that the court has an inherent power to order
any other competent witness who can testify to its a view when there is a need to do so. (Rule 135, Sec. 5)
exactness and accuracy.
3. A view disrupts the usual trial process and is time
People vs. Tacipit consuming. Hence, in almost all jurisdictions, the trial
In reviewing the evidence of this case, this Court was judge is granted discretion to grant or refuse a request for
guided by the three (3) settled principles in reviewing a view.
rape cases, namely,
(1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is 4. The inspection may be made inside or outside the
difficult to prove but more difficult for the person courtroom. An inspection or view outside the courtroom
accused, though innocent, to disprove it; should be made in the presence of the parties or at least
(2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape with previous notice to them. It is error for the judge for
where only two persons are usually involved, the example, to go alone to the land in question, or to the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with place where the crime was committed and take a view
extreme caution; without the previous knowledge of the parties. Such
(3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on inspection or view is part of the trial since evidence is
its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength thereby being received.
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
Paraffin Tests
For one, although there was an absence of external 1. Paraffin tests, in general, have been considered as
injuries on the body of the complainant, the clothes worn inconclusive by the Court because scientific experts

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
concur in the view that paraffin tests have proved (a) The chain of custody, including how the biological
extremely unreliable in use. The tests can only establish samples were collected, how they were handled, and the
the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the possibility of contamination of the samples;
hand but the tests alone cannot determine whether the
source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a (b) The DNA testing methodology, including the
firearm. procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and
The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an compliance with the scientifically valid standards in
indication of a possibility or even a probability but not of conducting the tests;
infallibility that a person has fired a gun, since nitrates are
also admittedly found in substances other than (c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including its
gunpowder. A person who tests positive may have accreditation and the qualification of the analyst who
handed one or more substances with the same positive conducted the test; if the laboratory is not accredited,
reaction for nitrates such as explosives, fireworks, the court shall consider the relevant experience of the
fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco and leguminous laboratory in forensic casework and its credibility shall be
plants. properly established; and
The argument that the negative result of gunpowder (d) The reliability of the testing result (Sec. 7, RDE).
nitrates from the paraffin test conducted shows an
absence of physical evidence that one fired a gun, is Are the DNA profiles of a person open to public
untenable as it is possible for one to fire a gun and yet be scrutiny?
negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands They are not. DNA profiles and all the results or other
are washed before the test. information obtained from DNA testing are confidential
(Sec.11, RDE). Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in
The paraffin test is merely corroborative evidence, any form any information concerning a DNA profile
neither proving nor disproving that a person did indeed without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect
fire a gun. The positive or negative results of the test can contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence was
be influenced by certain factors, such as the wearing of offered, presented or sought to be offered and presented
gloves by the subject, perspiration of the hands, wind (Sec. 11, RDE).
direction, wind velocity, humidity, climate conditions, the
length of the barrel of the firearm, or the open or closed Except upon order of the court, the DNA profiles and
trigger guard of the firearm. other results shall only be released to any of the
following:
Polygraph Tests (Lie Detector Tests) (a) The person from whom the sample was taken;
1. A polygraph test operates on the principle that stress (b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action
causes physiological changes in the body which can be where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or
measured to indicate whether the subject of the sought to be offered and presented;
examination is telling the truth. During an examination in (c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;
which a polygraph is used, sensors are attached to the (d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
subject so that the polygraph can mechanically record the (e) Other persons as determined by the court (Sec.11,
subject's physiological responses to a series of questions. RDE).
2. Courts accordingly uniformly reject the results of The person from whom the biological sample was taken
polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the purpose may also request that his D N A profile and all results or
of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a other information obtained from the DNA testing be
crime because it has not yet attained scientific disclosed to the person designated in his request. This
acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of request however, must be in writing and verified and filed
ascertaining truth or deception with the court that allowed the DNA testing (Sec. 11,
RDE).
DNA Evidence
The determination of the probative value of the DNA The trial court is mandated to preserve the DNA evidence
evidence rests upon sound judicial assessment taking into in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA
consideration the following matters: profiles and results or other genetic information obtained
from DNA testing in accordance with Sec. 12 of the RDE.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
CHAIN OF CUSTODY delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses
1. The third category refers to those objects which are would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that
not readily identifiable, were not made identifiable or there had been no change in the condition of the item
cannot be made identifiable like drops of blood or oil, and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
drugs in powder form, fiber, grains of sand and similar possession of the same.
objects. Under this situation, the proponent of the
evidence must establish a chain of custody. Marking of evidence
The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the
2. The purpose of establishing a chain of custody is to seized items should be done in the presence of the
guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence and to apprehended violator and immediately upon the
prevent the introduction of evidence which is not confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that
authentic but where the exhibit is positively identified enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in
the chain of custody of physical evidence is irrelevant. evidence.
3. Since it is called a chain, there must be links to the Chain of Custody in Drug Cases
chain. The links are the people who actually handled or 1. Section Kb) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation
had custody of the object. No. 1, Series of 2002 (in relation to Sec. 81[b] of R.A.
No.9165) which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines
Each of the links in the chain must show how he received "chain of custody "as follows:
the object, how he handled it to prevent substitution and "b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded
how it was transferred to another. Each of the handlers of authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
the evidence is a link in the chain and must testify to controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs
make the foundation complete. This is the ideal way to or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
show the chain of custody although the ideal way is not seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory
absolutely required. to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
There is authority supporting the view that the Such record of movements and custody of seized item
prosecution is not required to elicit testimony from every shall include the identity and signature of the person who
custodian or from every person who had an opportunity held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and
to come in contact with the evidence sought to be time when such transfer of custody were made in the
admitted. course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and
the final disposition".
As long as one of the "chains" testifies and his testimony But a mere statement that the integrity and evidentiary
negates the possibility of tampering and that the integrity value of the evidence is not enough. It must be
of the evidence is preserved, his testimony alone is accompanied by proof.
adequate to prove the chain of custody of evidence is
possessed jointly by two people, it is not necessary for "What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
both to testify as to the chain of custody. As long as one integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
of the joint possessors testifies and that testimony same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt
negates the possibility of tampering, it alone is adequate or innocence of the accused.”
to prove chain of custody.
The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine
"As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous
custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be drugs.
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to JURISPRUDENCE
be.
People vs. Piad
It would include testimony about every link in the chain, The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure
from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are
offered into evidence, in such a way that every person removed through the monitoring and tracking of the
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the
whom it was received, where it was and what happened police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.21
to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
which it was received and the condition in which it was of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure presented in court as evidence against the accused is the
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s of custody requirement performs this function in that it
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative of the evidence are removed.
from the media and the National Prosecution Service,
and any elected public official who shall be required to However, under the same proviso aforecited, non-
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy compliance with the stipulated procedure, under
thereof; justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant properly preserved by the apprehending officers. While
is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nowhere in the prosecution's evidence would show the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, "justifiable ground" which may excuse the police
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; operatives involved from making an immediate physical
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these inventory of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, such
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the omission shall not render appellants' arrest illegal or the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are items seized/confiscated from them as inadmissible in
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, evidence.
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items. Said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light
of the apparent failure of appellants to specifically
Evidently, the law requires "substantial" and not challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of
necessarily "perfect adherence" as long as it can be disposition and preservation of the subject drug before
proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the the trial court. They cannot be allowed too late in the day
seized items were preserved as the same would be to question the police officers' alleged non-compliance
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of with Section 21 for the first time on appeal.
the accused.
Moreover, the rule on chain of custody under the
People vs. Tamano and Gulmatico foregoing enactments expressly demands the
In the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous identification of the persons who handled the confiscated
drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized
very corpus delicti of the offense and, in sustaining a movements of the illegal drugs from the time they are
conviction therefor, the identity and integrity of seized from the accused until the time they are presented
the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been in court.
preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the
illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it The chain of custody requirement performs the function
indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary
otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. To
the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or
must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at
court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the least between the time it came into possession of the
accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for illegal police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to
possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165 fails. determine its composition up to the time it was offered in
evidence.
Similarly, in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the However, while the procedure on the chain of custody
very corpus delicti of the offense, and the fact of its should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost
existence beyond reasonable doubt, plus the fact of its always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. Thus,
delivery and/or sale, are both vital and essential to a failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of
judgment of conviction. And more than just the fact of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's
sale, of prime importance is that the identity of the arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
dangerous drug be likewise established beyond inadmissible. The most important factor is the

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the B. Documentary Evidence

seized item.
MEANING OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
In a number of cases, We held that with the implied
judicial recognition of the difficulty of complete
Sec. 2, Rule 130. Documentary evidence – Documents as
compliance with the chain of custody requirement,
evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs, or
substantial compliance is sufficient as long as the
any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers,
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are
figures , symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of
properly preserved by the apprehending officers. We
written expression offered as proof of their contents.
ruled that the failure to photograph and conduct physical
Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored
inventory of the seized items are not fatal to the case
images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.
against the accused, and do not ipso facto render
inadmissible in evidence the items seized. What is
The definition of a documentary evidence was amended
important is that the seized item marked at the police
to further include recordings and photographs or any
station is identified as the same item produced in court.
material containing sounds or the equivalent of letters,
words, sounds, numbers figures or symbols. The term
Furthermore, the defense of frame-up or denial in drug
photograph was further defined to include still pictures,
cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of
drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
the presumption that the law enforcement agencies
videos.
acted in the regular performance of their official duties.
The presumption that official duty has been regularly
Prior to the amendment, some a took the position that
performed can only be overcome through clear and
videos or photographs take the nature of object
convincing evidence showing either of two things:
evidence. With the amendment, they are now considered
(1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or
as documentary evidence, provided that they are offered
(2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.
as proof of their contents.
People vs. Sonia Bernal Nuarin
Notably, under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, Audio,
The ‘Marking’ Requirement vis-à-vis the Chain of Custody
Photographic and video evidence are under Rule 11,
Rule
separate from the definition of an electronic document,
under Rule 3 thereof.
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,
which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of
With the amendment, it is clear that the photographic,
custody as "the duly recorded authorized movements
video and audio evidence are not electronic documents
and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
but rather, simply documentary evidence. (Señga)
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of
Documents as evidence do not exclusively refer to
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory
writings. They may refer to any other material like objects
to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction."
as long as the material contains letters, words, numbers,
figures, symbols or other modes of written expression
A crucial step in proving chain of custody is the marking
and offered as proof of their contents.
of the seized drugs or other related items immediately
after they are seized from the accused. "Marking" means
There are therefore, two categories of documents as
the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-
evidence, namely:
buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items
(a) writings, or
seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the
(b) any other material containing modes of written
custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband
expressions.
be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of
Under the first category are those instantly recognizable
the specimens will use the markings as reference.
documents like written contracts and wills. Under the
second category are those which are not traditionally
The marking of the evidence serves to separate the
considered as writings but are actually objects but which
marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or
contain modes of written expressions.
related evidence from the time they are seized from the
accused until they are disposed of at the end of the
However, being writings or materials containing modes of
criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching,
written expressions do not ipso facto make such writings
"planting," or contamination of evidence.
or materials documentary evidence. For such writings or

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
materials to be deemed documentary evidence, the same This knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit at the
must be offered as proof of their contents. If offered for time of the issuance of the check involves a state of mind
some other purpose, the writings or materials would not of the person making, drawing or issuing the check which
be deemed documentary evidence but merely object is difficult to prove. Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 creates
evidence. a prima facie presumption of such knowledge. Said
section reads:
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. – The
The following are the requisites for the admissibility of making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of
documentary evidence: which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
(a) The document must be relevant; funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within
(b) The evidence must be authenticated; ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall
(c) The document must be authenticated by a competent be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such
witness; and insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or
(d) The document must be formally offered in evidence. drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon,
or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee
JURISPRUDENCE of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
The presumption is brought into existence only after it is
Miguel J. Osorio Pension Foundation vs. CA
proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor
The law expressly allows a co-owner (first co-owner) of a
and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed
parcel of land to register his proportionate share in the
to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements
name of his co-owner (second co-owner) in whose name
for its payment. The presumption or prima facie evidence
the entire land is registered. The second co-owner serves
as provided in this section cannot arise, if such notice of
as a legal trustee of the first co-owner insofar as the
non-payment by the drawee bank is not sent to the
proportionate share of the first co-owner is concerned.
maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to when such
The first co-owner remains the owner of his
notice was received by the drawer, since there would
proportionate share and not the second co-owner in
simply be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period.
whose name the entire land is registered.
A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of
the check is thus indispensable before a conviction can
For Article 1452 to apply, all that a co-owner needs to
ensue. The notice of dishonor may be sent by the
show is that there is "common consent" among the
offended party or the drawee bank. The notice must be in
purchasing co-owners to put the legal title to the
writing. A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will
purchased property in the name of one co-owner for the
not suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal for the
benefit of all. Once this "common consent" is shown, "a
prosecution.
trust is created by force of law." The BIR has no option
The requirement of notice, its sending to, and its actual
but to recognize such legal trust as well as the beneficial
receipt by, the drawer or maker of the check gives the
ownership of the real owners because the trust is created
latter the option to prevent criminal prosecution if he
by force of law. The fact that the title is registered solely
pays the holder of the check the amount due thereon, or
in the name of one person is not conclusive that he alone
makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of
owns the property.
such check within five (5) banking days after receiving
notice that the check has not been paid.
Documents acknowledged before notaries public are
All that the Bouncing Checks Law thus requires is that the
public documents and public documents are admissible
accused must be notified in writing of the fact of
in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to
dishonor.
their authenticity and due execution. They have in their
Otero vs. Tan
favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that
same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing
the authenticity and due execution of a private
and more than merely preponderant.
document, before it is received in evidence by the court,
must be established. Thus:
The trustor-beneficiary is not estopped from proving its
Sec. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private
ownership over the property held in trust by the trustee
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
when the purpose is not to contest the disposition or
due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
encumbrance of the property in favor of an innocent
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
third-party purchaser for value.
or
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
Lourdes Azarcon vs. People and Marcosa
handwriting of the maker.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Any other private document need only be identified as or existence and the cause of its unavailability without
that which it is claimed to be. bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or
NOTE: Under the Amended Rules of Evidence, private by a recital of its contents in some authentic document,
documents can now be proved by other evidence or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
showing its due execution and authenticity. (Sec. 20c,
Rule 132) On the other hand, a canonical certificate of marriage is
A private document is any other writing, deed, or not a public document. It has been settled that church
instrument executed by a private person without the registries of births, marriages, and deaths made
intervention of a notary or other person legally subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders No. 68
authorized by which some disposition or agreement is and the passage of Act No. 190 are no longer public
proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public
character of a public document, or the solemnities officials. They are private writings and their authenticity
prescribed by law, a private document requires must therefore be proved as are all other private writings
authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules in accordance with the rules of evidence. Accordingly,
of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. since there is no showing that the authenticity and due
The requirement of authentication of a private execution of the canonical certificate of marriage of
document is excused only in four instances, specifically: Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was duly proven, it cannot be
(a) when the document is an ancient one within the admitted in evidence
context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court;
(b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an Birth Certificate; admissible
actionable document have not been specifically denied A certificate of live birth is a public document that
under oath by the adverse party; consists of entries (regarding the facts of birth) in public
(c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the records (Civil Registry) made in the performance of a duty
document have been admitted; or by a public officer (Civil Registrar). Thus, being public
(d) when the document is not being offered as genuine. documents, the respondents' certificates of live birth are
The statements of account which Tan adduced in presumed valid, and are prima facie evidence of the truth
evidence before the MTCC indubitably are private of the facts stated. "Prima facie evidence is defined as
documents. Considering that these documents do not fall evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such evidence
among the aforementioned exceptions, the MTCC could as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a
not admit the same as evidence against Otero without given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the
the required authentication thereof pursuant to Section party's claim or defense and which if not rebutted or
20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. During authentication contradicted, will remain sufficient.
in court, a witness positively testifies that a document
presented as evidence is genuine and has been duly It is well settled that other proofs can be offered to
executed, or that the document is neither spurious nor establish the fact of a solemnized marriage.
counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress. Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be
Here, Tan, during the ex parte presentation of his proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage
evidence, did not present anyone who testified that the certificate. Hence, even a person's birth certificate may
said statements of account were genuine and were duly be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage
executed or that the same were neither spurious or between his parents. Thus, in order to prove their
counterfeit or executed by mistake or under duress. legitimate filiation, the respondents presented their
Betache, the one who prepared the said statements of respective Certificates of Live Birth issued by the National
account, was not presented by Tan as a witness during Statistics Office where Fidela signed as the Informant in
the ex parte presentation of his evidence with the MTCC. item no. of both documents.
Considering that Tan failed to authenticate the aforesaid
statements of account, the said documents should not Peregrina Macua Vda. De Avenido vs. Tecla Hoybia
have been admitted in evidence against Otero. Avenido
While a marriage certificate is considered the primary
Calimag vs. Heirs of Silvestre N. Macapaz evidence of a marital union, it is not regarded as the sole
Marriage Contract and Canonical Certificate of Marriage; and exclusive evidence of marriage. Jurisprudence
inadmissible teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by
relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate. It
A secondary evidence is admissible only upon compliance should be stressed that the due execution and the loss of
with Rule 130, Section 5, which states that: when the the marriage contract, both constituting the condition
original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be sine qua non for the introduction of secondary evidence
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution of its contents, were shown by the very evidence they

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
have disregarded. They have thus confused the evidence A: I was in the Manila Cathedral attending the wedding of
to show due execution and loss as "secondary" evidence H and W where I stood as a principal sponsor.
of the marriage.
Q: Can you tell this Court what happened when you were
In the present case, due execution was established by the there?
testimonies of Adela Pilapil, who was present during the A: There was a marriage ceremony officiated by the
marriage ceremony, and of petitioner herself as a party to parish priest for the marriage of H and W.
the event. The subsequent loss was shown by the Opposing counsel objects at this stage: "Objection, Your
testimony and the affidavit of the officiating priest, Honor! The best evidence is the marriage contract!"
Monsignor Yllana, as relevant, competent and admissible
evidence. Since the due execution and the loss of the Should the court sustain the objection? No! The original
marriage contract were clearly shown by the evidence document rule does not apply.
presented, secondary evidence–testimonial and
documentary–may be admitted to prove the fact of For the original document rule to apply, two requisites
marriage. must concur. (RIANO)
(a) The subject matter must involve a document; and
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE (b) The subject of the inquiry is the contents of the
document.
The “Best Evidence Rule” was changed to the “Original
Document Rule” because the former is a misnomer as it Where Original Document Rule does not Apply
does not refer to some hierarchy of evidence. Rather, the There is no reason to apply the "original document" rule
rule simply states that there is preference for original when the issue does not involve the contents of a writing.
documents to prove the actual contents thereof. In other Sec.3 of Rule 130 is clear on this point: The rule will come
jurisdictions, the Best Evidence Rule is also known as the into play only "when the subject of inquiry is the contents
Original Writing Rule or the Original Document Rule, of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other
which is now reflected in the amended rule (Señga) record."
Original Document must be Produced When Document is Merely Collaterally in Issue

“When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a 1. When a document is involved in the inquiry but the
document, writing, recording, photograph or other document is only collaterally in issue, the original
record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document rule does not apply. A document is collaterally
document itself.” (par. 1, Sec. 3, Rule 130) in issue when the purpose of introducing the document is
not to establish its terms but to show facts that have no
COMMENT: reference to its contents like its existence, condition,
The first paragraph was amended to take into account the execution or delivery.
revised definition of a documentary evidence, that
includes recordings, photographs or other records. 2. If a witness testifies that the victim was writing a letter
(Señga) when he was shot by the accused, the judge would likely
rule against the party who insists on the presentation of
As held, the "original document rule" applies only when the letter because the letter is not the subject of an
the content of such document is the subject of the important issue in the case and hence, is merely
inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such collateral.
document was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, 3. If a witness testifies that he actually saw the debtor
the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial tender payment of his obligation to the creditor, he need
evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary not be required to produce the original promissory note
evidence is likewise admissible without need to account evidencing the debt because it is the act of payment
for the original. which is the focal point of the testimony, not the
document.
Illustrative Applications of the Original Document Rule
In a case where counsel wants to show that a marriage The document need not be likewise presented when the
ceremony took place between H and W, the following witness merely testifies to the delivery of a deed of sale
questions were asked: by X to Y because the contents of the document itself is
Q: Mr. Witness, where were you on September 26, not the purpose of the testimony.
2008at around 7:30 in the evening?

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Waiver of the Rule (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of
The original document rule may be waived if not raised in a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
the trial. (e) When the original is not closely-related to a
controlling issue.
In one case, although the marriage certificate, the
marriage license, and other pieces of documentary COMMENTS:
evidence were only photocopies, the fact that these have Paragraph (b) was amended to reflect the rule that the
been examined and admitted by the trial court, with no notice may be in the form of a motion for the production
objections having been made as to their authenticity and of the original or made in open court in the presence of
due execution, means that these documents are deemed the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum,
sufficient proof of the facts contained therein provided that the party in custody of the original has
sufficient time to produce the same. When such party has
What To Do To Apply The Original Document Rule the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer
1. The first step to apply the rule is to determine the to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary
matter inquired into. If the inquiry involves a document, evidence may be admitted. (Bayani Magdayao v. People,
writing, recording, photograph or other record and its G.R. No. 152881, August 17, 2004) (Señga)
contents are the subject of that same inquiry, the best
evidence rule applies and must therefore, be complied Paragraph (e) is a new insertion. It means that secondary
with. evidence may be admitted if the original documentary
evidence is not closely-related to a controlling issue in the
case. This paragraph appears to pertain to irrelevant
2. Now what is to be done if for one reason or another, evidence. However, by definition, evidence, to be
the original cannot be presented in evidence? admissible, must be relevant. Here, it contemplates an
irrelevant document or evidence. There is no need to
If this happens, the second step now comes into play. produce the original of an irrelevant document. The issue
This step involves two stages: now is, if it is irrelevant then it would not have been
(1) Finding an adequate legal excuse for the failure to admitted in the first place. It appears that this paragraph
present the original; and contemplates a situation where there is an irrelevant
(2) Presenting a secondary evidence sanctioned by the document or evidence that was nevertheless admitted in
Rules of Court. evidence (lack of objection/admitted by the court). In
such a situation, the original thereof need not be
If the rule were to be restated into a simple formula, the produced. (Señga)
rule would be: "Present the original, except when you can
justify its unavailability in the manner provided for by the Meaning of Original
Rules of Court." 1. Section 4, of Rule 130 elucidates on the concept of
the term “original”, thus:
Excuses for Not Presenting the Original Document
The excuses for the non-production of the original "Sec. 4. Original of document. —
document refer to the instances when the original does (a) ) An “original” of a document is the document itself or
not have to be produced even when the contents of the any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a
document are the subjects of inquiry. person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a
photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom.
These instances are those mentioned in Sec. 3, Rule 130 If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any
of the Rules of Court, namely: printout or other output readable by sight or other
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the "original."
part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the (b) ) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same
control of the party against whom the evidence is impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable means of photography, including enlargements and
notice or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic rerecording,
processes or procedures; or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
other documents cannot be examined in court without
great loss of time and the fact sought to be established (c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an
from them is only the general result of the whole; and original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it

is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of Note, however, that consistent with the ruling in National
the original. Power Corporation v. Codilla, Jr., G.R. No. 170491, April 3,
2007, a reproduction of a paper based document with
COMMENTS: the use of a photocopy machine, would not make the
It appears that the term “original” is defined in its copy produced thereby an original document. It is still
ordinary sense as the original of the document itself. It secondary to the original paper based that was
may be because defining the “original document” under photocopied, similar to MCC Industial Sales Corp. v.
the old rule as one the contents of which are the subject Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No. 170633, October 17, 2007,
of inquiry is inaccurate since a secondary document where it was held that the facsimile copy is not an
would also have its contents as the subject of inquiry. original but secondary evidence, there being a paper
based original thereof.
The definition was also revised to include any
counterpart of an original document intended to have The new paragraph (c) became necessary such that the
the same effect as the original document by the person foregoing duplicates shall not be admissible as original if:
executing or issuing it. (See paragraph b) The revision also (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of
includes the definition of an original document, which the original; or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or
contemplates either the negative or print of the inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
photograph. The definition also adopted the definition
used for an original of an electronic document in that if The new paragraph (c) became necessary to address
the data is stored in a computer or similar device, “any questions on the authenticity of or to encompass other
printout or other output readable by sight or other issues or circumstances that would render the duplicate
means, shown to reflect the data accurately” is an inadmissible.
original.
The new paragraph (c) is similar to the exception under
However, while the definition adopted the phrasing of an Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rule on Electronic Evidence,
original of an electronic document, it appears that which provides that copies of the original shall be
definition of a document under the revised rules does not deemed as equivalent of the original (see complete
contemplate an electronic document. This is because definition thereunder which is the same as the revised
under Section 1(h) of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, rule) but the same shall not be admissible if the grounds
the electronic document refers to those that are under paragraph (c) are present.
“received, recorded, transmitted, stored processed,
retrieved or produced electronically”. The revised rule, With the deletion of the old paragraph (c), it appears that
only states that if the document or data is stored in a an entry repeated in the regular course of business, one
computer or other similar device, any printout or other being copied from another at or near the time of the
output readable by sight or other means, shown to transaction, is no longer considered an original, unless it
reflect the data accurately, is considered as its original. may be argued to fall under the definition of a
counterpart produced by the same impression as the
Under the amendment, the phrase “duplicate is a original, or from the same matrix, among others. (Señga)
counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original”, may still encompass the definition under the JURISPRUDENCE
original paragraph (b).
Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of Maximo S.
A duplicate produced by photography, such as for Alvarez and Valentina Clave
instance, a screen shot, is still considered the original,
given that by definition, a photograph is a documentary Best Evidence Rule (Original Document Rule) applies only
evidence. when the terms of writing are in issue. When the
evidence sought to be introduced concerns external
Enlargements, miniatures, mechanical or electronic facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the
rerecording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other writing, without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence
equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary
original cover the expanded definition of the document, evidence may be admitted even without accounting for
meaning that an enlargement of an x-ray film, for the original.
instance, is considered the duplicate thereof, and hence,
the original. An electronic rerecording can pertain to a
rerecorded audio or video, such as a CCTV footage.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
This case involves an action for quieting of title, a The Best Evidence Rule states that when the subject of
common-law remedy for the removal of any cloud or inquiry is the contents of a document, the best evidence
doubt or uncertainty on the title to real property by is the original document itself and no other evidence
reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or (such as a reproduction, photocopy or oral evidence) is
proceeding that is apparently valid or effective, but is, in admissible as a general rule. The original is preferred
truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or because it reduces the chance of undetected tampering
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title. In with the document.
such an action, the competent court is tasked to
determine the respective rights of the complainant and Nissan North Edsa vs. United Philippine Scout Veterans
other claimants to place things in their proper place and Detective and Protective Agency
to make the one who has no rights to said immovable The best evidence rule is the rule which requires the
respect and not disturb the other. highest grade of evidence to prove a disputed fact.
The terms of the writing may or may not be material to However, the same applies only when the contents of a
an action for quieting of title, depending on the ground document are the subject of the inquiry. In this case, the
alleged by the plaintiff. For instance, when an action for contents of the service contract between Nissan and
quieting of title is based on the unenforceability of a United have not been put in issue. Neither United nor
contract for not complying with the Statute of Frauds, Nissan disputes the contents of the service contract; as in
Article 1403 of the Civil Code specifically provides that fact, both parties quoted and relied on the same
evidence of the agreement cannot be received without provision of the contract (paragraph 17) to support their
the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents. respective claims and defenses. Thus, the best evidence
There is then no doubt that the Best Evidence Rule will rule finds no application here.
come into play.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
In this case, the action does not involve the terms or Secondary evidence is any evidence other than the
contents of the deed of sale with right to repurchase. The document itself:
principal issue raised by the respondents as the plaintiffs, Example:
which Prodon challenged head on, was whether or not 1. a copy
the deed of sale had really existed. The fact sought to be 2. recital of its contents in some authentic document
established by the requested testimony was the 3. recollection of the witness
execution of the deed, not its terms. 4. a chart, summary, or calculation.
Heirs of Late Felix M. Bucton vs. Spouses Gonzalo and RIANO: Before secondary evidence can be presented, it is
Trinidad Go imperative that all the originals of a deed must be
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be accounted for.
proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the
burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The The burden of proof in establishing loss or destruction of
best evidence of a forged signature in the instrument is the original is on the proponent of the secondary
the instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged evidence.
signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by
comparison between the alleged forged signature and Requisites
the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose
What is the rule in case original document was lost?
signature is theorized upon to have been forged.
The rule requiring the presentation of the original
document is NOT absolute: secondary evidence of the
While it is true that a notarized document carries the
contents of the original can be adduced, when the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its
original has been lost without bad faith on the part of the
due execution, and has in its favor the presumption of
party offering it.
regularity, this presumption, however, is not absolute. It
may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the
RIANO: This exception does not only cover loss or
contrary. The testimony of Constantino and Nicanora, had
destruction but also other reasons for failure to produce
it been properly appreciated, is sufficient to overcome
the original in court even if not loss or destroyed as when
the presumption of regularity attached to public
original is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court
documents and to meet the stringent requirements to
or in cases of inscription on immovable objects such as
prove forgery.
tombstones.
Salun-at Marquez vs. Espejo

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
What are the requisites in order secondary evidence c. That the proponent of secondary evidence has given
may be presented? the adverse party reasonable notice to produce the
a. Prove the due execution of the original original document
b. Proof of the loss, destruction or unavailability of all d. That the adverse party failed to produce the original
such originals document despite reasonable notice.
c. Proof that reasonable diligence and good faith in the
search for at least an attempt to produce the original RIANO: The offeror must prove that he has done all in his
power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to the
When Original Document is Unavailable said party to produce the document. The notice may be
RIANO: Accordingly the correct order of proof is as in the form of motion for the production of the original or
follows: existence, execution, loss and contents, although made in open court in the presence of the adverse party
at the sound discretion of the court, this order may be or via subpoena duces tecum.
changed if necessary.
A copy of the original is the best secondary evidence. If it Summaries
is available, other secondary evidence will not be
admitted. When the contents of documents, records, photographs,
The presentation or the offer of the original may be or numerous accounts are voluminous and cannot be
WAIVED. If the party against whom the secondary examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact
evidence is offered does not object thereto when the sought to be established is only the general result of the
same is offered in evidence, the secondary evidence whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented
becomes the primary evidence. But even if admitted as in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The
primary evidence, its probative value must still meet the originals shall be available for examination or copying, or
various test by which its reliability is to be determined. both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time and
place. The court may order that they be produced in
How to prove the due execution of a lost or destroyed court. (Sec. 7, Rule 130)
original document?
a. The testimony if the persons who executed it COMMENTS:
b. The testimony of any person before whom its The original Section 7 is renumbered to Section 8. Section
execution was acknowledged 7 under the amended rule is a new insertion. It should be
c. Any person who was present and saw it executed and read together with Rule 130, Sec. 3 (c). The new Section 7
delivered or who thereafter saw it and recognized the provides the manner by which the original consisting of
signature voluminous accounts may be presented, i.e., in the form
of a chart, summary or calculation. While the summary
How to prove loss or destruction of the original may be produced, still the originals of the voluminous
document? accounts shall be available for examination or copying, or
a. The loss may be shown by any person who knew the both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time and
fact of its loss place. The court may also order that the voluminous
b. By anyone who has made, in the judgment of the accounts be produced in court. (Señga)
court, a sufficient examination in the place or places
where the document or papers of similar character are What are the requisites for the introduction of
usually kept secondary evidence when the original consists of
c. By the person in whose custody the document was lost numerous accounts?
and unable to find it a. If the original consists of numerous accounts or other
d. Those who has made any other investigation which is documents
sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is b. They cannot be examined in court without great loss of
indeed lost. time
c. The fact sought to be established from them is only the
When Original Document is in Adverse Party’s Custody general result of the truth.
What is the rule in case the original of the document is RIANO: The voluminous records must however be made
under the control of the adverse party? accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of
a. That the original exists the summary of the voluminous records may be tested
b. That said document is under the custody and control of on cross examination.
the adverse party
When Original Document is a Public Record
There are instances when the original of a document is a

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
public record or is recorded in a public office. Public PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

records are generally not to be removed from the places When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
where they are recorded and kept. writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed
upon and there can be, as between the parties and their
For this reason, the proof of the contents of a document successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other
which forms part of a public record may be done by than the contents of the written agreement. (par. 1, Sec.
secondary evidence. This evidence is a certified true copy 10, Rule 130)
of the original. This certified copy is to be issued by the
public officer in custody of the public records. (Rule 130, Only the parties and successors in interest are bound by
Sec.8) the parol evidence rule. The rule that the terms of an
agreement are to be proven only by the contents of the
COMMENTS: writing itself refers to the suits between “parties and
their successors in interest”. The rules do not bind suits
The original Section 8 and the new Section 9 are the involving strangers to the contract.
same. This rule should be read in relation to Section 1,
Rule 27. The production or inspection of documents or What are the exceptions to the parol evidence rule?
things as a mode of discovery sanctioned by the rules A party may present evidence to modify, explain, or add
may be availed of by any party upon a showing of good to the terms of the agreement of HE PUTS IN ISSUE IN a
cause therefor before the court in which an action is VERIFIED PLEADING:
pending. The court may order any party: a) to produce
and permit the inspection and copying or photographing (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, written agreement
letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, which are
not privileged; which constitute or contain evidence (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the
material to any matter involved in the action; and which true intent and agreement of the parties thereto.
are in his possession, custody or control; or b) to permit
entry upon designated land or other property in his (c)The validity of the written agreement; or
possession or control for the purpose of inspecting,
measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or (d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
any designated relevant object or operation thereon. or their successors in interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
Rule 27 sets an unequivocal proviso that the documents,
papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or The term agreement includes wills.
tangible things that may be produced and inspected
should not be privileged. The documents must not be COMMENTS:
privileged against disclosure. On the ground of public The second paragraph addresses gender sensitivity and
policy, the rules providing for production and inspection requires that any of the issues warranting the exception
of books and papers do not authorize the production or to the Parol Evidence Rule should be raised in a verified
inspection of privileged matter; that is, books and papers pleading. Prior to the amendment, it was enough to raise
which, because of their confidential and privileged said issue in a pleading that is not necessarily verified.
character, could not be received in evidence. Such a The verification here must take into account the
condition is in addition to the requisite that the items be amended definition of a verification under the amended
specifically described, and must constitute or contain Rule 7, Sec. 6. All the grounds warranting the application
evidence material to any matter involved in the action of said exception are the same. (Señga)
and which are in the party's possession, custody or
control (Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. RIANO: The parol evidence rule, therefore forbids any
172835, 13 December 2007) (Señga) addition to or contradiction of, the terms of a written
agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to
Party Who Calls for Document Not Bound to Offer it show that different terms were agreed upon by the
What is the rule in case the party calls for the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.
production of a document?
A party who calls for the production of a document and Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to
inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. have been waived and abandoned.
(Sec. 9, Rule 130)

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Parol evidence rule does not per se bar the introduction contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at
of parol evidence as long as the pleader puts in issue in all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake.
the pleading any of the matters set forth in the rule.
Unless duly pleaded, a party will be barred from offering The failure of the writing to express the true agreement
extrinsic evidence over the objection of the adverse of the parties is another ground of admitting parol
party. evidence as long as the issue is raised in the pleadings.
Distinctions between the Original Document Rule & Aside from mistake there are some other reasons for the
Parol Evidence Rule failure of the instrument express the true intention of the
parties like fraud, inequitable conduct or accident,
ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith on the part
Parol Evidence Original Document Rule
of the person drafting the instrument.
The original of the The original document is
document is available in not available in court.
In an action for reformation of the instrument the
court.
plaintiff may introduce parol evidence to show the real
Prohibits the varying Prohibits the introduction of intention of the parties. If there is no meeting of the
terms of the written substitutionary or minds between the parties because of mistake, fraud,
agreement. secondary evidence. inequitable conduct or accident, the proper remedy is
The controversy is Involves any parties to the NOT reformation but an action for annulment
between the parties in action.
the written agreement.
Waiver of Parol Evidence
The parol evidence rule can be waived by failure to
Intrinsic Ambiguity, Mistake or Imperfection
invoke the benefits of the rule. This waiver may be made
What are the kinds of ambiguities? by failure to object to evidence aliunde. Inadmissible
1. LATENT AMBIGUITY- When the writing on its face is evidence may be rendered admissible by failure to object.
clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters Even if parol evidence is admitted such admission would
or circumstances which makes the meaning uncertain or not mean that the court would give probative value to
the writing admits of two constructions. the parol evidence.
2. PATENT OR EXTRINSIC AMBIGUITY- When ambiguity is

JURISPRUDENCE
apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires
something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning
Sps. Paras vs. Kimwa
of the word.
WHEN PAROLE EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED- when there is
mistake, imperfection or failure to express the true intent
3. INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITY-When the words in the
of parties
writing are all sensible and have settled meaning, but
admit 2 interpretations according to the subject matter in
Ortanez vs. CA
contemplation of the parties.
The parol evidence herein introduced is inadmissible.
First, private respondents' oral testimony on the alleged
RIANO: Parol evidence particularly refers only to an
conditions, coming from a party who has an interest in
INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY. As long as latent ambiguity is
the outcome of the case, depending exclusively on
raised as an issue in the pleadings, the court will allow
human memory, is not as reliable as written or
evidence aliunde to explain the ambiguity to give effect
documentary evidence. Spoken words could be
to the intention of the parties.
notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which
speaks of a uniform language.
What are the requisites in order that mistake will be an
Thus, under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 of
exception under the parol evidence rule?
the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement
a. That the mistake should be one of fact.
were reduced to writing, as in this case, it is deemed to
b. That the mistake must be common to both parties.
contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of
c. That it must be alleged and proved by clear and
such terms can be admitted other than the contents
convincing evidence.
thereof. Considering that the written deeds of sale were
the only repository of the truth, whatever is not found in
RIANO: Although parol evidence is admissible to explain
said instruments must have been waived and abandoned
the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose of
by the parties. Examining the deeds of sale, we cannot
incorporating into the contract additional and

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
even make an inference that the sale was subject to any The comparable provisions are exactly the same, except
condition. As a contract, it is the law between the parties. for: (1) Section 13 (now Section 14) and Section 17 (now
Secondly, to buttress their argument, private respondents Section 18), which contain amendments to address
rely on the case of Land Settlement Development, gender sensitivity; and (2) the renumbering of the
Co. vs. Garcia Plantation where the Court ruled that a sections. (Señga)
condition precedent to a contract may be established by NOTE: Rules for the interpretation of contracts are
parol evidence. However, the material facts of that case provided by Arts. 1370-1379 of the Civil Code. For the
are different from this case. In the former, the contract rules on interpretation or construction of wills, see Arts.
sought to be enforced expressly stated that it is subject 788-794 of the same Code.
to an agreement containing the conditions-precedent C. Testimonial Evidence
which were proven through parol evidence. Whereas, the Testimonial or oral evidence is evidence elicited from the
deeds of sale in this case, made no reference to any pre- mouth of a witness as distinguished from a real and
conditions or other agreement. In fact, the sale is documentary evidence. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
denominated as absolute in its own terms.
Third, the parol evidence herein sought to be introduced Competent evidence means evidence that is not excluded
would vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid by law. Applying it to witnesses, competence means that
instrument, hence, contrary to the rule that: the witness is qualified to take the stand and testify.
The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to . . . the (Riano, 2009 p.244).
terms of a written instrument by testimony purporting to
show that, at or before the signing of the document, QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS
other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the
parties.
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the
known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
meaning of a contract, "it cannot serve the purpose of
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the
incorporating into the contract additional
case, or conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at
by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification. (Sec. 21,
all in the writing unless there has been fraud or
Rule 130)
mistake." No such fraud or mistake exists in this case.
Fourth, we disagree with private respondents' argument
Who may be witnesses : All persons who:
that their parol evidence is admissible under the
1. Can perceive and in perceiving
exceptions provided by the Rules, specifically, the alleged
2. Can make known their perception to others (Sec. 21,
failure of the agreement to express the true intent of the
Rule 130);
parties. Such exception obtains only in the following
3. The examination of a witness in trial or hearing shall be
instance:
done under oath or affirmation (Sec. 1, Rule 132; Riano,
Where the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in
2013); and
terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot
4. Must not possess the disqualifications imposed by law
be understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In
or the rules (Riano, 2013).
such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of
the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other,
NOTE: The ability to make known the perception of the
and of the facts and circumstances surrounding them
witness to the court involves two factors:
when they entered into the contract may be received to
enable the court to make a proper, interpretation of the
(a) The ability to remember what has been perceived;
instrument.
and
In this case, the deeds of sale are clear, without any
(b) The ability to communicate the remembered
ambiguity, mistake or imperfection, much less obscurity
perception. It is of common reason to realize that a
or doubt in the terms thereof.
witness is presented to testify on a matter he has
One last thing, assuming arguendo that the parol
perceived. If he cannot remember what he perceived, he
evidence is admissible, it should nonetheless be
cannot be a competent witness (Riano, 2013).
disbelieved as no other evidence appears from the record
to sustain the existence of the alleged conditions. Not
NOTE: The number of witnesses does not determine the
even the other seller, Asuncion Inocentes, was presented
outcome of the case. The testimonies of witnesses are
to testify on such conditions.
weighed and not based on how many. Cases are not won
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS by the fact that one side has more witnesses than the
See Rule 130, Sections 11-20 other. In a case of rape, the Supreme Court has held that
positive identification will prevail over the defense of

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
alibi, alibi being considered as a weaker defense since it XPNs: There is prima facie evidence of incompetency in
can be easily fabricated. the following:
1. The fact that a person has been recently found of
Ability to perceive unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she 2. That one is an inmate of an asylum for the insane
knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which (Torres v. Lopez, 48 Phil. 772).
are derived from his or her own perception. (Sec. 22, Rule
130) Competency vs. Credibility
Competency of a witness has reference to the basic
COMMENTS: qualifications of a witness as his capacity to perceive and
The original Section 36 was moved to the amended his capacity to communicate his perception to others. It
Section 22 and the sequence seems proper since it also includes the absence of any of the disqualifications
provides for what a witness should testify on – those imposed upon a witness. Hence it is a matter of law or
facts of his or her personal knowledge. Previously, this the rules.
provision was placed right before the exceptions to the
hearsay rule. Since there was a change in order, the last Credibility refers to the weight and the trustworthiness,
phrase laying the basis for the exceptions to the hearsay reliability of the testimony or believability of the witness
rule that would refer to the provisions following the same and has nothing to do with law or the rules, but lies with
was deleted, since the exceptions to the hearsay rule no the discretion of the court.
longer follow the new Section 22. The deletion does not
mean that there is no more admissible hearsay evidence In deciding the competence of a witness, the court will
or exceptions to the hearsay evidence. There is still not inquire into the trustworthiness of the witness.
admissible hearsay evidence and the title on Exceptions Accordingly, a witness who has given contradicting
to the Hearsay Rule found in the later part of the rules testimony is still a competent witness. (Riano 2009,
was maintained. p.250)
Other than the foregoing and the amendment to address Other Factors that Do Not Affect the Competency of a
gender sensitivity, the comparable provisions are the Witness
same. (Señga)
GR:
Hence it is absurd to ask a blind man to testify to what he 1. religious belief
saw, or a deaf man to what he heard. (Riano 2009, p.247) 2. political belief
3. interest in the outcome of the case
NOTE: Deaf-mutes are not necessarily incompetent, 4. conviction of a crime
where they :
1. can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; XPN:
2. can comprehend facts they are going to testify to; and 1. if provided by law (e.g falsification of a document,
3. can communicate their ideas through a qualified perjury or false testimony are disqualified from being
interpreter. (Riano, citing People vs Tuangco 345 SCRA witnesses to a will)
429)
2. Those who have been convicted of an offense involving
Time when the witness must possess the qualifications moral turpitude cannot be discharged to become a State
The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are witness (Sec. 17, Rule 119; Sec. 10, R.A. 6981, Evidence;
determined as of the time said witnesses are produced Domondon p. 305);
for examination in court or at the taking of theira
depositions (Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: The issue which a judge must resolve before a
Presumption in favor of competence of a witness witness is allowed to take the stand is whether the
GR: Generally, a person who takes the witness stand is witness understands the nature of an oath, realizes the
presumed to be qualified to testify. A party who desires moral duty to tell the truth, and understands the
to question the competence of a witness must do so by prospects of being punished for a falsehood. A person is
making an objection as soon as the facts tending to show not qualified to be a witness if he is incapable of
incompetency are apparent (Jones on Evidence, Vol. 3, understanding the duty to tell the truth. (Riano, 2013)
Sec. 796).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
(a) The judge and necessary court personnel;

COMMENTS:
The provision referring to the original Section 21 was (b) The counsel for the parties;
deleted. The originally deleted provision, in referring to
the now deleted original Section 21 meant that: (a) those (c) The guardian ad litem;
whose mental condition at the time of their production
for examination, is such that they are incapable of (d) One or more support persons for the child; and
intelligently making known their perception to others;
and (2) children whose mental maturity is such as to (e) The defendant, unless the court determines that
render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting competence can be fully evaluated in his absence
which they are examined and of relating them truthfully, (Section 6[c], Rule on Examination of A Child Witness).
cannot be witnesses. Also, the competency examination shall be conducted
only by the judge. If the counsels of the parties desire to
It is submitted that reference to the foregoing was ask questions, they cannot do so directly. Instead, they
deleted because: 1. those with mental condition that are allowed to submit questions to the judge which he
cannot make known their perception is already may ask the child in his discretion. (Ibid.)
encompassed in the definition of those qualified to
testify. The definition in the original Section 20, now Disqualification by Reason of Marriage
Section 21, states that qualified witnesses are those who Marital Disqualification Rule/ Rule on Spousal Immunity
can perceive and can make known their perceptions. During their marriage, the husband or the wife cannot
Thus, if one cannot make known his perception due to a testify for against the other without the consent of the
mental condition, then the witness is disqualified. The affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the
deletion was probably to remove redundancy. 2. The other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one
disqualification on the child witness is no longer relevant against the other or the latter’s direct descendant or
with the Rule on Examination of Child Witness, which ascendants (Sec. 22, Rule 130).
provides that every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness (Rule on Examination of Child Witness, Sec. 6) Requisites for the applicability of spousal immunity
(Señga) 1. That the spouse against whom the testimony of the
other is offered is a party to the case;
COMPETENCY OF CHILD WITNESS 2. That the spouses are legally married
Under the Rule on Examination of a Child witness, a child 3. That the testimony is offered during the existence of
witness is: the marriage
1. Any person who at the time of giving testimony is
below the age of 18 years. NOTE (RIANO):
2. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over 18 yrs 1. The spouses must be legally married. It does not cover
but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of cohabitation or common law spouses.
himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
2. As long as the testimony is offered during the existence
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. of the marriage, it does not matter if the facts subject of
This is the presumption established by the Rule on the testimony occurred or came to the knowledge of the
Examination of a Child Witness (Section 6 of A.M. No. witness-spouse before the marriage.
004-07-SC) and to rebut the presumption of competence
enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the party 3. As soon as the marriage is dissolved, the immunity
challenging his competence. (Section 6[b], Rule on does not apply hence testimony may be offered.
Examination of Child Witness).
4. The testimony covers only those adverse to the
The Court may motu proprio or upon motion, conducts spouse.
a competency examination of the child when it finds
that there is substantial doubt existing as to his ability to 5. Also to extends to criminal or civil cases, since the rule
perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish from did not distinguish.
falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in
court. (Sec. 6 of Rule in Examination of child witness) 6. The prohibited testimony is one that is given or offered
“during their marriage”.
The competency examination of a child witness is not
open to the public. Only the following are allowed to
attend the examination:

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
7. The testimony is prohibited only over the objection of charged is against the witness’ person, and even though
the affected spouse, or the spouse against whom the the marriage was entered into for the express purpose of
testimony is offered. It is the latter spouse who has the suppressing the testimony (Herrera, 1999, citing [I] A.L.R.
right to object to the competency of the spouse-witness. 2d 649).
Hence w/o objection, it can be waived.
Testimony by Estranged Spouse
8. It covers not only utterances but also production of Since the prohibition lies during the subsistence of a
documents. marriage, this would also cover separation de facto, as it
does not sever the marriage bonds and the spouses
COMMENTS: remain legally married to each other. (Ibid,m p,272,
Under the original Section 22, the disqualification Alvarez vs. Ramirez)
includes testifying in favor of, or against the spouse. The
amended rule removed the disqualification on testifying Disqualification by Reason of Privileged
in favor of the spouse. This means that with or without Communications
the consent of the affected spouse, the other spouse may Scope
now testify in favor of the former. (Señga) The disqualification by reason of privileged
The reasons given for the rule are: communication applies to both civil and criminal cases
1. There is identity of interests between husband and except as to the doctor-patient privilege, which is
wife; applicable only in civil cases. Unless waived, the
2. If one were to testify against the other, there is disqualification under Sec. 24 remains even after the
consequent danger of perjury; various relationships therein have ceased to exist.
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and
confidences of private life, even at the risk of an Privileged Communication:
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic 1. Marital
disunion and unhappiness; and 2. Attorney and client
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is 3. Patient and doctor
danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile 4. Priest and confessant/penitent
testimony of the other (Alvarez vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 5. Public Officer (State Secrets)
143439, October 14, 2005). 6. Parental and filial privilege rule
Exceptions to spousal immunity Who may assert the privilege

1. Consent is given by the party-spouse or failure to The holder of the privilege, authorized persons and
object; persons to whom privileged communication were made
2. In a civil case filed by one against the other; may assert the privilege (Herrera, 1999).
3. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants a. Marital Privilege
(Sec. 22, Rule 130); or
The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage,
4. Where the testimony was made after the dissolution of
cannot be examined without the consent of the other as
the marriage (Riano, 2013).
to any communication received in confidence by one
from the other during the marriage except in a civil case
Testimony where spouse is accused with others
by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
In a case where a spouse testifies against his/her spouse
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
and the latter’s co-accused the disqualification is
descendants or ascendants (Sec. 24(a), Rule 130).
between the husband and wife, but not to the other
parties. However, the testimony cannot be used against
REQUISITES:
the accused- spouse directly or through the guise of
1. There must be a valid marriage between the husband
taking judicial notice of the proceedings in the case w/o
and wife;
violating the marital disqualification rule. This is an
2. There is a communication received in confidence by
example of “what cannot be done directly cannot be
one from the other;
done indirectly” (Riano 2009, p. 270, People vs. Quidato)
3. The confidential communication was received during
the marriage (Riano, 2013); and
Marrying the witness
4. The spouse against whom such evidence is being
An accused can effectively “seal the lips” of a witness by
offered has not given his or her consent to such
marrying the witness. As long as a valid marriage is in
testimony (Regalado, 2008).
existence at the time of the trial, the witness-spouse
cannot be compelled to testify – even where the crime

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Cases when marital privilege is inapplicable b. Attorney-Client Privilege

1. In a civil case by one against the other; or An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against to be licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot,
the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants without the consent of the client, be examined as to any
(Sec. 24(a), Rule 130). communication made by the client to him or her, or his or
3. Information acquired by a spouse before the marriage her advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view
even if received confidentially will not fall squarely within to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's
the privilege (Riano, 2013). secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons
assisting the attorney be examined without the consent
Other items of communication overheard or in presence of the client and his or her employer, concerning any fact
of third parties the knowledge of which has been acquired in such
GR: Third persons who, without the knowledge of the capacity, except in the following cases:
spouses, overhear the communication are not (i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice
disqualified to testify. of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid
anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client
XPN: When there is collusion and voluntary disclosure to knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or
a third party, that third party becomes an agent and fraud
cannot testify (Francisco, 1993). (ii) Claimants through same deceased client. As to a
communication relevant to an issue between parties who
Confidential Communication claim through the same deceased client, regardless of
For it to be considered as confidential, it must be made whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by inter
during and by reason of the marital relations and is vivos transaction;
intended not to be shared with others. Without such (iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a
intention, the information is not confidential. communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by
the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his or
Thus if a third person is present with the knowledge of her lawyer;
the communicating spouse, it is not covered, and the (iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to a
communication is unprivileged. communication relevant to an issue concerning an
attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting
If children of the family are present, this likewise deprives witness; or
the conversation of protection, unless the children are (v) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a
too young to understand what is said. matter of common interest between two or more clients
if the communication was made by any of them to a
Marital Disqualification Rule vs Marital Privileged lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in
Communication Rule an action between any of the clients, unless they have
1.In Marital Disqualification Rule (MDR), the prohibition expressly agreed otherwise (Sec. 24(b), Rule 130).
is a testimony for or against the other, while in Marital
Privileged Communication Rule (MPC), what is prohibited SEÑGA NOTES:
is the examination of a spouse as to matters received in The disqualification under paragraph (b) now covers a
confidence by one from the other during the marriage. person who is not a lawyer, but is reasonably believed by
the client to be licensed to engage in the practice, as well
2. MDR is broader than MPC. The former includes facts, as any other person assisting the attorney. The amended
occurrences or information even prior to the marriage rule also includes exceptions to the disqualification, such
unlike the latter, which applies only to those received as when the commination/advice thereon pertains to: 1.
during the marriage. The former applies to any The furtherance of crime or fraud, which the client knew
information/facts/occurrences observed by the other or reasonably could have known to be a crime or fraud; 2.
spouse, but the latter applies only to confidential communication relevant to an issue between parties who
information. claim through the same deceased client, regardless of
3. The MDR can no longer be invoked once the marriage whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by inter
is dissolved, whereas MPC can be invoked even after the vivos transaction; 3. communication relevant to an issue
dissolution of marriage. of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by
the client to his or her lawyer; 4. Communication relevant
4. MDR requires that the spouse for or against whom the to an issue concerning an attested document to which
testimony is offered is a party to the action, but this is not the lawyer is an attesting witness; 5. communication
required in MPC. (Riano 2009, p.278) relevant to a matter of common interest between two or

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
more clients if the communication was made by any of XPNs:

them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when 1. Where a strong possibility exists that revealing the
offered in an action between any of the clients, unless client’s name would implicate the client in the very
they have expressly agreed otherwise. activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice;
2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability;
REQUISITES: or
1. There must be a communication made by the client to 3. Where the government’s lawyers have no case against
the attorney or to a person reasonably believed by the an attorney’s client unless, by revealing the client’s name,
client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law or an the said name would furnish the only link that would
advice given to the client; form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an
individual for a crime (Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
2. The communication or advice must have been given in No. 105938, September 20, 1996).
confidence; and
Last-Link Doctrine
3. The communication or advice must have been given Q: Does the privilege preclude inquiries into the fact
either in the course of the professional employment or that the lawyer was consulted?
with a view to professional employment.
A: The traditional and still applicable rule is that an
Purpose of Attorney-Client Relationship inquiry into the fact of consultation or employment is not
To encourage full disclosure by client to her attorney of privileged. Under the Last Link Doctrine, Non-privileged
all pertinent matters, so as to further the administration information, such as the identity of the client, is
of justice (Herrera, 1999). protected if the revelation of such information would
necessarily reveal privileged information. (In re Grand
Confidential communication Jury Proceedings [GJ90-2J, 946 2d 746 [11th Cir. 1991]).
It refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in confidence and RIANO NOTES:
by means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses 1. No need for a perfected attorney-client relationship, it
the information to no third person other than one is enough that the communication or advice be with a
reasonably necessary for the transmission of the view to professional employment. This extends to
information or the accomplishment of the purpose for preliminary negotiations.
which it was given (Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108,
May 26, 2005). 2. The relationship between the attorney and the client is
said to exist where a person employees the professional
Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege services of an attorney or seeks professional guidance,
The privilege is personal and it belongs to the client. If even though the lawyer declines to handle the case.
the client waives the privilege, no one else including the
attorney can invoke it (Riano, 2013, citing In Re: Young’s 3. There is authority to support the theory that it is
Estate, 33 Utah 382, 94 P 731, 732). enough if he reasonably believes that the person
consulted is a lawyer, although in fact he is not as in a
Cases when the attorney-client privilege is inapplicable case of a detective pretending to be a lawyer.
The privilege does not apply to communications which
are: 4. For the privilege to exist, payment of a fee is not
1. Intended to be made public; essential.
2. Intended to be communicated to others; 5. Even if the person is an attorney, and was consulted as
3. Intended for an unlawful purpose; a friend w/o view to professional employment, it is not
4. Received from third persons not acting in behalf or as covered.
agents of the client; or
5. Made in the presence of third parties who are 6. The privilege does not extend to communications
strangers to the attorney-client relationship (Regalado, where the client’s purpose is the furtherance of a future
2008). intended crime or fraud.
Applicability of the rule with regard to the identity of 7. The communication must be intended to be
the client confidential.
GR: A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to
divulge the name or identity of his client. 8. The privilege is not extended to suits between the
attorney and clients themselves.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
treatment of the patient under the direction of the

9. Generally, the privilege survives the death of the client. physician or psychotherapist.
However, when there is an attack on the validity on the As with the old rule, the application of the rule is still
will, communications made to the attorney on the limited to civil cases.
drawing of the will is not required to be in secret.
Under the old rule the privilege pertains to “any advice or
10. Attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other treatment given by him or any information which he may
persons assisting the attorney are coverd by the privilege have acquired in attending such patient in a professional
as to any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired capacity, which information was necessary to enable him
in such capacity. The exceptions are applicable to them as to act in capacity, and which would blacken the
well. reputation of the patient”. The new rule pertains to “any
confidential communication made for the purpose of
c. Physician and Patient Privilege diagnosis or treatment of the patient's physical, mental
A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug
believed by the patient to be authorized to practice addiction, between the patient and his or her physician
medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case, without or psychotherapist,” regardless of whether the
the consent of the patient, be examined as to any information would blacken the reputation of the patient.
confidential communication made for the purpose of
diagnosis or treatment of the patient's physical, mental Requisites for the applicability of physician and patient
or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug privilege
addiction, between the patient and his or her physician 1. The privilege is claimed in a civil case;
or psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to persons, 2. The person against whom the privilege is claimed is a
including members of the patient's family, who have physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed
participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient by the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or
under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist. A psychotherapy;
"psychotherapist" is: 3. The information was confidential and made for the
(a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's
diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol
condition, or or drug addiction.
(b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the
government while similarly engaged. Waiver of Privilege
(Sec. 24(c), Rule 130). The waiver may be made expressly or impliedly. The
waiver may be by a contract as in medical or life
Purpose of this privilege insurance. When there is disclosure by the patient of the
The privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe, full information, there is necessarily, a waiver. When the
and confidential disclosure by patient to doctor of all patient answers questions on matters which are
facts, circumstances, and symptoms, untrammeled by supposedly privileged on cross-examination, the waiver
apprehension of their subsequent and enforced also exists (Riano, 2013). There could also be waiver by
disclosure and publication on the witness stand, to the operation of law (Sec. 4, Rule 28).
end that the physician may form a correct opinion, and
be enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient Cases when Physician and Patient Privilege is
(Herrera, 1999). inapplicable:
The privilege does not apply where:
SEÑGA COMMENTS: 1. The communication was not given in confidence;
The coverage of Paragraph (c) was amended. It now 2. The communication is irrelevant to the professional
states physician, and includes a psychotherapist or employment;
person reasonably believed by the patient to be 3. The communication was made for an unlawful
authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy. purpose;
Psychotherapist was defined as a person licensed: (a) to 4. The information was intended to be made public; or
practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or treatment 5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions
of a mental or emotional condition; or (b) as a of contract or law (Regalado, 2008).
psychologist by the government while similarly engaged.
It also applies to persons, including members of the NOTE: It is essential that at the time the communication
patient's family, who have participated in the diagnosis or was made, the professional relationship is existing, that
is, while the doctor was attending to the patient for
curative, preventive or palliative treatment. It is not

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
however necessary that the physician-patient official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
relationship was created through the voluntary act of the government research data used as basis for policy
patient. The treatment may have been given at the development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
behest of another, the patient being in extremis such limitations as maybe provided by law (Sec. 7, Article
(Regalado, 2008). III, 1987 Constitution).
d. Priest/Minister-Penitent Privilege Requisites for its application of the privilege

A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so 1. The holder of the privilege is the government, acting
cannot, without the consent of the affected person, be through a public officer;
examined as to any communication or confession made 2. The communication was given to the public officer in
to or any advice given by him or her, in his or her official confidence;
professional character, in the course of discipline 3. The communication was given during the term of office
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest of the public officer or afterwards;
belongs. (Sec. 24(d), Rule 130). 4. The public interest would suffer by the disclosure of
the communication (Herrera, 1999).
SEÑGA NOTES:
The disqualification under paragraph (d) was broaden to Cases when the privilege is inapplicable
include any person reasonably believed to be a minister If what is asked is among the following, disclosure will be
or priest. The privilege now covers any communication, compelled:
and not just confession made to or advice given. 1. Useful evidence to vindicate the innocence of an
However, it appears that “any communication” is still accused person;
qualified by the provision that the same is made in the 2. To lessen risk of false testimony;
professional character and in the course of discipline 3. Essential to the proper disposition of the case; or
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest 4. The benefit to be gained by a correct disposition of the
belongs. litigation was greater than any injury which could inure to
the relation by a disclosure of information (Francisco,
Requisites for the applicability of the priest-penitent 1996).
privilege
1. The confession or any communication must have been NOTE: The disclosure or non-disclosure is not dependent
made to the priest or person reasonably believed to be on the will of the officer but on the determination by a
so or the advice was given by him or her in his competent court (Riano, 2013).
professional character in the course of discipline enjoined
by the church to which the minister or priest belongs. This last paragraph was added under the revised rule and
(Sec. 24(d), Rule 130); and states that the communication, even in the hands of a
third person who may have obtained the information,
2. Communications made must be confidential. provided that the original parties to the communication
took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality.
Thus, if there is no reasonable precaution to protect its
e. Public Officer as regards Communications Made in confidentiality then it may be construed as waiver
Official Confidence thereof and hence, not covered by the privilege. (Señga)
A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or
Executive privilege
her tenure as to communications made to him or her in
It is the power of the government to withhold
official confidence, when the court finds that the public
information from the public, the courts, and the
interest would suffer by the disclosure.
Congress. There are certain types of information which
The communication shall remain privileged, even in the
the government may withhold from the public like
hands of a third person who may have obtained the
military, diplomatic and other national security secrets
information, provided that the original parties to the
(Riano, 2013).
communication took reasonable precaution to protect its
confidentiality. (Sec. 24(e), Rule 130).
f. Parental and Filial Privilege Rule
Reason: General grounds of public policy No person shall be compelled to testify against his or her
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
The right of the people to information on matters of descendants, except when such testimony is
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official indispensable in a crime against that person or by one
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to parent against the other (Sec. 25, Rule 130).

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list or

The new rule incorporates Article 215 of the Family Code, catalogue or specialized customer list. Trade secrets
which is mandatory in character (as compared to the constitute proprietary rights. The inventor, discoverer, or
directory character of the old rule), and provides for the possessor of a trade secret or similar innovation has
exception when testimony may be compelled, i.e., when rights therein which may be treated as property, and
the testimony is indispensable in a crime against that ordinarily an injunction will be granted to prevent the
person or by one parent against the other. (Señga) disclosure of the trade secret by one who obtained the
information "in confidence" or through a "confidential
Under the Family Code, no descendant shall be relationship. (Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R.
compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his No. 172835, 13 December 2007)
parents and grandparents. As an exception, the
descendant may be compelled to give his testimony in In Cocoland Development Corp. v. National Labor
the following instances: Relations Commission, G.R. No. 98458, 17 July 1996, it
was ruled that any determination by management as to
1. When such testimony is indispensable in a crime the confidential nature of technologies, processes,
committed against said descendant; or formulae or other so -called trade secrets must have a
substantial factual basis which can pass judicial scrutiny.
2. In a crime committed by one parent against the other The Court rejected the employer’s naked contention that
(Riano, 2013, citing Art. 215, Family Code). its own determination as to what constitutes a trade
secret should be binding and conclusive upon the NLRC.
g. Privilege relating to Trade Secrets As a caveat, the Court said that to rule otherwise would
A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade be to permit an employer to label almost anything a
secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or trade secret, and thereby create a weapon with which
otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the he/it may arbitrarily dismiss an employee on the pretext
court shall take such protective measure as the interest that the latter somehow disclosed a trade secret, even if
of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and in fact there be none at all to speak of. Hence, in
the furtherance of justice may require. (Rule 130, Sec. 26) Cocoland, the parameters in the determination of trade
secrets were set to be such substantial factual basis that
Señga Notes: can withstand judicial scrutiny.
This is a new insertion. There is no similar provision
under the old rules. However, while this provision was However, for compelling reasons, the courts may lift the
not under the old rule, it has long been recognized that veil of confidentiality which shields trade secrets. (Air
there are other privileged matters that not mentioned by Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, 13
Rule 130. Among them are the following: (a) editors may December 2007)
not be compelled to disclose the source of published
news; (b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for Thus, under the new rule, a person cannot be compelled
whom they voted; (c) trade secrets; (d) information to testify about any trade secret, unless the non-
contained in tax census returns; and (d) bank deposits. disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice.
Jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged the private Even when disclosure is directed, the court shall still take
character of trade secrets. There is a privilege not to such protective measure as the interest of the owner of
disclose one’s trade secrets. The Supreme Court has the trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance of
declared that trade secrets and banking transactions are justice may require
among the recognized restrictions to the right of the
people to information as embodied in the Constitution. OTHER PRIVILEGED MATTERS
The drafters of the Constitution also unequivocally 1. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any
affirmed that, aside from national security matters and proceeding concerning any information, statement, or
intelligence information, trade or industrial secrets opinion received from the child in the course of serving
(pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code and other as guardian ad litem, unless the court finds it necessary
related laws) as well as banking transactions (pursuant to to promote the best interests of the child (Sec. 5(e), Rule
the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act), are also exempted on Examination of a Child Witness);
from compulsory disclosure (Air Philippines Corp. v.
Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, 13 December 2007) 2. Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of
published news (R.A. 53, as amended by R.A. 1477);
A trade secret is a process or device intended for
continuous use in the operation of the business, for

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
3. Information and statements made at conciliation An admission by a party may be given in evidence against
proceedings (Art. 233, Labor Code); him or her (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court). His
admission is not admissible in his favor, because it would
4. Institutions covered by the law and its officers and be self-serving evidence. Declarations of a party favorable
employees who communicate a suspicious transaction to to himself are not admissible as proof of the facts
the Anti-Money Laundering Council (Sec. 6 of R.A. 9194 asserted.
amending Sec. 9 of R.A. 9160); and
Judicial admission vs. Extrajudicial admission
5. The prosecutor may not be compelled to present an
informer to protect his identity and when his testimony Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial Admissions
would be merely corroborative and cumulative (Herrera, Those made in the Those made out of court
1999). course of the proceeding or in a judicial proceeding
in the same case other than the one under
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS consideration
An admission, in general sense, includes confessions, the Do not require proof and Regarded as evidence and
former being a broader term because, accordingly, a may be contradicted must be offered as such,
confession is also an “admission… by the accused of the only by showing that it otherwise the court will
fact charged against him or of some fact essential to the was made through not consider it in deciding
charge” (4 Wigmore, Sec. 1050). palpable mistake or that the case.
no such admission was
made (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
Admission Confession
Judicial admissions need Requires formal offer for it
A statement of fact which A statement of fact which
not be offered in to be considered
does not involve an involves a positive
evidence since it is not
acknowledgment of guilt acknowledgment of guilt
evidence. It is superior
or liability. or liability .
to evidence and shall be
May be made by third Can be made only by the considered by the court
persons and in certain party himself and, in as established.
cases, are admissible some instances, are
Conclusive upon the Rebuttable
against a party. admissible against his co-
admitter
accused.
Admissible even if self- Not admissible if self-
Applies to both criminal Applies only to criminal
serving serving
and civil cases. cases.
Subject to cross- Not subject to cross-
May be express or Must be express.
examination examination
implies.
Judicial/ Extrajudicial Judicial/Extrajudicial
A confession is a specific type of admission which refers
Offer of Compromise
only to an acknowledgement of guilt. As used, the term
admission refers to an acknowledgement of facts which, Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases
although may be incriminating, falls short of an admission In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission
of guilt (Riano, 2013). of any liability, and is not an admission in evidence
against the offeror. (Sec. 28, Rule 130)
An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party
as to a relevant fact (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court). It The old and new rule are the same insofar as it provides
is a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the that in civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
existence of the truth of certain facts which are admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
inconsistent with his claims in an action (Black's Law evidence against the offeror. (Señga)
Dictionary, 5th Ed., 44).
As to evidence of conduct or statements made in
In a confession, there is an acknowledgement of guilt; in compromise negotiations:
an admission, there is merely a statement of fact not Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in
directly involving an acknowledgement of guilt or of the compromise negotiations admissible, except evidence
criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose,
charged. (Ladiana v. People) such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing
a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to
Effects of Admissions obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. (Ibid.)

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
If the plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not accepted, the

The new rule adds that evidence of conduct and rule does not provide for an adverse consequence of the
statements made in compromise negotiations are also unaccepted plea. On the contrary, the rule provides that
not considered as admission of any liability, and are not an unaccepted plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror. This new admissible in evidence against the accused who made the
addition is subject to the exception: that evidence plea or offer. Neither is any statement made in the course
otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose, of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does not
such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty
a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to later withdrawn, admissible.
obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution would be
admissible. (Señga) An Offer to Pay or the Payment of Medical, Hospital or
Other Expenses
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or
An offer of compromise by the accused may be received other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible
in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the
injured party.
Example: Although the marriage of the accused in a rape
case extinguishes the penal action, an offer of marriage In other jurisdictions, this act of rendering aid is
is, generally, speaking, an admission of guilt. sometimes called the "good Samaritan rule." The phrase
is used to refer to the rendering of voluntary aid to a
There is no implied admission of guilt if the offer of suffering person.
compromise is in relation to:
(a) quasi-offenses (criminal negligence); or Subsequent Remedial Measures
(b) in those cases allowed by law to be compromised. Assume that PP, while negotiating the stairs from the
(Ibid.) lobby of a hotel to his third floor room, slipped and fell
from the stairs and sustained head injuries. The hotel
The second paragraphs under the old and new rules are owner, upon learning of the accident, immediately
the same. ordered the maintenance department of the hotel to
install a non-slippery material on every step of the
Plea of Guilty Later Withdrawn stairway. In an action for damages against the hotel
The Rules of Criminal Procedure, allows the accused, at owner by PP, may the latter introduce evidence of the
arraignment, to plead guilty to a lesser offense with the subsequent remedial measures taken to prove an
consent of the offended party and the prosecutor admission by the defendant of the hazardous condition of
provided that the lesser offense is necessarily included in the stairway at the time of the incident?
the offense charged. He may also plead guilty to a lesser
offense even after arraignment after withdrawing his plea No direct legal provision in this jurisdiction addresses the
of not guilty. question as it is. It is however, interesting to observe that
the U. S. Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) in Rule 407
In case the accused withdraws his guilty plea, that plea of thereof, prohibits the admission of evidence of
guilty later withdrawn, is not admissible in evidence subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove
against the accused who made the plea or offer. Neither the negligence of the defendant.
is any statement made in the course of plea bargaining
with the prosecution, which does not result in a plea of Evidence of such measures may however, be admissible
guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, to prove some other purpose like the fact that the
admissible. defendant had ownership of the hotel or control over the
same and all the fixtures therein.
The first sentence of the third paragraphs under the old
and new rules are the same. The new rule adds that the Accordingly the rule is based on the policy of encouraging
rule also now covers and makes inadmissible any potential defendants to remedy hazardous conditions
statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the without fear that their actions will be used as evidence
prosecution, which does not result in a plea of guilty or against them.
which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn. This
should also be read in connection with Section 5, Rule To adopt the contrary rule would discourage owners from
116 on withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty. (Señga) improving the condition causing the injury because of
their fear of the evidential use of such improvement to
An Unaccepted Plea of Guilty to a Lesser Offense

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
their disadvantage (Werner v. Upjohn Co. [CA4 MD] 628 testimony and not subject of the res inter alios acta rule
F2d, 848; 29 Am Jur 2d §463- 464). since such testimony is subject to cross examination.
The rule (FRE 407) provides that: Admission by a Party

"When after an event, measures are taken which, if taken The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
previously, would have made the event less likely to relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her
occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not (Sec. 27, Rule 130).
admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in
connection with the event. This rule does not require the Requisites for the admissibility of an admission
exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when 1. The act, declaration or omission must have been made
offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, by a party or by one by whom he is legally bound;
control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if 2. The admission must be as to a relevant fact; and
controverted, or impeachment." (FRE Rule 407) 3. The admission may only be given in evidence against
him or her (Ibid.; Herrera, 1999).
Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
Reason for the rule on res inter alios acta Classifications of Admissions
On principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a Express It is a positive statement or act.
man’s own acts are binding upon himself and are Implied It is one which may be inferred from
evidence against him. So are his conduct and the declarations or acts of a person.
declarations. It would not only be rightly inconvenient Judicial When made in the course of a judicial
but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound proceeding.
by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party Extrajudicial When made out of court or even in a
ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither proceeding other than the one under
ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against consideration.
him (People v. Guittap, G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003). Adoptive It is a party’s reaction to a statement or
action by another person when it is
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet reasonable to treat the party’s reaction
This principle literally means “things done between as an admission of something stated or
strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to implied by the other person. A third
them” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.; Dynamic person’s statement becomes the
Signmaker Outdoor Advertising Services, Inc. v. Potongan, admission of the party embracing or
G.R. No. 156589, June 27, 2005). espousing it. Adoptive admission may
occur when a party:
Two (2) branches of res inter alios acta rule 1. Expressly agrees to or concurs in an
1. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, oral statement made by another;
declaration, or omission of another. (Sec. 29, Rule 130); 2. Hears a statement and later on
2. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at essentially repeats it;
one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or 3. Utters an acceptance or builds upon
did not do the same or similar thing at another time (Sec. the assertion of another;
35, Rule 130). 4. Replies by way of rebuttal to some
specific points raised by another but
Exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule (first branch): ignores further points which he or she
1. Admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec.30, Rule 130); has heard the other make; or
2. Admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 31, Rule 130); and 5. Reads and signs a written statement
3. Admission by privies (Sec. 32, Rule 130). made by another.
NOTE: The rule has reference to extrajudicial

declarations. Hence, statements made in open court by a
Admission by a Third Party
witness implicating persons aside from him are
GR: The act, declaration or omission made out of court of
admissible as declarations from one who has personal
a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
knowledge of the facts testified to (Riano, 2013).
against him but may not be given in evidence against
another person.
NOTE: The testimony of the accused against his co-
accused in open court is considered as admissibile
XPN:
Admission by a Co-Partner or Agent

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by construction, the new addition is encompassed by the
the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or subsequent provision of “or within the scope of his or her
within the scope of his or her authority, and during the authority”, such that regardless of any authority to make
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in the statement, the act or declaration would be binding
evidence against such party after the partnership or against the party. With this construction, there is no
agency is shown by evidence other than such act or substantial change between the new and old rule.
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person It being unclear, at this point, what is the intention of this
jointly interested with the party (Sec. 29, Rule 130). provision, it is respectfully submitted that we will have to
wait for jurisprudence that would clarify the import of
Requisites for an admission of a partner to bind his co- the amended rule.
partners or for an agent to bind his principal
1. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the Dissolved Partnership
party must be within the scope of his authority; GR: Admissions made after a partnership has been
2. The admission was made during the existence of the dissolved do not fall within the exception because such
partnership or agency; and are made when the partnership ceased to exist.
3. The existence of the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration. (Ibid.). The XPN: Where the admissions are made in connection with
Articles of Incorporation or a Special Power of Attorney the winding up of the partnership affairs, said admissions
may be presented for such purpose (Suarez and De la are still admissible as the partner is acting as an agent of
Banda, 2000). his co-partner in said winding up (Regalado, 2008)
SEÑGA NOTE: Admission by a Conspirator

The revised rule is capable of 2 constructions. The act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of
the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in
First. It may mean that the declaration is qualified by the evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy
new insertion that the declaration by the partner or is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
agent would only be binding if the agent was authorized (Sec. 31, Rule 130).
to make the statement concerning the subject. This
would mean that the past rule would no longer hold true Conspiracy
- that regardless of the authority to make the statement, A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
the declaration made by a partner or agent within the an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
scope of authority and during the existence of the decide to commit it (Herrera, 1999).
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against
such party. For example, in Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. NOTE: Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act
146710-15 and 146738, 3 April 2001, former President of all. The statement therefore of one may be admitted
Estrada never categorically authorized then Executive against the other co-conspirators as an exception to the
Secretary Angara to make the statements on his behalf as rule of res inter alios acta (Riano, 2013).
contained in the Angara Diary. Nevertheless, the same
was admitted in evidence against then President Estrada, Requisites of an admission by a conspirator
even if the latter objected to the same. Assuming the 1. The declaration or act be made or done during the
revised rule is to be construed as mentioned above, then existence of the conspiracy;
it would mean that the ruling in Estrada and similar cases
would no longer hold true – that unless there is authority 2. The declaration or act must done in the furtherance of
to make that statement, such would not be binding the conspiracy; and
against the party.
3. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than
Second. It may just be a harmless addition that adds that the declaration or act (evidence aliunde) (Sec. 30, Rule
declarations of a partner or agent authorized by the party 130).
to make a statement concerning the subject, in addition
to the existing rule that acts or declarations of a partner NOTE: This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or
or agent, within the scope of his or her authority, and admission and not to testimony at trial where the party
during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-examine
given in evidence against such party after the partnership the witness (People vs. Baharan, January 10, 2011).
or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. In other words, under this second

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Self-serving declaration 1. One (successor in interest) derives title to property

It is one which has been made extra-judicially by the from another (predecessor in interest) through any legal
party to favor his interest. It is not admissible in evidence means of transfer
because they are inherently untrustworthy, and would 2. A statement, act or declaration is made by the
open the door to fraud and fabrication of testimony. predecessor in interest in relation to the property and
while holding the title thereof
NOTE: Self-serving evidence are inadmissible because the 3. Said statement, act or declaration is evidence against
adverse party is not given the opportunity for cross- his successor in interest (Sec. 31, Rule 130; Suarez and
examination, and their admission would encourage De la Banda, 2006).
fabrication of testimony.
Admission by Silence
Statements in affidavits are not sufficient to prove the An act or declaration made in the presence and within
existence of agricultural tenancy. It is self-serving. It will the hearing or observation of a party who does or says
not suffice to prove consent of the owner. Independent nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally
evidence is necessary. to call for action or comment if not true, and when
proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be given
Extrajudicial admissions made after the conspiracy had in evidence against him or her. (Sec. 33, Rule 130).
terminated
GR: Extrajudicial admissions made by a conspirator after Requisites of an admission by silence
the conspiracy had terminated and even before trial are 1. He/She must have heard or observed the act or
not admissible against the co-conspirator. declaration of the other person;
2. He/She must have had the opportunity to deny it;
XPNs: 3. He/She must have understood the statement;
1. If made in the presence of the co-conspirator who 4. He/She must have an interest to object, such that
expressly or impliedly agreed therein; he/she would naturally have done so, if the statement
2. Where the facts in said admission are confirmed in the was not true;
individual extrajudicial confessions made by the co- 5. The facts were within his or her knowledge; and
conspirator after their apprehension; 6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from
3. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of the his or her silence is material to the issue. (People v.
witness; or Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060, July 20, 1978; Sec. 32, Rule
4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of 130; Regalado, 2008).
the co-conspirator’s participation in the offense
(Regalado, 2008). NOTE: The rule on admission by silence does not apply
when a person is under an official investigation. For the
When extrajudicial admission becomes a judicial silence of a person under a custodial investigation for the
admission commission of an offense should not be construed as an
While it is true that statements made by a conspirator admission by silence because a person has the right to
against a co-conspirator are admissible only when made remain silent and to be informed of that right (Sec. 12,
during the existence of the conspiracy, if the declarant Art. III, 1987 Constitution; Riano, 2009).
repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial
confession becomes a judicial admission, making the However, if it is not the police investigators who
testimony admissible as to both conspirators. confronted the accused but the owner of a carnapped
vehicle, the silence of one after being implicated by the
Admission by Privies other accused serves as an admission by silence as he did
Where one derives title to property from another, the not refute the statements of his co-accused despite
latter's act, declaration, or omission in relation to the having heard of them (People v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No.
property, is evidence against the former if done while the 138470, April 1, 2003).
latter was holding the title. (Sec. 32, Rule 130).
PRINCIPLE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION
Privies It is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another
They refer to persons who are partakers or have an person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction
interest in any action or thing, or any relation to another as an admission of something stated or implied by the
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.). other person. The basis for admissibility of admissions
made vicariously is that arising from the ratification or
Requisites of an admission by privies

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
adoption by the party of the statements which the other and is admissible against one’s co-accused. It is governed
person had made (Estrada v. Desierto, April 3, 2001). by Secs. 1, 3 & 4 of Rule 116.
NOTE: One good example of adoptive admission is the

alleged admissions made by President Estrada when his Extrajudicial - One made in any other place or occasion
options had dwindled when, according to the Angara other than the court where the case is pending and
Diary, the Armed Forces withdrew its support from him cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by
as President and Commander-in-Chief. Thus, Angara had evidence of corpus delicti. It is generally binding only
to allegedly ask Senate President Pimentel to advise upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co-
Estrada to consider the option of “dignified exit or accused. It is governed by Sec. 33 of Rule 130 (Regalado,
resignation.” Estrada did not object to the suggested 2008).
option but simply said he could never leave the country.
According to the court, his silence on this and other NOTE: If the accused admits having committed the act in
related suggestions can be taken as adoptive admissions question but alleges a justification therefor, such as
by him (Ibid.). absence of criminal intent, the same is merely an
admission (Ibid.).
Confessions
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her Effect of Extrajudicial Confession of Guilt; Corpus Delicti
guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily While a judicial confession may sustain a conviction, an
included therein, may be given in evidence against him or extrajudicial confession is not sufficient for conviction.
her. (Sec. 34, Rule 130). The rule requires that the confession be corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti (Sec. 3, Rule 133, Rules of
Requisites for the admissibility of a confession Court).
1. It must involve an express and categorical
acknowledgement of guilt; Corpus delicti is the 'body of the crime' or the offense.
2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal Strictly speaking, it means the actual commission of the
offense; crime and someone criminally responsible therefor
3. It must have been given voluntarily;
4. It must have been intelligently made, the accused It is the substance of the crime; the fact that a crime has
realizing the importance or legal significance of his act; actually been committed .
and
5. There must have been no violation of Sec. 12, Art. III, Corpus delicti has two elements: (1) proof of the
1987 Constitution occurrence of a certain event —for example, that a man
has died or a building has been burned; and (2) some
NOTE: A confession to a person, who is not a police person's criminal responsibility for the act.
officer, is admissible in evidence. The declaration
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any Corpus delicti, and all the elements thereof, may be
offense necessarily included therein, may be given in proved by circumstantial evidence but such proof must
evidence against the declarant. Such admissions are not be convincing and compatible with the nature of the case
covered by Secs. 12 (1) and (3), Article III, 1987
Constitution, because they were not extracted while he While an extrajudicial confession will not be sufficient for
was under custodial investigation. conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti a judicial confession will support conviction
6. It must be in writing and signed by such person in the without proof of corpus delicti independent of the
presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon a judicial confession.
valid waiver and in the presence of any of the parents,
elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal Admissibility of extrajudicial confessions
mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor or GR: An extrajudicial confession is not admissible against
priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him (Sec. the confessor’s co-accused. Said confession is hearsay
2(d), R.A. 7438). evidence and violative of the res inter alios acta rule.
CLASSIFICATION OF CONFESSION XPN: It may be admitted in evidence against his co-

Judicial - One made by the accused before an open court accused in the following cases:
in which the case is pending and in the course of legal 1. In case of implied acquiescence of the co-accused to
proceedings therein and, by itself, can sustain conviction the extrajudicial confession;

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
2. In case of interlocking confessions; 6. Scheme;

3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the 7. Habit;
confessant after being apprised of such confession; 8. Custom;
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime 9. Usage; and
which was confessed by one of the accused and said 10. The like (Ibid.).
confession is used only as corroborating evidence;
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial Purpose of the rule
evidence to show the probability of participation by the Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the
co-conspirator; defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in
6. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant; the complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a
and variety of relevant issues, and diverts the attention of the
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is court from the issues immediately before it. Hence, the
corroborated by other evidence on record (Regalado, evidentiary rule guards the practical inconvenience of
2008). trying collateral issues and protracting the trial, and
prevents surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants
Requirements for an admission of guilt of an accused (Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 126713, July 27, 1998).
during a custodial investigation to be admitted in
evidence
1. The admission must be voluntary (Sec. 12(1), 1987 UNACCEPTED OFFER
Constitution); An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to
2. The admission must be in writing (R.A. 7438); deliver a written instrument or specific personal property
3. The admission must be made with the assistance of is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual
competent, independent counsel (Sec. 12, 1987 production and tender of the money, instrument, or
Constitution); property. (Sec. 35, Rule 130)
4. The admission must be express. (People vs. Prinsipe,
G.R. No. 135862, May 2, 2002); HEARSAY
5. In case the accused waives his rights to silence and to Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the
counsel, such waiver must be in writing, executed with declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to
the assistance of competent, independent counsel (R.A. prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement
7438). 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
Doctrine of Interlocking Confessions assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as
It states that extrajudicial confessions independently otherwise provided in these Rule.
made without collusion which are identical with each
other in their essential details and corroborated by other A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the
evidence against the persons implicated, are admissible trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination
to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation concerning the statement, and the statement is (a)
in the commission of the crime (People v. Mulit, G.R. No. inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was
181043, October 8, 2008). 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
Similar Acts as Evidence to rebut an express or implied charge against the
2nd branch of the Res Inter Alios Acta declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or
GR: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at motive; or (c) one of identification of a person made after
one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or perceiving him or her.
did not do the same or similar thing at another time (Sec. (Sec. 37, Rule 130)
35, Rule 130). This is also referred to as the “Propensity
Rule.”(Bar 2002) This is a new insertion. Prior to the amendment, there is
no exact section providing for definition of hearsay
XPNs: Evidence of similar or previous acts may be evidence, and instead, it was implied under the old
received to prove the following: Section 36, such that if it does not fall under Section 36,
1. Specific intent; then it is hearsay. Note that not all hearsay is
2. Knowledge; inadmissible, as it admits of exceptions, which were and
3. Identity; are recognized under the old and new rules.
4. Plan;
5. System;

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
The new rule provides that hearsay is a statement other Rationale for Hearsay Rule
than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial There is no opportunity to cross-examine the outside
or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts declarant.
asserted therein. Even without the amendment, it has
been recognized that if the statement is not being offered Double hearsay
to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein but only It is a testimony of a person with respect to what was
to prove that the statement was made, it is admissible told him by one who was not an eyewitness to the crime
under the rule on independent relevant statements. but who obtained knowledge thereof only from the
alleged victim (People v. Manhuyod, Jr., G.R. No. 124676,
Additionally, the rule provides that it is not hearsay if the May 20, 1998).
declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to
cross-examination concerning the statement, and the Classification of out-of-court statements:
statement is (a) inconsistent with the declarant's 1. Hearsay – Its probative force depends, in whole or in
testimony, and was given under oath subject to the part, on the competency and credibility of some persons
penalty of perjury at a trial hearing, or other proceeding, other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce
or in a deposition; (b) consistent with the declarant's it. It is inadmissible as evidence when the purpose for
testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied introducing the out-of-court statement is to prove the
charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or truth of the facts asserted therein (Estrada v. Desierto,
improper influence or motive; or (c) one of identification supra).
of a person made after perceiving him or her. (Señga) 2. Non-hearsay – This occurs when the purpose for
introducing the statement is not to prove the truth of the
It also includes all assertions where, though derived from facts asserted therein but only the making of the
personal knowledge, the adverse party is not given an statements and are admissible in evidence when the
opportunity to cross-examine (Herrera, 1999). making of the statement is relevant. These are the so-
called independently relevant statements (Herrera,
NOTE: Newspaper clippings are hearsay and of no 1999).
evidentiary value at all whether objected to or not, unless 3. Exceptions to the hearsay rule – Those which are
offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the hearsay but are considered as exceptions to the hearsay
matter asserted (Feria v. CA, G.R. No. 122954, February rule and are therefore admissible.
15, 2000).
Independently relevant statements
Medical certificates cannot be admitted in the absence of These are statements which are relevant independently
the testimony of the physician who examined the of whether they are true or not. They are neither hearsay
complaint for alleged torture wounds. nor an exception to the hearsay rule as the purpose
thereof is not to prove the truth of the declaration or
Affidavits are inadmissible unless the affiants themselves document (Estrada v. Desierto, supra).It merely proves
are placed in the witness stand to testify therefrom. the fact that a statement was made and not the truth of
the fact asserted in the statement.
Statements made through an interpreter
GR: Statements made through an interpreter are Classification of independently relevant statements
considered hearsay if a witness is offered to testify to the 1. Those statements which are the very facts in issue;
statements of another person, spoken in a language not 2. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of
understood by him, but translated for him by an the fact in issue. It includes the following:
interpreter, such witness is not qualified, because he
does not speak from personal knowledge. All that he can a. Statements of a person showing his state of mind, that
know as to the testimony is from the interpretation is, his mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill-
thereof which is in fact given by another person. will and other emotions;
XPNs: In cases where the interpreter had been selected: b. Statements of a person which show his physical
1. By common consent of the parties endeavoring to condition, as illness and the like;
converse;
c. Statements of a person from which an inference may
2. By a party against whom the statements of the be made as to the state of mind of another, i.e., the
interpreter where offered in evidence (Principal-Agent knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the
Rule). latter;

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
6. That the statement is complete in itself – “Doctrine of

d. Statements which may identify the date, place and Completeness” (People v. De Joya, G.R. No. 75028,
person in question; and November 8, 1991); and
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness 7. The declarant should have died (if he survives, his
(Ibid.). declaration may be admissible as part of the res gestae)
(Riano, 2013).
Non-human evidence
It is the testimony of a witness as to statements made by Factors in determining whether the declarant is
a non-human declarant (e.g. machines and computers). It conscious of his impending death
does not violate the rule on hearsay, hence not covered 1. The words or statements of the declarant on the same
by the Rule. Machines and animals, unlike humans, lack occasion;
conscious motivation to tell falsehoods. The workings of 2. His conduct at the time the declaration was made; and
the machines can be explained by human witnesses who 3. The serious nature of his wounds as would necessarily
may then be cross-examined (Herrera, 1999). engender a belief on his part that he would not survive
therefrom (Regalado, 2008).
Exceptions to the Hearsay Evidence Rule
It is not correct to say that the exceptions to the hearsay NOTE: The dying declaration of the deceased is not
rule are not hearsay. They are hearsay evidence but they admissible as an ante-mortem declaration when the
are deemed admissible by reason of necessity and deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or
trustworthiness (Riano, 2013). not. It may, however, be admitted as part of res gestae
when it is made immediate after a startling occurrence.
Reason for admissibility
They are admissible by reason of relevancy, necessity and Assailing a dying declaration
trustworthiness (Estrada vs. Desierto, supra). The declaration may be attacked in the same manner as
one would do a testimony in open court. The declarant
1. Dying Declaration himself may be impeached through the normal methods
provided for under the rules.
The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in
any case wherein his or her death is the subject of 2. Statement of Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind
inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death (Sec. 37, Rule 130 In an action against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against a person
These are ante mortem statements made by a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the
after the mortal wound has been inflicted under the estate of such deceased person or against such person of
belief that the death is certain, stating the fact unsound mind, where a party or assignor of a party or a
concerning the cause of and the circumstances person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a
surrounding the attack (Herrera, 1999). matter of fact occurring before the death of the deceased
person or before the person became of unsound mind,
NOTE: Where the elements of both a dying declaration any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound
and a statement as part of the res gestae are present, the mind, may be received in evidence if the statement was
statement may be admitted as a dying declaration and at made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or
the same time as part of res gestae. the person of unsound mind at a time when the matter
had been recently perceived by him or her and while his
Requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration or her recollection was clear. Such statement, however, is
1. The declaration is one made by a dying person; inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its
2. The declaration was made by said dying person under lack of trustworthiness. (Sec. 39, Rule 130).
a consciousness of his or her impending death;
3. The declaration refers to the cause and circumstances SEÑGA COMMENTS:
surrounding the death of the declarant and not of anyone The amended section 39 may be compared with the old
else; Section 23, which deal with similar subject matters
4. The declaration is offered in a case wherein the
declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry The original Section 23 deals with a similar matter as that
5. The declarant is competent as a witness had he contained under the amended Section 39.
survived (Ibid.);
Dead Man’s Statute

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
The old Section 23 was also known as the “Dead Man's The following cannot testify as to any matter of fact
Statute”, which provides that if one party to the alleged occurring before the death of such deceased person or
transaction is precluded from testifying by death, before such person became of unsound mind:
insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is 1. Parties or assignors of parties to a case or persons in
not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own whose behalf a case is prosecuted;
uncontradicted and unexplained account of the 2. Against an executor or administrator or other
transaction. representative of a deceased person, or against a person
of unsound mind
REQUISITES:
But before this rule can be successfully invoked to bar the Waiver of the protection of the Dead Man’s Statute
introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that: The protection may be waived by:
1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case 1. Failing to object to the testimony;
or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. 2. Cross-examining the witness on the prohibited
2. The action is against an executor or administrator or testimony; or
other representative of a deceased person or a person of 3. Offering evidence to rebut the testimony (Riano,
unsound mind; 2013).
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand
against the estate of such deceased person or against Cases not covered by the Dead Man’s Statute
person of unsound mind; 1. The rule has no application to mere witnesses) who are
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact which neither parties to the case, their assignors, nor persons in
occurred before the death of such deceased person or whose behalf the case is prosecuted, nor to a nominal
before such person became of unsound mind. (Sunga- party, nor to officers and stockholders of a plaintiff
Chan v. Chua, G.R. No. 143340, August 15, 2001) corporation (Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of
Manila, 84 Phil. 330);
The presence of the foregoing requisites under the old
Section 23 renders the testimonial evidence inadmissible. NOTE: The rule is exclusive and cannot be construed to
extend its scope by implication so as to disqualify persons
Applicability of Dead Man’s Statute not mentioned therein. Mere witnesses who are not
Under the new rule, with the foregoing requisites, any included in the above enumeration are not prohibited
statement of the deceased or the person of unsound from testifying as to a conversation or transaction
mind, may now be received in evidence, provided that: between the deceased and a third person, if he took no
1. The statement was made upon the personal active part therein. (Sanson v. CA, G.R. No. 127745, April
knowledge of the deceased or the person of unsound 22, 2003).
mind;
2. It was made at a time when the matter had been 2. When a counterclaim is set up by the administrator [or
recently perceived by him or her, and while his or her executor or representatives] of the estate, the case is
recollection was clear. removed from the operation of the dead man’s statute.
When it is the executor or administrator or
Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under representatives of the estates that sets up the
circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness. counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein respondent, may testify
(Señga) to occurrences before the death of the deceased to
defeat the counterclaim (Sunga-Chan v. Chua, G.R. No.
This rule “applies only to a civil case or a special 143340, August 15, 2001);
proceeding over the estate of a deceased or insane
person” 3. The adverse party is competent to testify to
transactions or communications with the deceased or
Who may invoke the protection of the Dead Man’s incompetent person which were made with an agent of
Statute such person in cases in which the agent is still alive and
The persons entitled to invoke the protection of the dead competent to testify. But the testimony of the adverse
man’s statute are the executor, administrator and any party must be confined to those transactions or
other representative of a deceased person, when they communications which were had with the agent
are the defendants in a claim against the estate of the (Herrera, 1999, citing Goñi v. CA, G.R. No. L-27434,
deceased. The protection may likewise be invoked by a September 23, 1986);
person of unsound mind in a claim filed against him 4. In land registration cases instituted by the decedent’s
(Riano, 2013). representatives, this prohibition does not apply as the
oppositors are considered defendants and may,

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
therefore, testify against the petitioner. This prohibition accused is not admissible unless corroborating
does not also apply in cadastral cases since there is no circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the
plaintiff or defendant therein (Tongco v. Vianzon, G.R. statement. (Sec. 40, Rule 130).
No. 27498, September 20, 1927);
The new rule adds a second sentence, not present under
5. The disqualification under this rule is waived if the the old rule. It provides that a statement against interest
defendant does not timely object to the admission of tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and
such evidence or testifies on the prohibited matters or offered to exculpate the accused (which is presumably
cross-examines thereon (Tongco v. Vianzon, supra); different from the declarant) is not admissible unless
corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the
6. The rule will not apply where the plaintiff is the trustworthiness of the statement. (Señga)
executor or administrator as representative of the These are ante litem motam statements made by a
deceased or if the plaintiff is the person of unsound mind person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party
(Riano, 2013); to the suit. Such are considered secondary evidence and
admissible only when the declarant is already dead or
7. Where the testimony is intended to prove a fraudulent unavailable to testify as a witness and may be admitted
transaction of the deceased, provided such fraud is first against himself or successors-in-interest and against third
established by evidence aliunde (Babao v. Perez, G.R. No. persons.
L-8334, December 28, 1957);
Reason for the admissibility of declaration against
8. Negative testimony, that is, testimony that a fact did interest
not occur during the lifetime of the deceased Necessity, as such declaration, act, or omission is
(Mendezona v. Vda. De Goitia, G.R. No. L-31739, March frequently the only mode of proof available and
11, 1930); trustworthiness, because of the first presumption that
men will neither falsify nor commit mistakes when such
9. Testimony on the present possession by the witness of falsehood or mistake would be prejudicial to their own
a written instrument signed by the deceased, as such fact pecuniary interest, and because of the fact that any
exists even after the decendent’s demise (Regalado, fraudulent motive for making the statement may be
2008); shown.
10. When the defendants, as heirs of the deceased, are Requisites of declaration against interest:
sued in their personal capacity (Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho, 96 1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify – but the
Phil. 622); and inability to testify must be serious.
2. Declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the
11. In an action against a partnership, plaintiff partners declarant;
may testify against a deceased partner (Fortis v. 3. At the time he made said declaration, he was aware
Gutierrez Hermanos, 6 Phil. 100). that the same was contrary to his interest; and
4. Declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such
12. Testimonies as to matters which transpired after the declaration to be true.
death or insanity of the person. (Riano, 2009 p.263)
Declaration against interest vs. Admission against
13. Testimonies beneficial to the estate of the deceased interest
or person of unsound mind. (Riano, 2009 p. 263)
Declaration against Admission against Interest
3. Declaration Against Interest Interest
The declaration made by a person deceased or unable to Made by a person who is Made by a party to a
testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact neither a party nor in litigation or by one in
asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made privity with a party to privity with or identified in
so far contrary to the declarant's own interest that a the suit is a secondary legal interest with such
reasonable person in his or her position would not have evidence. party.
made the declaration unless he or she believed it to be Secondary evidence is Primary evidence is
true, may be received in evidence against himself or admissible only when admissible whether or not
herself or his or her successors in interest and against the declarant is already the declarant is available
third persons. A statement tending to expose the dead or unavailable to as a witness.
declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the testify as a witness.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Exception to the hearsay Covered by the hearsay 3. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose
rule rule pedigree is in question, either by by birth, adoption, or
marriage or, in the absence thereof, with whose family he
Must have been made May be made at any time, or she was so intimately associated as to be likely to have
ante litem motam, i.e. before or during the trial. accurate information concerning his or her pedigree;
before the controversy 4. The declaration must be made ante litem motam or
May be admitted against Used only against the before the controversy occurred; and
himself or successors-in- party admitting 5. The relationship between the declarant and the person
interest and against whose pedigree is in question must be shown by
third persons evidence other than such act or declaration.
4. Act or Declaration about Pedigree NOTE: Such declarations are natural expressions of
persons who must know the truth. Although hearsay, it is
The act or declaration of a person deceased or unable to
testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person best that the nature of the case admits and because
greater evil might arise from the rejection of such proof
related to him or her by birth, adoption, or marriage or, in
than from its admission.
the absence thereof, with whose family he or she was so
intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate
information concerning his or her pedigree, may be 5. Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree
received in evidence where it occurred before the The reputation or tradition exisiting in a family previous
controversy, and the relationship between the two to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one
persons is shown by evidence other than such act or of its members, may be received in evidence if the
declaration. (Sec. 41, Rule 130). witness testifying thereon be also a member of the
family, either by consanguinity, affinity, or adoption.
Pedigree Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts,
The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family engraving on rings, family portraits and the like, may be
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and received as evidence of pedigree (Sec. 42, Rule 130).
the places where these facts occurred, and the names of
the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history The declarant is the witness himself and a member of the
intimately connected with pedigree. (Ibid.). family. The witness is the one to whom the fact relates, it
is not necessary for him to establish by independent
NOTE: The relationship between the declarant and the evidence his relationship to the family.
person subject of the inquiry must be legitimate unless
the issue is the legitimacy itself. Reason for admissibility
There is no provision as to the extent of degree of These are admissible by reason of necessity since
relationship. tradition is often the sole method by which proof of
matters of pedigree can be obtained.
The new rule includes relationship by adoption and adds
that in the absence of those mentioned under the rule, Requisites for the admissibility of family reputation or
with whose family he or she was so intimately associated tradition regarding pedigree
as to be likely to have accurate information concerning 1. There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any
his or her pedigree. (Señga) member of the family;
2. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the
Reason for admissibility person concerned existed previous to the controversy;
Necessity and trustworthiness. Necessity since the facts 3. The statement is about the reputation or tradition of
about pedigree is usually those which occurred many the family in respect to the pedigree of any member of
years before the trial and known only to a few persons. the family; and
Trustworthiness since these are matters which members 4. The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition
of a family are presumed to be interested in ascertaining regarding pedigree of the person concerned must be a
the truth. member of the family of said person either by
consanguinity, affinity, or adoption. (Sec. 42, Rule 130).
Requisites for the admissibility of acts or declarations
about pedigree How to establish family reputation or tradition with
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify; respect to one’s pedigree
2. The pedigree should be in issue

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
1. Through testimony in open court of a witness who from a partial or qualified one, although it need not be
must be a member of the family either by consanguinity unanimous (Regalado, 2008).
or affinity;
2. Through entries in: NOTE: As a general rule, the reputation of a person
a. Family bible; should be that existing in the place of his residence; it
b. Family books or charts; may also be that existing in the place where he is best
c. Engravings on rings; or known (Ibid.). Character is what a man is, and reputation
d. Family portraits and the like. is what he is supposed to be in what people say he is.
Sec. 41 (act or declaration about pedigree) vs. Sec. 42 Reasons for admissibility
(family reputation regarding pedigree) 1. Necessity arising from the inherent difficulty of
obtaining any other evidence than that in the nature of
Declaration about Section 42 common reputation; and
pedigree Family reputation or
tradition regarding 2. Trustworthiness of the evidence arising from:
pedigree a. The supposition that the public is conversant with the
Act or declaration about Family reputation or subject to be proved because of their general interest
pedigree. tradition regarding therein; and
pedigree. b. The fact that the falsity or error of such evidence could
Witness need not be a Witness is a member of be exposed or corrected by other testimony since the
member of the family. the family. public are interested in the same (Francisco, 1992).
Relation of the declarant The witness is the one to
and the person subject whom the fact relates, it is Requisites for admissibility of common reputation
of the inquiry must be not necessary for him to 1. The facts must be related as to boundaries of or
established by establish by independent customs affecting lands in the community and reputation
independent evidence. evidence his relationship as to events of general history important to the
to the family (Francisco, community or respecting marriage or moral character;
1992). 2. The reputation must have been one formed among a
Testimony is about what Testimony is about family class of persons who were in a position to have some
the declarant has said reputation or tradition sources of information and to contribute intelligently to
concerning the pedigree covering matters of the formation of the opinion; and
of the family. pedigree. 3. The common reputation must have been existing
previous to the controversy.
6. Common Reputation
Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, Matters that may be established by common reputation
as to boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the 1. Matters of public and general interest more than 30
community and reputation as to events of general history years old;
important to the community, or respecting marriage or 2. Matters respecting marriage or moral character and
moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments related facts; and
and inscriptions in public places may be received as 3. Individual moral character.
evidence of common reputation. (Sec. 43, Rule 130).
NOTE: Marriage, if not proven through an act or
The old rule speaks of common reputation existing declaration about pedigree may be proven through
previous to the controversy as to: (1) facts of public or common reputation (Trinidad v. CA, G.R. 118904, April 20,
general interest more than thirty years old; or (2) 1998).
respecting marriage or moral character.
Difference between matters of public interest and
The new rule replaced the first item with boundaries of matters of general interest
or customs affecting lands in the community and Matters of public interest involve those which are
reputation as to events of general history important to common to all citizen of the state or to the entire people
the community. (Señga) while matters of general interest involve those which are
common only to a single community or to a considerable
It is the definite opinion of the community in which the number of persons forming part of the community.
fact to be proved is known or exists. It means the general 7. Part of the Res Gestae
or substantially undivided reputation, as distinguished Res Gestae

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Statements made by a person while a startling concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or attending circumstances;
subsequent thereto, under the stress of excitement 5. The statements must be made under the stress of
caused by the occurrence with respect to the excitement caused by the occurrence. (Rule 130, Sec 44)
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part
of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an NOTE: The reason for the admissibility of spontaneous
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal statements is trustworthiness and necessity, because
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. statements are made instinctively, and because said
(Sec. 44, Rule 130). natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing
than the testimony of the same person on the stand.
It is a Latin phrase which literally means "things done." As
an exception to the hearsay rule, it refers to those Verbal Acts
exclamations and statements by either the participants, 1. The principal act to be characterized must be
victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, equivocal;
during or immediately after the commission of the crime, 2. The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
when the circumstances are such that the statements 3. The statement must accompany the equivocal act; and
were made as spontaneous reactions or utterances 4. The statement gives a legal significance to the
inspired by the excitement of the occasion, and there was equivocal act (Ibid).
no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and
fabricate a false statement (Capila v. People, G.R. No. NOTE: The reason for the admissibility of verbal acts is
146161, July 17, 2006). that the motive, character and object of an act are
frequently indicated by what was said by the person
Reason for admissibility engaged in the act.
The reason for the rule is human experience. It has been
shown that under certain external circumstances of Part of Res Gestae vs. Dying Declaration
physical or mental shock, the state of nervous excitement
which occurs in a spectator may produce a spontaneous Part of Res Gestae Dying Declaration
and sincere response to the actual sensations and It is the event itself A sense of impending
perceptions produced by the external shock. which speaks death takes the place of an
oath and the law regards
As the statements or utterances are made under the the declarant as testifying
immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses, May be made by the Can be made by the victim
rather than reason and reflection, such statements or killer after or during the only.
utterances may be taken as expressing the real belief of killing or that of a third
the speaker as to the facts he just observed. The person.
spontaneity of the declaration is such that the declaration May precede, or Confined to matters
itself may be regarded as the event speaking through the accompany or follow the occurring after the
declarant rather than the declarant speaking for himself. principal act. homicidal act.
Justification is the Justification is the
The new rule makes clear that the statements made must spontaneity of the trustworthiness, being
be under the stress of excitement caused by the statement. given by the person who
occurrence, although even without such revision, this was aware of his
qualification was recognized under the old rule. (Señga) impending death.
Requisites for the admissibility of res gestae Two Types of Res Gestae
Spontaneous Statements Verbal Acts Spontaneous Statements

1. That there is a startling event or occurrence taking Utterances which Statements or
place; accompany some act or exclamations made
2. A statement was made, while the event is taking place conduct to which it is immediately after some
or immediately prior to or subsequent thereto; desired to give legal exciting occasion by a
3. The statement was made before the declarant had effect; When such act participant or spectator
time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and has intrinsically no and asserting the
4. The statement relates to the circumstances of the definite legal circumstances of that
startling event or occurrence or that the statements must significance, or only an occasion as it is observed

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
ambiguous one, its legal by him. 4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or
purport or tenor may be in the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual,
ascertained by moral or religious; and
considering the words 5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
accompanying it, and course of business or duty (Canque v. Court of Appeals,
these utterances thus G.R. No. 96202, 13 April 1999)
enter merely as verbal
part of the act. Under the amended rule, it is no longer required that the
The res gestae is the The res gestae is the person who made the entry must be dead, outside the
equivocal act. startling occurrence. country or unable to testify.
Verbal act must be May be prior to,
contemporaneous with simultaneous with, or Also, under the revised rule, the entries are not only just
or must accompany the subsequent to the startling made at or near the time of the transactions to which
equivocal act to be occurrence. they refer. Now, they refer to memorandum, report,
admissible. record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions,
opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing, typing,
Factors to determine whether statements offered in electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the
evidence as part of the res gestae have been made time of or from transmission or supply of information.
spontaneously
1. The time that has elapsed between the occurrence of Similar to the old rule, it is made by a person with
the act and transaction and the making of the statement; knowledge thereof.
2. The place where the statement was made;
3. The condition of the declarant when he made the It must also be kept in the regular course or conduct of a
statement; business activity, and such was the regular practice to
4. The presence or absence of intervening occurrences make the memorandum, report, record, or data
between the occurrence and the statement relative compilation by electronic, optical or similar means.
thereto; and
5. The nature and circumstances of the statement itself All of the foregoing must be shown by the testimony of
(Francisco, 1992). the custodian or other qualified witnesses, to be
excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
8. Records of Regularly Conducted Business Activity
A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of Reason for admissibility
acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by What a man has actually done and committed to writing
writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar means when under obligation to do the act, it being in the
at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of course of the business he has undertaken, and he being
information by a person with knowledge thereof, and dead, there seems to be no danger in submitting to the
kept in the regular course or conduct of a business consideration of the court.
activity, and such was the regular practice to make the
NOTE: Reliability is furnished by the fact that regularly
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by
kept records typically have a high degree of accuracy. The
electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are
shown by the testimony of the custodian or other law does not fix any precise moment when the entries
qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay should be made. It is sufficient if the entry was made
within a reasonable period of time so that it may appear
evidence. (Sec. 45, Rule 130).
to have taken place while the memory of the facts was
SEÑGA NOTE: unimpaired.
The old rule under Section 43 requires the following
NOTE: The law does not fix any precise moment when
requisites to be present:
the entries should be made as long as the entry was
1. The person who made the entry must be dead, outside
made within a reasonable period of time so that it may
the country or unable to testify;
appear to have taken place while the memory of the facts
2. The entries were made at or near the time of the
was unimpaired.
transactions to which they refer;
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated
Proof of regularity of the entries
in the entries;
It may be proved by the form in which they appear as
entries in the books/ledgers. There is no need to present
for testimony the clerk who manually made the entries.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
The person who supervised such clerk is competent to Business

testify that: The entrant, if a private It is sufficient that the
1. The account was prepared under his supervision; and individual, must have entrant made the entries
2. That the entries were regularly entered in the ordinary acted pursuant to a pursuant to a duty be it
course of business (Regalado, 2008). specific legal duty legal, contractual, moral or
specially enjoined by religious.
NOTE: Baptismal certificates are admissible as entries in law.
the ordinary course of business, even absent the Entrant need not be Entrant must be dead or
testimony of the officiating priest or official recorder dead or unable to testify unable to testify.
because it is one of its transactions in the exercise of Need not be Needs authentication
ecclesiastical duties and recorded in the book of the authenticated.
Church during the course of its business (Heirs of Conti v. Exception to the best Best Evidence Rule applies
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118464, December 21, 1998.) evidence rule
(irremovability of public
9. Entries in Official Records records)
Entries in official records made in the performance of his
or her duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a 10. Commercial Lists and the Like
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons
law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register,
(Sec. 46, Rule 130). periodical, or other published compilation is admissible
as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so
Official record stated if that compilation is published for use by persons
The original document that is legally recognized and thus engaged in that occupation and is generally used and
ensuring the quality of a fact when it is established. It relied upon by them therein. (Sec. 47, Rule 130).
may be a:
1. Register; Reason for admissibility
2. Cash book; or Because of the usual inaccessibility of the persons
3. An official return or certificate (Regalado, 2008). responsible for the compilation of matters contained in
such lists, it would cause the court inconvenience if it
Reason for admissibility would issue summons to these numerous individuals.
1. Necessity - due to the impossibility of requiring the Persons responsible for such lists have no motive to
official’s attendance as a witness to testify to the deceive and they further realize that unless the list,
innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his register or periodical or other published compilation are
duty; prepared with care and accuracy, their work will have no
2. Trustworthiness – there is a presumption of regularity commercial or probative value.
in the performance of official duty.
Requisites for the admissibility of commercial lists and
Requisites for the admissibility of entries in official the like
records 1. Statements of matters of interest to persons engaged
1. Entries were made by a public officer in the in an occupation;
performance of his duties or by a person in the 2. Statements must be contained in a list, register,
performance of a duty especially enjoined by law; periodical, or other published compilation;
3. Compilation is published for use by persons engaged in
2. Entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by that occupation; and
him or such facts were acquired by him from reports 4. Such is generally relied upon by them.
made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same;
and Examples of commercial lists
1. Trade journals reporting current prices and other
3. Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in market data
the official records (Ibid.). 2. Mortality tables compiled for life insurance;
3. Abstracts of title compiled by reputable title examining
Entries in official record vs. Entries in the course of institutions or individuals; or
business Entries 4. Business directories, animal pedigree registers, and the
like (Francisco, 1992).
Entries in Official Record Entries in the Course of

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
11. Learned Treaties same parties and the same subject matter does not fall
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject under the exception. What is considered as a testimony
of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to in the former trial is the “transcript of the witness’
prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court testimony.”
takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject
testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, Grounds which make a witness unable to testify in a
periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his or her subsequent case
profession or calling as expert in the subject (Sec. 48, 1. Death;
Rule 130). 2. Insanity or mental incapacity or the former witness’
loss of memory through old age or disease;
Reason for admissibility 3. Physical disability by reason of sickness or advanced
The learned writers have no motive to misrepresent due age;
to the awareness that his work will be carefully 4. The fact that the witness has been kept away by
scrutinized by the learned members of the profession and contrivance of the opposite party; or
that he shall be subject to criticisms and be ultimately 5. The fact that after diligent search the former witness
rejected as an authority on the subject matter if his cannot be found (Francisco, 1992).
conclusions are found to be invalid.
Proof of former testimony
Requisites for the admissibility of learned treatises 1. If reduced to writing, such writing is the primary
1. When the court can take judicial notice of them; or evidence thereof and should be used;
2. When an expert witness testifies that the author of 2. The stenographic notes or a copy thereof.
such is recognized as expert in that profession (Sec. 46,
Rule 130). NOTE: The judge’s notes are not evidence of what the
witness said, and, as a rule, they can be used only to
12. Testimony or Deposition at a Former Trial refresh the memory of a witness.
The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or out
of the Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, be 12. Residual Exception
found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable to A statement not specifically covered by any of the
testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial
administrative, involving the same parties and subject guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court
matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse determines that (a) the statement is offered as evidence
party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him or of a material fact; (b) the statement is more probative on
her. (Sec. 49, Rule 130). the point for which it is offered than any other evidence
which the proponent can procure through reasonable
The new rule adds the deposition of a witness out of the efforts; and (c) the general purposes of these rules and
Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, be found the interests of justice will be best served by admission of
therein or is unavailable, in addition to one who is unable the statement into evidence. However, a statement may
to testify. (Señga) not be admitted under this exception unless the
proponent makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently
Requisites for admissibility in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in the
1. The witness evidence is dead or out of the Philippines case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse
or who cannot, with due diligence, be found therein, or is party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the
unavailable or otherwise unable to testify; proponent's intention to offer the statement and the
2. The testimony or deposition was given in a former case particulars of it, including the name and address of the
or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the declarant. (Sec. 50, Rule 130)
same parties or those representing the same interests;
3. The former case involved the same subject as that in This is a new insertion. The residual exception to the
the present case, although on different causes of action; hearsay rule provides that any statement not covered by
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial the enumerated exceptions in the previous sections but
is the same issue involved in the present case; and having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine trustworthiness, shall be admissible if the court
the witness in the former case. determines that:
(a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
NOTE: What may be admitted as evidence is testimony or (b) the statement is more probative on the point for
deposition. A decision in a previous case involving the which it is offered than any other evidence which the

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and c. Presentation of authorities or standards upon
(c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests which his opinion is based.
of justice will be best served by admission of the
statement into evidence. 1. The court is not however, bound by the opinion of an
expert i.e. a handwriting expert.
It appears that all three should be present to warrant the
application of the residual exception rule. 2. Expert opinion evidence is to be considered or
weighed by the court like any other testimony, in the light
The new rule adds that a statement may not be admitted of its own general knowledge and experience upon the
under the foregoing exception unless the proponent subject of inquiry.
makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance
of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in the case of a 3. The probative force of the testimony of an expert does
trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a not lie in a mere statement of his theory or opinion, but
fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's rather in the aid that he can render to the courts in
intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, showing the facts which serve as a basis for his criterion
including the name and address of the declarant. (Señga) and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is
founded.
OPINION RULE
4. The resort to handwriting experts, although helpful in
GENERAL RULE; Not Admissible the examination of forged documents because of the
The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as technical procedure involved in analyzing them, is not
indicated in sections 52 & 53 of Rule 130. (Sec. 51, Rule mandatory or indispensable to the examination or
130) comparison of handwriting, and a finding of forgery does
not entirely depend upon the testimony of these experts.
Ratio: This is because when a witness testifies, a witness
does so with respect to facts personally observed by him 5. Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. When
and it is for the court to draw conclusions from the facts faced with conflicting expert opinions, courts give weight
testified to. and credence to that which is more complete, thorough
and scientific.
6. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the
EXCEPTIONS; When Admissible
testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge
must conduct an examination of the questioned
Opinion of Expert Witness signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special to its authority
knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, which
he or she is shown to possess, may be received in 7. Dra. dela Llana’s medical opinion cannot be given
evidence. (Sec. 52, Rule 130) probative value for the reason that she was not
presented as an expert witness. As an ordinary witness,
The new rule adds “education” not present under the old she was not competent to testify on the nature, and the
rule. cause and effects of whiplash injury. (Dela Llana vs.
Biong) Hence, an expert witness’ opinion to be given
Expert evidence is admissible only if the probative value must be presented in court as an expert
a. matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise; witness, otherwise even if the subject of inquiry by the
and court calls for his/her expertise or special skill and he/she
b. the witness has been qualified is an expert. is qualified, the same will not be given weight.
Who is an Expert Witness Opinion of Ordinary Witness

No definite standard of determining the degree of skill or When the opinion is that of a witness who is not an
knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify expert (ordinary witness) provided that the proper basis
as an expert; of the opinion is given and the subject of the opinion is
any of the following matters.
It is sufficient that the following factors be present;
a. Training and education (a) The identity of a person about whom he or she has
b. Particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of adequate knowledge;
the case and

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
(b) The handwriting of the person of which he or she has the first rule. The meaning of the provisions are the
sufficient familiarity; (whether ordinary/expert witness) same, although rephrased differently. (Señga)
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is The rule likewise discourages the presentation of the so
sufficiently acquainted; (whether ordinary/expert called “propensity evidence” (evidence that one acts in
witness) and accordance with one’s character)
(d) His or her impressions on the emotion, behavior, Evidence of good moral character of the accused
condition or appearance of a person. (Section 53, Rule The offering of evidence of good moral character is a
130, Rules of Court). privilege of the accused and the prosecution cannot
comment on his failure to produce such evidence.
(e) On ordinary matters known to all men of common
perception, such as the value of ordinary household The general rule against propensity evidence does not
articles. (Regalado) apply to the accused who is allowed to offer evidence of
his good moral character. But only those moral traits
CHARACTER EVIDENCE involved in the offense charged that are provable, as long
Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which as it is germane to the issue.
belong to and distinguish an individual person.
He may not however prove his character by evidence of
Reputation is an attribute which others believe one to specific instances of good conduct.
possess.
The prosecution may not prove the bad moral character
GR: — Evidence of a person's character or a trait of of the accused except only in rebuttal and when such
character is not admissible for the purpose of proving evidence is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. offense charged.
(Sec.54, Rule 130)
Evidence of character of the Offended Party
The new rule adds a first paragraph. It provides the The good or bad moral character of the offended party
general rule that Evidence of a person's character or a maybe proved by the accused if it tends to establish in
trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
proving action in conformity therewith on a particular the offense charged.
occasion. This general rule is subject to the exceptions as
provided under the old and new sections. (Señga) This only applies to criminal cases and not administrative
offenses.
Character or reputation is regarded as legally irrelevant in
determining a controversy because the evidence of a Character evidence must be limited to the traits and
person’s character or trait is not admissible to prove that characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.
a person acted in conformity with such character in a
particular occasion. Moral character of the victim not material in rape cases.
The accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the
Character Evidence in Criminal Cases testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing and
In Criminal Cases: consistent with human nature.
(1) The character of the offended party may be proved if
it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the Character Evidence in Civil Cases
probability or improbability of the offense charged. In a civil case, evidence of the moral character of a party
(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of
character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in the character involved in the case. (Ibid.)
offense charged. However, the prosecution may not
prove his or her bad moral character unless on rebuttal. Evidence of good character of a Witness
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
The revised rule rearranges the numbering where the
admissible until such character has been impeached.
first and second items under the old rule are joined
together under item 2 of the new rule and the third item
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of
under the old rule is renumbered to the first item under
character of a person is admissible, proof may be made
by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable own evidence to counteract whatever positive impression
into relevant specific instances of conduct. which the evidence of the other party may have been
created in the mind of court, this duty is called the
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a burden of coming forward, or burden of evidence. (Riano,
person is an essential element of a charge, claim or page 54)
defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of
that person's conduct. Burden of Proof v. Burden of Evidence
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence

NOTES: Duty of a party to Duty of a party to present
It is an error for counsel to offer evidence of the good present evidence to evidence sufficient to
character of his witness who is presented in court for the establish his or her claim establish or rebut a fact in
first time since he could not have been previously or evidence by the issue to establish a prima
impeached. amount of evidence facie case.
required by law.
The old and new provisions under paragraph (c) are Does not shift and The burden of going
essentially the same. The old rule mentions Section 14, remains throughout the forward with the evidence
Rule 132, while the new rule reproduces said provision entire case exactly may shift from party to
under paragraph (c). The new rule also makes clear that where the pleadings party as the exigencies of
the exception under this paragraph applies to criminal originally placed it. the trial require
and civil cases. Generally determined by Generally determined by
the pleadings filed by the developments of the
The last 2 paragraphs are new insertions. It appears that the party trial, or by the provisions
the character evidence may be given in the form of an of substantive law or
opinion, which means that this is another exception to procedural rules which
the general rule on the inadmissibility of opinion. may relieve the party from
presenting evidence on the
The last paragraph explains how character, when an facts alleged.
essential element of a charge, claim or defense, may be
proven, i.e., by specific instances of that person's 3. Prima facie evidence – evidence which, if unexplained
conduct. (Señga) or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain the proposition
it supports or to establish the facts.
IV. BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE, AND
PRESUMPTIONS Burden of proof in;
(Rule 131) Criminal cases – lies in the prosecution
A negative fact alleged by the prosecution need not be
A. Definitions proved unless it is an essential ingredient of the offense
1. Burden of Proof- Burden of proof is the duty of a party charged. (Domondon, Page 113)
to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of When burden of proof is on the accused; once an
evidence required by law. Burden of proof never shifts. accused for murder or homicide admitted his infliction of
(Sec. 1) the fatal injuries on the deceased, he assumed the
burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing
2. Burden of Evidence – Burden of evidence is the duty of evidence the justifying circumstances that would avoid
a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or his criminal liability. (People v. Fontanilla)
rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.
Burden of evidence may shift from one party to the other Civil cases – lies in the party who substantially asserts the
in the course of the proceedings, depending on the affirmative allegations.
exigencies of the case. (Ibid.)
Any other proceedings – lies in the party who would be
The burden of coming forward with the evidence- as the defeated if no evidence were given on either side
trial progress one party may have presented an evidence The Burden of Proof lies with the “party who alleges the
that weighs heavily in his favor and sufficient to convince existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution
the court of the justness of his claim. If this occurs, the or defense of an action” and may be determined by the
other party has the burden to come forward with his allegation in the pleadings.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
the decision should be against the party with the burden

Such burden lies on the defendant if he alleges an of proof.
affirmative defense which is not a denial of an essential
ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of action. B. Presumptions: Conclusive and Disputable
Presumption is the assumption of facts resulting from
Infringement cases – rests on the plaintiff, but when the rule of law.
plaintiff introduces the patent evidence, and the same is
in due form, there is created a prima facie presumption Presumption in law is an inference as to the existence of
of its correctness and validity, the burden of going a fact not actually known, arising from its usual
forward (burden of evidence) then shifts to the connection with another which is known.
defendant to overcome the legal presumption.
Classes of Presumption
Labor cases–the burden of proving the payment of 1. Presumption of fact (hominis) – is a deduction which
monetary claims rests on the employer. reason draws from facts proved without an express
direction to the effect
Termination cases – rests upon the employer to show
that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause. 2. Presumption of law (juris) – divided into conclusive
and disputable presumptions as provided by the ROC
Medical Negligence cases – complainant has the burden and other laws
of establishing breach of duty on the part of the doctors.
Kinds of Legal Presumptions
Eminent domain cases – the local government that seeks 1. Conclusive Presumptions (imperative presumptions;
to expropriate private property has the burden of proving absolute presumptions; presumptions juris et de
that the elements have been complied with. jure)
- are presumptions which always hold as true and
Insurance cases – the insured’s beneficiary must prove cannot be overcome by evidence to the contrary.
that the cause of death was due to the covered peril.
2. Disputable Presumptions (prima facie presumptions;
International law- the party who wants a foreign law to debatable presumptions; rebuttable presumptions)
be applied must prove such foreign law. (Riano, page 52) - are presumptions of law which always holds true only as
Payment – the party who alleges to have made such long as they are not overcome by competent evidence to
payment. the contrary.
Foreclosure Proceedings – the mortgagor, in order to Inference vs. Presumption

prove that the foreclosure proceedings were not validly
conducted. Inference Presumption
A factual conclusion Is a rule of law directing
Bail Hearing – the prosecution, in order to prove that that can rationally be that if a party proves
evidence of guilt is strong, for offenses punishable by drawn from the other certain facts (basic facts) at
Death, RP, or life imprisonment. (Rule 114, Sec. 8, ROC) facts the trial, the fact finder
must also accept an
Competency Test of Child Witness – the party seeking a additional fact (presumed
competency test, in order to prove the necessity of fact) as proven unless
competency examination. (Sec. 6, CWER) sufficient evidence is
introduced tending to
Test in Determining Burden of Proof rebut the presumed fact.
Ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no Need not have a legal Has a definite legal effect;
evidence competent to show that facts averred as the effect – not mandated mandatory
basis for the relief he seeks to obtain. (Aznar Brothers by the law
Realty v. Aying)
Effect of Presumptions
EQUIPOSE RULE or EQUIPONDERANCE DOCTRINE – One need not to introduce evidence to prove the fact for
Where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or a presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed.
there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates,
C. Conclusive Presumptions

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Estoppel – is the preclusion in law, which prevents a man such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national
from alleging or denying a fact, in consequence of which security; and the yeas and nays on any question
his own previous act, allegation or denial of a contrary shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members
tenor. present, be entered in the Journal
Estoppel v. Waiver Each House shall also keep a Record of its

proceedings.
Estoppel Waiver The Journal is regarded as conclusive with respect to
Equitable estoppel may Voluntary and intentional matters that are required by the Constitution to be
arise, in the absence of abandonment or recorded therein. With respect to other matters, in
any intention on the part relinquishment of a known the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Journals
of the person estopped right. It must be supported have also been accorded conclusive effect.
to relinquish or change by an agreement founded
4. Knowledge of the Law –This knowledge is presumed
any existing right, and it upon a valid consideration.
and its ignorance is not a defense for its violation.
need not be supported
by any consideration,
Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
agreement, or legal
therewith. (NCC Art. 3)
obligation
5. Conclusiveness of Judgment – The judgment or
Instances of Conclusive Presumptions:
order of the court when declared by the court to be
conclusive.
1. Estoppel in pais - Whenever a party has, by his or
her own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally
Presumption in case of Foreign Judgments:
and deliberately led another to believe a particular
In case of judgment or final order upon a specific thing,
thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she
the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
the thing. (Sec. 48, Rule 39)
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it
Effects of Judgment or Final Order: (Rule 39, Sec. 47)
The fact which the party in estoppel has represented
to be true is conclusively presumed as against him to
be true and he is not permitted to introduce
evidence to the contrary.
2. Estoppel against Tenant - The tenant is not

permitted to deny the title of his or her landlord at
the time of the commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them.
NOTE: If the title asserted is one that is alleged to

have been acquired subsequent to the
commencement of that relation, the presumption
will not apply.
If there was a change in the nature of the title of the

landlord during the substinence of the lease, then
the conclusive presumption does not apply. (e.g. title
has expired/conveyed to another/ defeated by a
paramount title)
3. Correctness of Legislative Journals -The keeping of

the Journal is required by the Constitution, Art. VI,
Sec. 16(4) provides:
Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings,

and from time to time publish the same, excepting

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Judgments/Final Orders Effect human conduct, and declaring what evidence shall be
With respect to the Conclusive upon the title sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence.
probate of a will, or to the thing, the will or
administration of the administration, or the The legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of
estate of the deceased condition, status, or guilt provided there be a rational connection between
person, or with respect relationship of the person the facts proved and theultimate fact presumed (People
to the personal, political, vs. Mingoa).
or legal condition, or However, the probate of a
status of a particular will or grant of letters of c. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of
person or his administration shall only his or her voluntary act;
relationship to another be prima facieevidence of d. That a person takes ordinary care of his or her
the death of the testator concerns;
or intestate. e. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse
With respect to matters Conclusive between the if produced;
directly adjudged or any parties and their
other matter that could successors in interestby Requisites for application of presumption in suppression
have been raised in title subsequent to the of evidence:
relation thereto commencement of the a. The evidence is material
action or special b. The party had the opportunity to produce the same
proceeding, litigating for c. The evidence is available only to said party.
the same thing and under
the same title in the same Instances when such presumption will not apply:
capacity a. Suppression is not willful
Any other litigation Only that deemed to have b. Evidence withheld is merely corroborative
between the same been adjudged in a former c. Evidence is at the disposal of the party
parties or their judgment or final order d. The suppression is an exercise of privilege
successors in interest which appears upon its
face to have been so f. That money paid by one to another was due to the
adjudged, or which was latter;
actually and necessarily g. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to
included therein or the latter;
necessary thereto. h. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has
D. Disputable Presumptions (Juris Tantum) been paid;
The following presumptions are satisfactory if i. That prior rents or installments had been paid when
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome a receipt for the later ones is produced;
by other evidence (Sec. 3, Rule 131): j. That a person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and
a. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
All person charged with a criminal offense shall have the which a person possesses, or exercises acts of
following rights: ownership over, are owned by him or her;
He shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is The doctrinal rule is that before an inference of guilt
proved. (1987 Consti Art. 3, Sec. 14) arising from possession of recently stolen goods canbe
made, the following basic facts need to be proved bythe
Equipose/Equiponderance Doctrine – When the prosecution, viz.:
circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, the
presumption of innocence must prevail, and the court (1) the crime was actually committed;
must acquit. (2) the crime was committed recently;
(3) the stolen property was found in the possession of the
b. That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful accused; and
intent; (4) the accused is unable to satisfactorily explain his
possession thereof.
There is no constitutional objection to a law providing
that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by For purposes of conclusively proving possession, it is
a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of necessary that

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
(1) the possession must be unexplained by any innocent a. A person on board a vessel lost during a sea
origin; voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has
(2) the possession must be fairly recent; and not been heard of for four years since the loss of
(3) the possession must beexclusive the vessel or aircraft;
b. A member of the armed forces who has taken
k. That a person in possession of an order on himself or part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for
herself for the payment of the money, or the delivery four years;
of anything, has paid the money or delivered the c. A person who has been in danger of death under
thing accordingly; other circumstances and whose existence has not
l. That a person acting in a public office was regularly been known for four years;
appointed or elected to it; d. If a married person has been absent for four
m. That official duty has been regularly performed; consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a
The presumption of regularity exists when there is no well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
deviation from the standard conduct of official duty. already dead.
Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular
in its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of In case of disappearance, where there is danger of
course. death under the circumstances hereinabove
provided, an absence of only two years shall be
n. That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the sufficient for the purpose of contracting a
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful subsequent marriage.
exercise of jurisdiction;
o. That all the matters within an issue raised in a case However, in any case, before marrying again, the
were laid before the court and passed upon by it; spouse present must institute a summary proceeding
and in like manner that all matters within an issue as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for a
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
before the arbitrators and passed upon by them; without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of
p. That private transactions have been fair and regular; the absent spouse.
q. That the ordinary course of business has been
followed; x. That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the
r. That there was a sufficient consideration for a thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or
contract; fact;
s. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed
for a sufficient consideration; y. That things have happened according to the
t. That an endorsement of a negotiable instrument was ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits
made before the instrument was overdue and at the of life;
place where the instrument is dated; z. That persons acting as copartners have entered
u. That a writing is truly dated; into a contract of co-partnership;
v. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received aa. That a man and woman deporting themselves as
in the regular course of the mail; husband and wife have entered into a lawful
w. That after an absence of seven years, it being contract of marriage;
unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he bb. That property acquired by a man and a woman
or she is considered dead for all purposes, except for who are capacitated to marry each other and who
those of succession. live exclusively with each other as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or under a
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the void marriage, has been obtained by their joint
purpose of opening his or her succession until after efforts, work or industry.
an absence of ten years. If he or she disappeared
after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five The presumption that the property is conjugal property
years shall be sufficient in order that his or her may be rebutted only by strong, clear, and convincing
succession may be opened. evidence – there must be strict proof of exclusive
property ownership of one of the spouses, the burden
The following shall be considered dead for all resting upon the party asserting it.
purposes including the division of the estate among cc. That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman
the heirs: who are not capacitated to marry each other and
who have acquired property through their actual

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
joint contribution of money, property or industry, jj. That except for purposes of succession, when two
such contributions and their corresponding shares persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck,
including joint deposits of money and evidences of battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died
credit are equal. first, and there are no particular circumstances from
dd. That if the marriage is terminated and the mother which it can be inferred, the survivorship is
contracted another marriage within three hundred determined from the probabilities resulting from the
days after such termination of the former marriage, strength and age of the sexes, according to the
these rides shall govern in the absence of proof to following rules:
the contrary: 1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the
a. (1) A child born before one hundred eighty (180) older is deemed to have survived;
days after the solemnization of the subsequent 2. If both were above the age of sixty, the younger
marriage is considered to have been conceived is deemed to have survived;
during such marriage, even though it be born 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty,
within the three hundred days after the the former is deemed to have survived;
termination of the former marriage; and 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the
b. A child born after one hundred eighty days sex be different, the male is deemed to have
following the celebration of the subsequent survived; if the sex be the same, the older; and
marriage is considered to have been conceived 5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the
during such marriage, even though it be born other between those ages, the latter is deemed
within the three hundred days after the to have survived.
termination of the former marriage.
Note: kk. That if there is a doubt, as between two or more
There appears to be a typographical error under the first persons who are called to succeed each other, as to
item. The old rule is based on and is exactly the same as which of them died first, whoever alleges the death
Article 168 of the Family Code. Under the old rule and of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the
the Family Code, the child born before 180 days after the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered died at the same time.
to have been born during the former marriage. Under the
new rule, it is considered to have been conceived during Constitutionality of Law Creating Presumptions
such subsequent marriage. The revised rule cannot There is no constitutional objection to a law providing
modify or amend substantive law. Also, the phrase “even that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by
though it be born within 300 days after the termination a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of
of the former marriage” under the first item seems to be human conduct, and declaring what evidence shall be
incorrect since the same first item under paragraph 1 of sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence.
the old rule and the Family Code states instead “provided
it be born within 300 days after the termination of the The legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of
former marriage”. It is respectfully submitted that this guilt provided there be a rational connection between
must be a typographical error. the facts proved and the ultimate facts presumed.
(People vs. Mingoa)
ee. That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as
is usual with things of that nature; Thus prima facie presumption of guilt under Rule 217,
ff. That the law has been obeyed; Revised Penal Code, is valid. (Evidence, Regalado, p. 821)
gg. That a printed or published book, purporting to be
printed or published by public authority, was so Presumption of Constitutionality of Law
printed or published; Every statute is presumed valid. The presumption is that
hh. That a printed or published book, purporting to the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just
contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the law and one which operates no further than may be
country where the book is published, contains necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the
correct reports of such cases; law. Every presumption should be indulged in favor of the
ii. That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to constitutionality and the burden of proof is on the party
convey real property to a particular person has alleging that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of
actually conveyed it to him or her when such the Constitution. (Farias v. The Executive Secretary)
presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such
person or his or her successor in interest; To justify the nullification of the law or its
implementation, there must be a clear and unequivocal,

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
not a doubtful, breach of the Constitution. In case of Negligence of Employer

doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable
unconstitutionality, the Court must sustain legislation not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for
because to invalidate [a law] based on x x x baseless those of persons for whom one is responsible.
supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the
legislature that passed it but also of the executive which Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
approved it. employees and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are
This presumption of constitutionality can be overcome not engaged in any business or industry. (NCC Art. 2180)
only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an
infraction of the Constitution, and only when such a No Presumption of Legitimacy or Illegitimacy
conclusion is reached by the required majority may the
There is no presumption of legitimacy of a child born
Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot
after three hundred days following the dissolution of the
escape, that the challenged act must be struck down.
marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever
(Lawyers Against Monopoly vs. Secretary of Budget and
alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must
Management)
prove his or her allegation. (Rule 131, Sec. 4)
Res Ipsa Loquitur The legitimacy of a child born after three hundred days
The concept of res ipsa loquitur has been explained in following the termination of the marriage shall be proved
this wise: by whoever alleges such legitimacy or illegitimacy. (NCC
Rule 131, Sec. 169)
While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed,
and while the mere happening of an accident or injury Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings
will not generally give rise to an inference or presumption
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise
that it was due to negligence on defendants part, under
provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means, literally,
imposes on the party against whom it is directed the
the thing or transaction speaks for itself, or in one
burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet
jurisdiction, that the thing or instrumentality speaks for
the presumption.
itself, the facts or circumstances accompanying an injury
If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is
may be such as to raise a presumption, or at least permit
founded upon weightier considerations of policy shall
an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant,
apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight,
or some other person who is charged with negligence.
neither presumption applies. (Sec. 5, Rule 131)
Note:
x x x where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality
This is a new insertion. The first paragraph deals with
which caused the injury complained of was under the
burden of evidence.
control or management of the defendant, and that the
The second paragraph provides the rule on how to treat
occurrence resulting in the injury was such as in the
inconsistent presumptions. (Señga)
ordinary course of things would not happen if those who
had its control or management used proper care, there is
sufficient evidence, or, as sometimes stated, reasonable Presumptions against an Accused in Criminal Cases
evidence, in the absence of explanation by the If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an element of
defendant, that the injury arose from or was caused by the offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence
the defendants want of care. (Malayan Insurance vs. of the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable
Rodelio Alberto) doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact
beyond reasonable doubt. (Sec. 6, Rule 131)
Negligence of Common Carrier
This is a new insertion that deals with presumed facts
that establish guilt in that the existence of the basic fact
Vigilance over Goods Safety of Passengers
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
Presumed to be Presumed to be negligent presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond
negligent or at fault in or at fault in case death or reasonable doubt. (Señga)
case of loss, destruction, injury to passengers.
or deterioration.
V. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
Unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
(Rule 132)
diligence.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
A. Examination of a Witness 3. When motion to quash on the ground of double

1. Examination of Witness, Definition – is the jeopardy or prescription of action or liability is
elicitation of information in a court by question and granted under Rule 117;
answer of a witness which connotes trial conducted 4. When there is a provisional dismissal under Rule
before the court. 117:
2. Trial, Definition – is a judicial process of investigating 5. Failure of the prosecution to bring the accused to
and determining the legal controversies starting with trial within the time prescribed under the Rules;
the production of evidence by the plaintiff and 6. When the case was dismissed due to the grant of the
ending with his closing arguments. motion for judicial determination of probable cause.
3. Nature of Trial – Trial before the court is adversarial
in character, and which requires the presentation of Kinds of Trial
evidence and examination of witnesses on the
witness stand. Trial on the Trial of Substantive Issue
4. Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial –All persons Merits
shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their The accused admitted the crime but
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or interposes an exculpatory defense,
administrative bodies. (1987 Consti Art. 3 Sec. 16) Inverted Trial and the burden of proof is now on
him and he will be the first to
Trial Hearing present evidence.
Limited only to the Broader in scope as it Conducted after the accused has
presentation of evidence includes the pre-trial Trial in been arraigned and he was duly
and witnesses before the conference, hearing on absentia notified of the trial and his failure
court. the motion, and trial. to appear thereat is unjustified.
A complete re-trial of the case after
General Rule: Trial is necessary if there are legal and New Trial or judgment has been rendered based
factual issues involved in the case which requires Trial de Novo on the grounds specified under Sec.
presentation of evidence and witnesses. 1 Rule 37.
Held in public, in the presence of
Exceptions: the public, or in a place accessible
a. In Civil Cases Public Trial and open to the attendance of the
1. Case falls under Rules on Summary Procedure; public at large, or of a person who
2. The parties enter into an amicable settlement or may properly be admitted.
compromise of their claims in the mediation before Conducted according to the law of
the Philippine Mediation Center, Judicial Dispute Speedy Trial criminal procedure and the rules
Resolution, or Alternative Dispute Resolution; and regulations, free from
3. Dismissal of the action under Rule 16; vexatious, capricious delays.
4. Dismissal of the action under Secs. 1,2 and 3 of Rule When actions involving common
17; questions of law or fact are pending
5. Dismissal of the action for failure of the plaintiff to before the court, it may order a
appear during pre-trial conference under Rule 18; joint hearing or trial of any or all
6. Judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34; Joint or the matters in issue in the actions;
7. Summary judgment under Rule 35; Consolidated it may order all the actions
8. When the parties to any action agree, in writing, Trial consolidated; and it may make such
upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit orders concerning proceedings
the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, therein as may tend to avoid
without the introduction of evidence under Sec. 6, unnecessary costs or delay.
Rule 30. The court, in furtherance of
convenience or to avoid prejudice,
b. In Criminal Cases Separate Trial may order a separate trial of any
1. When the accused pleads guilty to the offense during claim, cross-claim, counter-claim, or
arraignment under Rule 116; third-party complaint, or of any
2. Plea bargaining during arraignment or pre-trial separate issue or of any number of
conference; claims , cross-claims, counterclaims,
third-party complaints or issue
By written consent of both parties,

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
the court may order any or all of Thirty days from the time the parties have received the
the issues in a case to be referred to pre-trial order, the trial of the case shall commence which
Trial by a commissioner to be agreed upon generally shall be on the following order:
Commissioner by the parties or to be appointed by
the court. “Commissioner” includes 1. The prosecution shall be the first one to present its
a referee, an auditor, and an evidence in chief, to prove the elements of the
examiner offense/crime charged in the information, as well as
Impartial Trial Conducted by a disinterested judge the civil liability arising from the crime/offense.
without favoring any party 2. After the prosecution’s evidence followed by the
presentation of the evidence in chief for the defense.
Order of Trial in Civil Cases as to Presentation of 3. Then presentation of rebuttal by the prosecution.
Evidence 4. Lastly by the sur-rebuttal evidence by the accused.
Subject to the provisions of Sec. 2 of Rule 31, and unless
the court for special reasons otherwise directs, the trial Presentation of a Witness
shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order
and shall proceed as follows: A. Examination in Open Court
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
1. The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his hearing shall be done:
complaint. 1. In open court
2. The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support Purpose:

of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, and third-  Opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness
party complaint.  Allows adverse party to cross- examination
3. The third-party defendant, if any, shall adduce 1. Under oath or affirmation

evidence of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, No special wording is necessary for an oath or
and fourth-party complaint. affirmation, provided that the language used is
designed to impress upon the individual the duty to
4. The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce tell the truth.
evidence of the material facts pleaded by them.
Oath – solemn appeal to the Supreme Being in
5. The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross- attestation of the truth of some statement
claim has been pleaded, shall adduce evidence in
support of their defense, in the order to be NOTE: The object of the rule is to affect the conscience of
prescribed by the court. the witness to compel him to speak the truth, and also to
lay him open to punishment for perjury if he testifies
6. The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting falsely.
evidence only, unless the court, for good reasons and
in furtherance of justice, permits them to adduce Affirmation – substitute for an oath, formal declaration
evidence upon their original case. that the witness will tell the truth.
7. Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be NOTE: The option to take either an oath or affirmation is
deemed submitted for decision, unless the court given to the witness and not to the court (Riano, 2013).
directs the parties to argue or to submit their
respective memoranda or any further pleadings. Waiver of the right to have the witness sworn
The right to have the witness sworn may be waived. If a
If several defendants or third-party defendants, and so party admits proof to be taken in a case without an oath,
forth, having separate defenses appear by different after the testimony has been acted upon by the court,
counsel, the court shall determine the relative order of and made the basis of a judgment, such party can no
presentation of their evidence. longer object to the admissibility of the testimony. He will
be deemed to have waived the objection. (People v.
Order of Trial in Criminal Cases as to Presentation of Bisda, G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003).
Evidence

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Where the witness refuses to take an oath or give any A witness must answer questions, although his or her
information, the testimony may be barred. (U.S. v. answer may tend to establish a case against him or her.
Fowler)
However it is the right of the witness:
2. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the 1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
question calls for a different mode of answer, the insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
answers of the witness shall be given orally. demeanor.
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
Testimonies need not to be given orally in open court; justice require.
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
1. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure – pertinent to the issue
a. In criminal cases – affidavits of the parties shall 4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him
constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided
executed the same. (Sec 15, Rule on Summary Procedure) by law.
b. In civil cases – parties are merely required to submit NOTE: The constitutional assurance of the right against
the affidavits of their witnesses and other pieces of self-incrimination is a prohibition against the use of
evidence on the factual issues, together with their physical or moral compulsion to extort communications
position paper. (Sec 9, Rule on Summary Procedure) from the accused. It is simply a prohibition against legal
process to extract from the accused’ own lips, against his
2. Depositions need not to be taken in open court; they will, admission of his guilt (Ong v. Sandiganbayan & Office
may be taken before a notary public or before any person of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 126858, September 16,
authorized to administer oaths. (Rule 23,Sec. 14) 2005).
3. In criminal cases, a party may utilize testimony of a NOTE: A witness invited by the Senate who refused to
witness who is deceased, out of the country, unavailable, testify and arrested for contempt, cannot invoke the right
or unable to testify, in another proceeding, judicial or against self-incrimination in a petition for certiorari and
administrative, provided it involved same parties and prohibition. The said right may be invoked only when the
subject matter and the adverse party had the opportunity incriminating question is being asked, since he has no
to cross examine the witness. (Sec. 1 (f), Rule 115, Rules way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the
of Court) questions to be asked of him. That this right may possibly
be violated or abused is no ground for denying the Senate
4. Under Judicial Affidavit Rule – the judicial affidavit Committees their power of inquiry (In Re: Sabio, G.R.
shall take place of direct testimonies of witnesses. (Sec 2, Nos. 174340, 174318 & 174177, October 17, 2006).
Judicial Affidavit Rule)
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
B. Proceedings to be Recorded reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue or to
The entire proceeding of a trial or hearing, including the fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed.
questions propounded to a witness, his or her answers But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous
thereto, and the statements made by the judge or any of final conviction for an offense.
the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the
case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or 6. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable himself (1987 Consti Art. 3 Sec. 17)
by the court.
NOTE: However, under Sec. 14 of RA 6981 (Witness
NOTE: These shall be recorded by means of shorthand or Protection, Security and Benefit Act), a witness admitted
stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable into the witness protection program cannot refuse to
by the court. Such transcript of the record of the testify or give evidence or produce books, documents,
proceedings made by the official stenographer, records or writings necessary for the prosecution of the
stenotypist, or recorder, and certified as correct by him offense or offenses for which he has been admitted on
shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such the ground of the right against self-incrimination.
proceedings. (Evidence, Riano)
C. Rights and Obligations of a Witness If the witness is the accused, he may totally refuse to take
the stand. A mere witness cannot altogether refuse to

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
take the stand. Before he refuses to answer, he must wait determined in a hearing by the proper court, his
for the incriminating question. (Bagadiong v. Gonzales) immunity shall be removed and he shall be subject to
contempt or criminal prosecution. Moreover, the
Refusal of a witness to take the witness stand enjoyment of all rights and benefits under R.A. 6981 shall
GR: A witness may not refuse to take the witness stand. be deemed terminated. The witness may, however, purge
himself of the contumacious acts by testifying at any
XPNs: appropriate stage of the proceedings (Sec. 13, R.A. 6981).
1. An accused in a criminal case; or
2. A party who is not an accused in a criminal case is
Right against self-incrimination not available under the
allowed not to take the witness stand – in administrative
Witness Protection Program
cases/proceedings that partook of the nature of a
Any witness admitted into the program of the Witness
criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal
Protection, Security and Benefit Act cannot refuse to
proceeding. As long as the suit is criminal in nature, the
testify or give evidence or produce books, documents,
party thereto can altogether decline to take the witness
records or writings necessary for the prosecution of the
stand. It is not the character of the suit involved but the
offense or offenses for which he has been admitted into
nature of the proceedings that controls (Rosete, et. al. v.
the Program on the ground of the constitutional right
Lim, et. al., G.R. No. 136051, June 8, 2006).
against self-incrimination but he shall enjoy immunity
from criminal prosecution and cannot be subjected to
Persons eligible to the Witness Protection, Security and any penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter or
Benefit Program thing concerning his compelled testimony or books,
Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or documents, records and writings produced (Sec. 14, R.A.
information on the commission of a crime and has 6981).
testified or is testifying or about to testify before any
judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating D. Order of Examination of an Individual Witness
authority may be admitted provided that:
The order in which the individual witness may be
examined is as follows:
1. The offense in which his testimony will be used is a
grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code, or
1. Direct examination by the proponent – is the
its equivalent under special laws;
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
2. His testimony can be substantially corroborated in its
presenting him or her on the facts relevant to the
material points;
issue. (Rule 132, Sec. 5)
3. He or any member of his family within the second civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threats
Accused as witness v. mere witness
to life or bodily injury or there is a likelihood that he will
If the witness is the accused, he may totally refuse to
be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed or corrupted to
take the stand.
prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely, or
evasively, because or on account of his testimony; and
A mere witness cannot altogether refuse to take the
4. He is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would
stand unless there is an incriminating question
be testifying against the other law enforcement officers.
(Bagadiong v. Gonzales).
In such a case, only the immediate members of his family
may avail themselves of the protection provided for
2. Cross-examination by the opponent – upon the
under the Act (Sec. 3, R.A. 6981).
termination of the direct examination, the witness
may be cross-examined by the adverse party on any
relevant matter, with sufficient fullness and freedom
State witness may be liable for contempt or criminal to test his or her accuracy and truthfulness and
prosecution freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
A State witness may be liable for contempt or criminal elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
prosecution. If he fails or refuses to testify or to continue (Rule 132, Sec. 6)
to testify without just cause when lawfully obliged to do
so, he shall be prosecuted for contempt. If he testifies Note:
falsely or evasively, he shall be liable to prosecution for American Rule - cross-examination must be confined to
perjury. If a State witness fails or refuses to testify, or the matters inquired about in the direct examination.
testifies falsely or evasively, or violates any condition
accompanying such immunity without just cause, as

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
English Rule - a witness may be cross-examined not only Day one Examination Rule– a witness has to be fully
upon matters testified to by him on his direct examined in one (1) day only, shall be strictly adhered to
examination, but also on all matters relevant to the issue. subject to the court’s discretion during trial o whether or
not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination for
The old rule provides that the cross-examination may be justifiable reasons.
on any matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, while the new rule provides that Most Important Witness Rule – determine the most
the cross-examination may be on any relevant matter, important witnesses to be heard and limit the number of
meaning that it is allowed even if it is not necessarily witnesses.
stated in the direct examination, provided it is relevant.
However, even prior to the amendment, it was Examination of a child witness; live-linked television
recognized that even if the matter was not exactly stated The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing
in the direct examination but is connected therewith, or any proceeding shall be done in open court (as
cross-examination thereon may be allowed. The new rule opposed to Competency Examination of the Child where
seems to just further clarify the old rule. (Señga) only specified persons are allowed to attend.)
However, the court may exclude the public and persons
A witness on cross examination with sufficient fullness who do not have a direct interest in the case, including
and freedom may be tested on: the members of the press if the court determines that to
a. His accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from testify in open court would cause psychological harm to
interest or bias, or the reverse the child, hinder ascertainment of truth, or result in his
b. Eliciting all important facts bearing upon the issue. inability to communicate due to embarrassment, fear, or
(Rule 132, Sec. 6) timidity.
An application may be made for the testimony of the
When cross-examination is not and cannot be done child to be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be
or completed due to causes attributable to the party televised to the court courtroom by live-linked
who offered the witness, the uncompleted testimony television. The application may be made by the
is thereby rendered incompetent and should be prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem at least 5 days
stricken from the record. (Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., before the trial date. (Section 25, Rules on Examination of
et al. vs. CIR, et al.,L-26136) a Child Witness)
Records regarding a child – shall be confidential and kept
3. Re-direct examination by the proponent – after the under seal. Except upon written request and order of the
cross examination of the witness has been court, a record shall only be released to the following;
concluded, he or she may be re-examined by the 1. Prosecuting Attorney
party calling him, to explain or supplement his or her 2. Defense Counsel
answers given during the cross-examination. (Rule 3. Guardian ad litem
132, Sec. 7) 4. Agents of the investigating law enforcement agencies
5. Other persons as determined by court.
Note: Questions on matters not dealt with during the
cross-examination may be allowed by the court in its E. Leading and Misleading Questions
discretion
Leading Is a question which suggest to the
4. Re-cross examination by the opponent – upon the Question witness the answer which the examining
conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party desires
party may re-cross-examine the witness on:
a. Matters stated in his or her re-direct examination Misleading One which:
b. Such other matters as may be allowed by the court Question 1. Assumes as true a fact not yet
in its discretion (Rule 132, Sec. 8) testified to by the witness; or
2. Contrary to that which he or she has
5. Recalling the Witness – after the examination of a previously stated.
witness by both sides has been concluded, the Harmless Is a question which is of small importance
witness cannot be recalled without leave of the Question or has no relation to the fact in issue
court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its Open Is a question which allows a witness to
direction, as the interests of justice may require. Question answer the way he wants to
(Rule 132, Sec. 9) Trick Is a question which leaves the witness in
Question a no-win situation

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Undeniabl Is a question that the cross-examiner can Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime. — For
e Question ask of the witness, the which, the latter the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or
cannot deny she has been convicted by final judgment of a crime shall
be admitted if (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty
As a general rule, leading questions are NOT allowed in excess of one year; or (b) the crime involved moral
except: turpitude, regardless of the penalty.
a. On cross-examination;
b. On preliminary matters; However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the
c. When there is a difficulty in getting direct and conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or
intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, annulment of the conviction. (Rule 132, Sec. 12)
or a child of tender years, or is feeble of mind, or a
deaf-mute; Señga notes:
d. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; This is a new insertion. A witness may now be impeached
e. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, by evidence that the witness was previously convicted by
director, or managing agent of a public or private final judgment involving: (1) a punishable penalty
corporation or of a partnership or association which exceeding 1 year, regardless of whether the crime
is an adverse party. involves moral turpitude, or (2) a crime of moral
turpitude, regardless of the penalty.
NOTE: In examination of a child, the court may allow
leading questions in all stages of examination under the G. Impeachment by inconsistent statements
condition that the same will further the interest of [Laying the Predicate]
justice.
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he
F. Impeachment of a Witness or she has made at other times statements inconsistent
A. Impeachment of Adverse party’s Witness with his or her present testimony, the statements must
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom be related to him or her, with the circumstances of the
he was called, by: times and places and the persons present, and he or she
must be asked whether he or she made such statements,
a. Contradictory evidence; and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in
writing, they must be shown to the witness before any
b. By evidence that his or her general reputation for question is put to him or her concerning them. (Sec. 14,
truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that Rule 132)
he or she has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his or her present testimony. But not Elements:
by evidence of particular wrongful acts , except that it 1. The alleged statements must be related to the
may be shown by the examination of the witness; witness including the circumstances of the times and
places and the persons present. If the statements are
c. The record of the judgment, that he has been in writing, they must be shown to him; and
convicted of an offense. (Sec. 11, Rule 132)
2. He must be asked whether he made such statements
d. Deposition against the testimony of a deponent and also to explain them if he admits making those
witness (Rule 23. Sec. 4, par.a) statements.
NOTE: NOTE: The reading of the prior inconsistent statement

must be verbatim, not a mere summary.
Contradictory evidence refers to other testimony of the
same witness, or other evidence presented by him in the B. Impeachment of Party’s Own Witness
same case NOT the testimony of others. As a general rule, a party is not allowed to impeach his
own witness, except:
Prior inconsistent statement refers to statements, oral or a. of an unwilling or hostile witness
documentary, made by the witness sought to be b. of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
impeached on occasion other than the trial in which he is director or managing agent of a public or private
testifying. corporation or of a partnership or association which is an
adverse party.
B. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
NOTE: A witness is considered unwilling or hostile when mandates the court to exclude witnesses, with the use of
so declared by the court upon: the word “shall”, subject to the exceptions provided in
a. Adequate showing of his adverse interest; the amended rule.
b. Unjustified reluctance to testify;
c. His having misled the party into calling him to the The second paragraph under the amended rule is similar
witness stand. to the second sentence under the old rule, in that apart
from excluding the witnesses from trial or hearing to
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the prevent them from hearing the testimony of other
witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by witnesses, the court may also order that they be kept
the party presenting him or her in all respects as if he or separate from each other to be prevent them from
she had been called by the adverse party, except by conversing with one another. The amended rule provides
evidence of his or her bad character. He or she may also
additionally that this may be done not only to prevent
be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party,
the witnesses from conversing directly with one another
but such cross-examination must only be on the subject
but also through intermediaries, until all have been
matter of his or her examination-in-chief. (Sec. 13, Rule
132) examined.
Recantation of a witness NOTE: This rule applies ONLY to witnesses NOT to parties
Courts must not automatically exclude the original in the case. (Tan p. 394)
statement based solely on the recantation. It should This may be made by the judge:
determine which statement should be given credence a. If the evidence to be produced during trial is of such
through a comparison of the original and the new character as to be offensive to decency or public morals
statements, applying the general rules of evidence (PLDT b. On motion of the accused
vs. Bolso, G.R. No. 159701, August 17, 2007).
The following may not be excluded:
H. Exclusions and Separation of Witnesses 1. An accused in a criminal case as it is his constitutional
The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall order right to be present at all stages of the proceedings;
witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the 2. Parties to the litigation will generally not be excluded,
testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not their presence usually being necessary to a proper
authorize exclusion of (a) a party who is a natural person, management of the case;
(b) a duly designated representative of a juridical entity 3. Party in interest though not a party to the record and
which is a party to the case, (c) a person whose presence an agent of such party, if the presence of such agent is
is essential to the presentation of the party's cause, or (d) necessary;
a person authorized by a statute to be present. 4. Officers and complaining witnesses are customarily
excepted from the rule unless the circumstances warrant
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate otherwise; and
and to be prevented from conversing with one another, 5. Expert witnesses are not excluded until production of
directly or through intermediaries, until all shall have evidence bearing upon the question or subject as to
been examined. (Sec. 15, Rule 132) which they have been called or unless liable to be
influenced by the testimony of the other witnesses
Señga Notes: (Herrera, 1999).
The purpose of the rule remains the same, that witnesses
may be excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony I. Reference to a Memorandum by Witnesses
of other witnesses. However, the amended rule provides A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
that the following shall not be excluded: (a) a party who respecting a fact, by:
is a natural person; (b) a duly designated representative
of a juridical entity which is a party to the case; (c) a 1. Anything written or recorded by himself or under his
person whose presence is essential to the presentation of direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
the party's cause; or (d) a person authorized by a statute immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the
to be present. The foregoing exceptions were not present fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same
under the old rule. was correctly written or recorded;
Likewise, it was directory or not mandatory for the court 2. In such case the writing or record must be produced
under the old rule to order exclusion of witnesses, as the and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if
old rule used the word “may”. The amended rule now

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may 4. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
read it in evidence. documents required by law to the entered therein.
Requirements: b. Private
1. Such memorandum should be written at the time the All other writings. (Rule 132, Sec. 19)
fact occurred or immediately thereafter or at any
time when the event or fact was fresh in his memory. Señga Notes:
2. The witness affirms that the facts was correctly The old and new provisions are the same except that
written or record. under the amended rule, an additional item was added
3. The memorandum must be produced and may be under public document - Documents that are considered
inspected by the adverse party. (Sec. 16, Rule 132) public documents under treaties and conventions which
are in force between the Philippines and the country of
Revival of Past Recollection Rule source. An example of this treaty is the Apostille
A witness may testify from such writing or record, though Convention, which became effective in the Philippines on
he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is 14 May 2019.
able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated
the transaction when made; but such evidence must be Proof of Private Documents
received with caution. (Rule 132, Sec. 16) Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
Rule when only a part of a transaction, conversation, must be proved either:
writing or record is given in evidence a. By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
The whole of the same subject may be inquired into by or
the other. (Rule 132, Sec. 17) b. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker;
Rule when a detached act, declaration, conversation, c.By other evidence showing its due execution and
writing or record is given in evidence authenticity.
Any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or Any other private document need only be identified as
record necessary to its understanding may also be given that which it is claimed to be. (Rule 132, Sec. 20)
in evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 17)
Señga:
Right to Inspect Writing Under the first paragraph of the old rule, there were only
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be
2 ways of proving the execution and authenticity of
inspected by the adverse party. (Rule 132, Sec. 18)
private documents, i.e., (a) By anyone who saw the
document executed or written; or (b) By evidence of the
B. Authentication and Proof of Documents
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
Authentication - A proper or legal attestation. Acts done maker. The revised rule adopted the same 2 ways but
with a view of causing an instrument to be known and
added a third manner, which broader in scope – by other
identified. (Domondon, p. 276)
evidence showing its due execution and authenticity. The
second paragraph is the same under the old and revised
Classes of Documents
rules.
a. Public
1. The written official acts, or records of the official acts
of the sovereign authority, official bodies and When Authentication Not Required
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
1. Ancient Document Rule - The document is ancient i.e.
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
more than thirty years old, produced from the custody in
which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is
2. Documents acknowledge before a notary public
unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of
except last wills and testaments;
suspicion. (Rule 132, Sec. 21);
2. The genuineness and authenticity of an actionable
3. Documents that are considered public documents
document have not been specifically denied under oath
under treaties and conventions which are in force
by the adverse party;
between in the Philippines and the country of
3. The genuineness and authenticity of the document
source; or
have been admitted;
4. The document is not being offered as genuine.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Proof of Genuineness of Signature For documents originating from a foreign country which
The testimony of the very person whose signature is is not a contracting party to a treaty or convention
disputed is a competent proof of the genuineness of such referred to in the next preceding sentence, the certificate
signature. may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or
NOTE: There is no preferential rule that such testimony of by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
the writer is the only competent proof; it is merely the stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
best evidence. (affects only the weight/probative value) kept, and authenticated by the seal of his or her office.
Proof of handwriting of a person: A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its

By testimony of a witness who: equivalent may be presented in evidence without further
1. Believes it to be the handwriting of such person proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie
because he has seen the person write, or evidence of the due execution and genuineness of the
document involved. The certificate shall not be required
2. Has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the when a treaty or convention between a foreign country
witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. exempted the document itself from this formality.
(Rule 132, Sec. 24)
3. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given
by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with Notes: (Señga)
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party The first sentence of the old and revised rules are the
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be same.
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (Rule 132, Sec.
22) A second paragraph was inserted, which refers to and
should be read in connection with the revised Section 19
Proof of Public Documents (c) of Rule 132, on Documents that are considered public
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in documents under treaties and conventions which are in
the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima force between the Philippines and the country of source.
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. This presupposes that the Philippines is a contracting
party to the treaty together with the foreign country
All other public documents are evidence, even against a concerned. The treaty shall govern the form of the
third person, of the fact which gave rise to their certificate of its equivalent, subject to reciprocity granted
execution and of the date of the latter. (Rule 132, Sec. 23) to public documents originating from the Philippines.
The second sentence of the old rule may be compared

Proof of Official Record
with the third paragraph of the amended rule. This
The record of public documents referred to in paragraph provision presupposes that the foreign country from
(a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may where the document originates is not a party to a treaty
be evidenced by: with the Philippines. Under the old rule, there was no
a. An official publication thereof or distinction. However, as earlier mentioned, the Apostille
Convention came into force on 14 May 2019, hence this
b. By a copy attested by the officer having the legal revision. Thus, the old second sentence applies to foreign
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and documents originating from countries not party to a
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, treaty with the Philippines.
with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
The last paragraph under the revised rule is a new
If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign insertion, and it makes clear that the document that is
country, which is a contracting party to a treaty or accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be
convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or presented in evidence without further proof, the
considered a public document under such treaty or certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of
convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19 the due execution and genuineness of the document
hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the involved. However, the certificate shall not be required
form prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to when a treaty or convention between a foreign country
reciprocity granted to public documents originating from and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has
the Philippines.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
exempted the document itself from this formality. See

Apostille Convention. Rule on Alterations in a Document
Rule on Attestation of Document The party producing a document as genuine which has
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for been altered and appears to have been altered after its
the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
substance, that: must:
1. The copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific 1. Account for the alteration.
part thereof, as the case may be. 2. He may show that the alteration was made by another,
2. The attestation is under the official seal of the attesting without his concurrence, or was made with the consent
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or
having a seal, under the seal of such court. (Rule 132, innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the
Sec. 25) meaning or language of the instrument.
Rule on Public Record of a Private Document If he fails to do that, the document shall not be
An authorized public record of a private document may admissible in evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 31)
be proved by
Rule on Seal
1. The original record, or There shall be no difference between sealed and
2. By a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility
the record, with an appropriate certificate that such as evidence is concerned. (Rule 132, Sec. 32)
officer has the custody. (Rule 132, Sec. 27)
Rule on Documentary Evidence in
Rule on Proof of Lack of Record an Unofficial Language
In case the office has no record or entry of an official Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be
record, it can be proved subject to the following admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a
requirements: translation into English or Filipino.
1. A written statement signed by an officer having the To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
custody of an official record or by his deputy that after attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared
diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is before trial. (Rule 132, Sec. 33)
found to exist in the records of his office,
2. Accompanied by a certificate as above provided. (Rule Importance of Knowing Whether a Document is Public
132, Sec. 28) or Private:
Determines how they may be presented in evidence in
Rule on Impeachment of Judicial Record court. Public document is admissible in court without
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: further proof of its due execution and authenticity.
a. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer,
b. Collusion between the parties, or Private document, because it lacks the official and
c. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the sovereign character of a public document, or solemnities
proceedings. (Rule 132, Sec. 29) prescribed by the law, requires authentication.
Notarial seal converts a document from a private to

Rule on Proof of Notarial Documents
public document.
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law:
Chemistry report of a public officer showing a positive
1. May be presented in evidence without further proof;
result of paraffin test is a public document. (Kummer v.
2. The certificate of acknowledgment being prima
People)
facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or
document involved. (Rule 132, Sec. 30)
Picture Seat Plan prepared by Civil Service
Commission in implementing examination, is a public
NOTE: Notarized documents enjoy presumption of
document. (CSC v. Vergel de Dios)
regularity but not validity of its contents.
Improperly notarized documents are not public
documents. Irremovability of Public Record

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible The purpose must be specified because such evidence
in evidence, must not be removed from the office in may be admissible for several purposes under the
which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be admissible
inspection of the record is essential to the just for one purpose and not for another, otherwise, the
determination of a pending case. (Rule 132, Sec. 26) adverse cannot interpose the proper objection. (People
vs. Diano)
NOTE: The certificate and attestation are required
because of the general rule on the “Irremovability of The Rules of Procedure and jurisprudence do not
Public Record” embodied in Section 26, Rule 132. sanction the grant of evidentiary value to evidence which
was not formally offered. “It is well to remember that
Notary Public in a foreign country is not one of those who good intentions do not win cases, evidence does.” (Jose
can issue the certificate. (Lopez v. CA) R. Catacutan vs. People)
Registration of contracts:
For purposes of registration and convenience, acts and Exception to rule on formal offer of evidence:
contracts which have for their object the creation, 1. In a summary proceeding (because there is no full
transmission, modification, or extinguishment of real blown trial)
rights over immovable property must appear in a public 2. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial
document. notice of;
3. Documents, affidavits and depositions used in
Examples: rendering a summary judgment;
a) Donation of immovable 4. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-
b) Donation of movable with a values exceeding 5, 000 judicial or administrative cases.
pesos 5. Lost objects previously marked, identified, described
c) A partnership where immovable property or real in the record, and testified to by the witnesses who
rights are contributed. had been subjects of cross-examination in respect to
said objects. (Tabuena v. CA)
Foreign judgments; divorce
A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce Provided;
decree itself. a) The evidence must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded; and
Church registries b) It must have been incorporated in the records of the
Church registries of birth, marriages, and death made case. (People v. Napat-a)
subsequent to the promulgation of General Order No. 68
promulgated on December 18, 1889 are no longer public NOTE: Evidence attached to motion for reconsideration
writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public on the decision by the Court of Appeals should be
officials. refused to be considered (Sps. Tan vs. Republic)
They are private writings and their authenticity must, When to make an Offer
therefore, be proved. When to Make Offer. — All evidence must be offered
orally.
The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must
C. Offer and Objection be made at the time the witness is called to testify.
Offer of Evidence – as used in sec. 35 of Rule 132, must The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be
be understood to mean presentation or introduction of made after the presentation of a party's testimonial
evidence. evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 35)
Hence, a document or article is not evidence when it is Señga Note:

simply marked for identification. (People vs. Whipkey) The amended provision should be read in relation to the
revised Rule 30, Section 6, which provides that after
Rule on Offer of Evidence presentation of evidence, the offer of exhibits shall be
The court shall consider no evidence which has not been made orally and thereupon, the objections thereto shall
formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is be made and the court shall also orally rule on the same.
offered must be specified. (Rule 132, Sec. 34) This is also consistent with the rules on continuous trial
for criminal cases.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
While the timing when the offer of evidence for Kinds of Objections
actions Objections Objections Deferred
testimonial, object and documentary evidence remain taken by Objectio
the same, the revised rules require that the same shall be the court ns
made orally. Under the old rules, it shall be done orally denied by the granted by
unless allowed by the court to be in writing. court the court ruling by
the court
is
Rules on Objection reserved
Objection. — Objection to offer of evidence must be
made orally immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a

formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins
to testify.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the

oral examination of a witness must be made as soon as
the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent.
The grounds for the objections must be specified. (Rule

132, Sec. 36)
NOTE: Objection to admissibility of evidence cannot be

made for the first time on appeal.
Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be

validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.
Objection based on the Statute of Fraud must be raised

at the earliest possible opportunity.
(Señga) The old rule was revised so that there is no more

distinction between an oral and written offer of evidence.
Thus, the first sentence now states objection to offer of
evidence, without distinction as to whether the evidence
was offered orally or not, unlike under the old rule.
The revised rule also provides that in case a witness
begins to testify without the offer of testimony being
made prior to said testimony, the objection to such lack
of formal offer must be made as soon as the witness
begins to testify.
The provision on when an objection to written offer of
evidence was deleted. It appears that unlike the old rule,
the court no longer has discretion to allow the formal
offer of evidence in writing.
Objection to Admissibility of Depositions

Subject to the provisions of Sec. 29 of the RoC, objections
may be made in the following occasions:
a. At the trial
b. Hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part
thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion
of the evidence if the witness were then present and
testifying. Specific Grounds for Objections:
1. Irrelevant/immaterial evidence;

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
2. Incompetent evidence; “will be taken into consideration” “under advisement”

3. Opinion of witness; “submitted” “objections are noted’ “evidence is admitted
4. Leading question; subject to objections” “admitted for whatever they may
5. Misleading question; be worth” are not proper rulings.
6. Compound question;
7. General question; Striking Out of an Answer
8. Question calling for narration; Instances when the court may order the striking out of an
9. Vague question; answer are as follows:
10. Hypothetical question;
11. Embarrassing question; 1. Should a witness answer the question before the
12. Question on admitted matters; adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
13. Question already answered; objection to the same, or where a question is not
14. Hearsay evidence; objectionable, but the answer is not responsive, or where
15. Parol evidence; a witness testifies without a question being posed or
16. Best evidence rule; testifies beyond limits set by the court, or when the
17. Privileged communication between husband and witness does a narration instead of answering the
wife; question and such objection is found to be meritorious,
18. Privileged communication between attorney-client; the court shall sustain the objection and
19. Privileged communication between doctor-patient;
20. Privileged communication between priest-penitent; 2. On proper motion, the court may also order the
21. Privileged communication on state secrets; striking out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant,
22. Lack of basis; or otherwise improper. (Rule 132, Sec. 39)
23. Self-incriminating question;
24. Argumentative or harassing question; A motion to strike may be availed of in the following
25. Illegally obtained evidence; instances;
26. Disqualification by reason of spousal immunity; a) When the answer is premature
27. Disqualification by reason of the Dead Man’s Statute; b) Irrelevant
28. Parental and filial privilege. c) Unresponsive
d) The witness becomes unavailable for cross-
Repetition of an Objection examination through no fault of cross-examining
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of party
the examination of a witness that the question being e) When the testimony was allowed conditionally and
propounded are of the same class as those to which the condition for its admissibility was not fulfilled.
objection has been made, whether such objection was
sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to Note: (Señga)
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse The revised rule adds instances for striking the answer of
party to record his continuing objection to such class of a witness. The old rule was limited to striking an answer
questions. (Rule 132, Sec. 37) to a question when the answer was made before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
Ruling objection to the same. In addition to the foregoing, the
The ruling of the court must be given immediately after revised rule also provides: (1) where the question is not
the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a objectionable but the answer of the witness is not
reasonable time to inform itself on the question responsive to the question, (2) a witness testifies without
presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the a question being posed, (3) a witness testifies beyond
trial and at such time as will give the party against whom limits set by the court, or (4) when the witness does a
it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented narration instead of answering the question, and
by the ruling. objection thereto is properly raised and found
meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need order such answer, testimony or narration to be stricken
not be stated. However, if the objection is based on two off the record.
or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one
or some of them must specify the ground or grounds The second paragraphs are the same. Even without the
relied upon. (Rule 132, Sec. 38) new insertions under the revised rule, the same may still
fall within the contemplation of the second paragraph.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Tender of Excluded Evidence (Offer of Proof) b. Civil cases – preponderance of evidence

An offeror whose evidence excluded may tender such c. Administrative cases – substantial evidence
evidence. d. Extradition cases – clear and convincing
evidence
Documents –the offeror may have the same attached to
or made part of the record. Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for 2. Clear and convincing evidence
the record the name and other personal circumstances of 3. Preponderance of evidence
the witness and the substance of the proposed 4. Substantial evidence
testimony. (Rule 132, Sec. 40)
1. Secs. 1 and 2 give the rules on the requisite quantum
Reasons: of evidence in civil and criminal cases. The last two
1. To allow the court to know the nature of the sentences of Sec. 1 suggest the factors which the
testimony or the documentary evidence and court may take into consideration in determining the
convince the trial judge to permit the evidence or weight to be given to testimonial evidence, and these
testimony. factors apply to both civil and criminal cases.
2. Even if he is not convinced to reverse the earlier
ruling, tender is made to create and preserve a 2. Evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not only
record for appeal. proceed from a credible source but must, in addition,
be credible in itself. And by this is meant that it shall
Formal offer of evidence Offer of proof be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it
easy to believe.
Offer of the testimony of A process by which a
a witness or documentary proponent of excluded
3. Facial expressions are not necessarily indicative of
and object evidence. evidence tenders the
one’s feelings.
same.
4. The failure of a party to present merely corroborative
Additional evidence after the case is rested;
or cumulative evidence does not give rise to any
Rules of Court do not prohibit a party from requesting
adverse or unfavorable presumption.
the court to allow it to present additional evidence even
after it has rested its case. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan)
5. When a witness makes two sworn statements and
these two statements incur in the gravest
contradictions, the court cannot accept either
VI. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE statement as proof. This is different from the situation
(Rule 133) wherein the testimony of two witnesses contradict
each other, in which case the court shall adopt such
A. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Generally testimony which it believe to be true.
Weight of evidence is the probative value that the court
gives to particular evidence admitted to prove a fact in 6. The record of a preliminary investigation constitutes
issue, and particular evidence admitted only if it is no part of the final proceedings in a cause, unless it is
relevant and it is not excluded by law or the rules. (Tan, presented in evidence, and the facts adduced therein
2014) are evidence only for the purpose of testing the
credibility of witnesses.
1. If there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and
the testimony of a witness, the latter should be given 7. While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an
more weight since affidavits being taken ex-parte are accomplice is admissible, such testimony comes from
usually incomplete and inaccurate. a polluted source and must be scrutinized with great
caution as it is subject to grave suspicion. Conspiracy
2. Positive identification of the accused prevails over can be proved by circumstantial evidence but it must
incomplete entry in the blotter. be proved with as much certainty as the crime itself.
Summary of quantum of evidence required for different 8. Corroboration is not required or expected in the crime
cases: of rape which, as a rule, is committed without
a. Criminal cases – proof beyond reasonable doubt

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
anybody else being present except the rapist and the 2. Preponderance of evidence is required in actions
victim. brought to recover ill-gotten wealth. (Republic v.
Bakunawa)
9. Tax declarations or the payment of real estate taxes
on the land are not conclusive evidence of ownership 3. Although there is no direct evidence to prove
of the declarant or payor. forgery, (annotated SPA at the back of the lost TCT)
preponderance of evidence indubitably favors the
10. There is no doctrine that, in every instance, non-flight heirs of Felix xxx Preponderance of evidence is a
by the accused is an indicator of innocence. phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability
of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing
to the court as worthier of belief than that which is
B. Preponderance of Evidence offered in opposition thereto. (Heirs of the late Felix
Preponderance of evidence means the “greater or Bucton v. Bacero)
superior weight of evidence”. It is the evidence that is
more convincing and more credible than the one offered 4. To establish the invalidity of a mortgage,
by the adverse party. preponderance of evidence is essential to prove a
case. (Ramos v. Obispo)
It is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be 5. As a general rule, the number of witnesses should
synonymous with the term “greater weight of the not in and by itself determine the weight of
evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” evidence, but in case of conflicting testimonies of
witnesses, the numerical factor may be given certain
The concept of preponderance of evidence refers to weight. (Regalado)
evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing,
than that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it EQUIPOISE RULE
means probability of truth. (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
Company v. Custodio) capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
It is a quantum of evidence applicable to civil cases. other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does
not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient
HOW PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE DETERMINED to support a conviction. The equipoise rule provides that
The court may consider the following: (F-W-N) where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balances,
a. All the facts and circumstances of the case; the constitutional, presumption of innocence tilts the
b. The witnesses’ (M-I-M-N-P-I-C) scales in favor of the accused. (People v. Urzais)
1. Manner of testifying
2. Their intelligence 6. Positive testimony vs. Negative testimony
3. Their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying
4. The nature of the facts to which they testify Positive Testimony Negative Testimony
5. The probability or improbability of their It is when the witness It is when a witness states
testimony affirms that a fact did or that he did not see or
6. Their interest or want of interest did not occur. know of the occurrence
7. And also their personal credibility so far as the of a fact.
same may legitimately appear upon trial It has greater weight than It has lesser weight than
negative testimony since positive testimony
c. The court may also consider the number of the witness represents of because there is only a
witnesses, thought the preponderance is not his personal knowledge total disclaimer of
necessarily with the greater number (Sec. 1, Rule the presence or absence personal knowledge.
133) of a fact.
1. To persuade by the preponderance of evidence is not CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

to take the evidence quantitatively but qualitatively. Evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a
(McDonald v. Union Pacific) firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be
established; it is intermediate, being more than

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as  A notarized document, enjoys the presumption of
is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. due execution. Ony clear and convincing evidence
to the contrary can overcome this presumption.
An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard (Viaje v. Pamintel)
of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither
be proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases not  The person claiming moral damages must prove
the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing
civil cases. While administrative in character, the evidence. (Resolution of the SC in Cual v. Leonis
substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot Navigation)
likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is
to prevent the prospective extradite from fleeing our  The presumption of regularity in the performance
jurisdiction. (Government of Honking Special of official duties will stand if the defense failed to
Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr.) present clear and convincing evidence that the
police officers did not properly perform their duty
 Clear and positive evidence = Proof beyond or that they were inspired by an improper motive.
reasonable doubt (People v. Tubongbanua) (People v. Concepcion)
Some Jurisprudential Pronouncement on Clear and  It is doctrinally settled that a person who seeks
Convincing Evidence: confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to
 There should be clear and convincing evidence to a piece of land on the basis of possession by
prove the charge of bias and partiality of judge. himself and his predecessors-in-interest shoulders
(Rivera v. Mendoza) the burden of proving by clear and convinving
evidence, compliance with the requirement of the
 Fraud is never presumed but must be proved by applicable law. (Republic v. Imperial Credit
clear and convincing evidence, mere Corporation)
preponderance of evidence not even being
adequate (Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.)  The proving of bad faith by clear and convincing
evidence rests on the one alleging it. (UNICAN v.
 Forgery cannot be presumed; it should be proved NEA)
by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever
alleges it has the burden of proving the same  Paternity and filiations requires clear and
(Sumbad v. CA) convincing evidence (Perla v. Baring)
 Presumption that the property is conjugal property
 The established legal principle in actions for may be rebutted by clear, positive and convincing
annulment or reconveyance of title is that a party evidence. (Dewara v. Lamela)
seeking it should establish not merely by a
preponderance of evidence, but by clear and
convincing evidence that the land sought to be C. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
reconveyed is his (Manotok Relaty, Inc. v. CLT In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
Realty Development Corp.) unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a
 It is a well-settled doctrine that when an accused degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error,
invokes self-defense, the onus is on him to produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
establish by clear and convincing evidence his
required, or that degree of proof which produces
justification for the killing. (People v. Tomolin)
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (Rule 133, Sec. 2)
 An allegation of frame-up and extortion by police Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required quantum
officers must be substantiated by clear and of evidence in order to convict an accused.
convincing evidence. (People v. Boco)
The basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, which simply
 For alibi to prosper, it must also be proved by clear means that the evidence of the prosecution was not
and convincing evidence that it was physically sufficient to sustain the guilt of the accused-appellant
impossible for him to have been at the scene of beyond the point of moral certainty. Proof beyond
the crime at the time of its commission and reasonable doubt, however, is a burden particular to the
commit the crime. (People v. Agunos) prosecution and does not apply to exculpatory facts as

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
may be raised by the defense; the accused is not required there is no indication of a sinister scheme to
to establish matters in mitigation or defense beyond a prevaricate. (People v. Ramirez)
reasonable doubt, nor is he requires to establish the
truth of such matters by a preponderance of the The exception is in treason cases where “No person
evidence, or even to a reasonable probability. (People vs. shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony
Urzais) of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on
confession of the accused in open court.”(RPC,
1. In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the guilt of Art.114, 2nd par.) (Domondon)
the accused lies with the prosecution because of the
presumption that the accused is presumed innocent 8. In determining the defense of alibi to prosper, two
until the contrary is proven (Art. III, Bill of Rights). requisites must concur:
i. The appellant was at a different place at the
2. General Rule: The obligation to convince the trier of time the crime was committed, and
facts to show the guilt of the accused beyond ii. It was physically impossible for him to be at
reasonable doubt is upon the prosecution, throughout the crime scene at the time of its commission.
the trial. (Domondon)
Exception: However, when the accused invokes a 9. Motive

justifying circumstance like for instance, self-defense, General Rule: The prosecution need not prove motive
the burden of proof rests upon the defense to prove on the part of the accused when the latter has been
that the killing was justified. (Riano, 2009) positively identified as the author of the crime.
3. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a Exception: It becomes relevant only when the accused
degree of proof that excludes all possibility of error. has not been positively identified and proof thereof
Only MORAL CERTAINTY is required. (Sec. 2, Rule 133) becomes essential only when the evidence of the
commission of the crime is purely circumstantial or is
4. Reasonable doubt is that state of the case which, inconclusive.
after a comparison of all the evidence, does not lead
the judge to have in his mind, a moral certainty of the Herrera
truth of the charge. 10.Totality of Circumstances Test- Factors to be
considered:
5. Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the a) The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at
conviction of the accused but rest, not on the the time of the crime
weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the b) The witness’ degree of attention at that time
prosecution. c) The accuracy of any prior description given by
the witness
6. When a prima facie case is established by the d) The level of certainty demonstrated by the
prosecution in a criminal case, as in the case at bar, witness at the identification
the burden of proof does not shift to the defense. It e) The length of time between the crime and the
remains throughout the trial with the party upon identification
whom it is imposed- the prosecution. It is the burden f) The suggestiveness of the identification
of evidence which shifts from party to party procedure
depending upon the exigencies of the case in the
course of the trial. This burden of going forward with 11. The first duty of the prosecution is not prove the
the evidence is met by evidence which balances that crime but to prove the identity of the criminals. For
introduced by the prosecution. Then the burden even if the commission of the crime can be
shifts back. established, without proof of identity of the criminal
beyond reasonable doubt there can be no
7. May the uncorroborated testimony of a witness be conviction.
the basis of conviction? In the affirmative case, state
the the exception if any. 12. Identification by the sound of voice of the person is
Yes. The uncorroborated testimony of a single sufficient and acceptable means of identification
eyewitness is sufficient basis for conviction, if such where it is established that the witness and the
testimony is credible and positive and produces a accused had known each other personally and
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. More so when closely for a number of years. (US v. Manabat)

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
13. Wick lamps, flashlight, even moonlight, and starlight D. Extrajudicial Confession
may, in proper situations, be sufficient illumination to General Rule: Extrajudicial Confession is not sufficient for
identify another. (Vide People v. Briones) conviction.
14. The Constitution mandates that an accused in a

Exception: Sufficient if corroborated by evidence of
criminal case shall be presumed innocent until the
corpus delicti.
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. xxx
.When the circumstance are capable of two or more
*See discussion in extrajudicial confession.
inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent
with innocence and the other is compatible with
1. Corpus delicti means “the body or substance of the
guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail,
crime.” It is the actual commission by someone of the
and the court must acquit. (People v De Guzman)
particular crime charged.
15. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will
2. It is made up of two things:
prosper even though the accused innocence may be
a. The existence of a certain act or result forming the
doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the
basis of the criminal charge
strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not
b. And the existence of a criminal agency as the
on the weakness of the defense. (People v. Angus, Jr.)
cause of the act or result
16. Evidence during hearing for application for bail is
3. Corpus Delicti for the following crimes:
not sufficient to convict.
 Theft: that the property was lost by the owner and
that is was lost by a felonious taking. The failure to
17. "The hearing of an application for bail should be
recover the property does not detract from the fact
summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court.
that a crime may be established without recovery of
By 'summary hearing' [is] meant such brief and
the stolen object.
speedy method of receiving and considering the
 Illegal possession of firearm are (a) the existence of
evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with
the firearm, and (b) that it has been actually held
the purpose of the hearing which is merely to
with animus possidendi by the accused without the
determine the weight of the evidence for the
corresponding license therefor.
purpose of bail. In such a hearing, the court 'does
 Murder, the fact of death Is the corpus delicti-where
not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice
there is doubt as to the identity of a cadaver, in the
inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to
absence of any other evidence, there is no corpus
the evidence for or against accused, nor will it
delicti.
speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what
 The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case,
further evidence may be therein offered is admitted.'
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and
. . . The course of the inquiry may be left to the
in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No.
discretion of the court which may confine itself to
9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti
receiving such evidence as has reference to
must definitely be shown to have been preserved.
substantial matters avoiding unnecessary
(People v. Alcuizar)
thoroughness in the examination and cross-
 Homicide, the death certificate and necropsy report
examination of witnesses and reducing to a
need not be submitted to prove the fact of death
reasonable minimum the amount of corroboration
which can be established by testimonial evidence.
particularly on details that are not essential to the
 In case of arson there must be evidence that the
purpose of the hearing." (Tambunting v. CA)
burning was intentionally done not merely the fact
that a fire has occurred.
18. In every criminal prosecution, however, the identity
 Corpus delicti in robbery with homicide was
of the offender, like the crime itself, must be
established by the necropsy report and the robbery
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
by testimonial evidence.
(People v. Wagas)
4. Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made
19. Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts
without counsel, but it was spontaneously made by
constituting the crime itself, the elements of
the accused immediately after the assault, the same
conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable
is admissible not under the confession rule, but as
doubt. (Cruz v. People)
part of the res gestae, aside from the consideration
that no custodial investigation was involved.

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
5. When the accused was mere told of his d) The facts must establish such a certainty of guilt
constitutional rights and asked if he understood what of the accused as to convince the judge beyond
he was told, but he was never asked whether he reasonable doubt that the accused is the one
wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights, his committed the offense.
extrajudicial confession is inadmissible.
Regalado
6. A promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a 2. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction
confession if given by the offended party or by the even in capital offenses, except when the law
fiscal, but not if given by a person whom the accused specifies the species and the quantum of evidence
could not have reasonably expected to be able to as, in treason. (Art. 114, RPC) and formerly, for
comply with such promise, such as an investigator certain subversive activities punishable by prision
who is not a prosecuting officer, or could not bind mayor to death (Sec. 7, RA 1700).
the offended party which was a corporation.
3. It is also submitted that circumstantial evidence
7. Where the accused voluntarily made a second would not suffice to sustain a conviction for
extrajudicial confession after he had been maltreated falsification, bigamy and libel through written
in order to extort the first confession, such second publications, and the documents involved must be
confession is admissible only if it can be proved that presented. In bigamy direct evidence of the first
he was already relieved of the fear generated by the marriage is necessary. The same doctrine has been
previous maltreatment. applied in actions for adultery, parricide, and other
cases where the issue of marriage is primarily
8. Signature of the accused in the receipt of the involved.
property seized considered as extra judicial
confession – inadmissible in evidence. 4. It has also been held that while motive of the
accused is generally immaterial not being an element
of the crime, such motive becomes important when
E. Circumstantial Evidence the evidence of the crime is purely circumstantial.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a
fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be 5. Conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence
established by inference. not only direct evidence. (Tan)
Circumstantial Evidence, When Sufficient. — There are instances when, although a witness may
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: not have actually witnessed the commission of a
(a) There is more than one circumstance; crime, he may still be able to positively identify a
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as
proven; and when, for instance, the latter is the person last seen
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to with the victim immediately before and right after
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. the commission of the crime. This is the type of
positive identification, which forms part of
Inference cannot be based on other inferences. circumstantial evidence.
Note (Señga): 6. Penetration in the crime of rape can be established

The requisites are the same. The revised rule adds that by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. Even evidence.
without this amendment, such rule is settled as in fact,
paragraph (b) provides that the inferences are derived 7. Circumstantial evidence must be established by chain
from proven facts. of events.
1. Four Basic Guidelines in the Appreciations of 8. Two types of Positive Identification:

Circumstantial Evidence: a. that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to
a) It should be acted upon with caution the very commission of the act
b) All the essential facts must be consistent with
the hypothesis of guilt b. that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the
c) The facts must exclude every other theory but accused is last seen with the victim immediately
that of guilt before or after the crime. (Domondon)

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
F. Substantial Evidence 7. A different quantum of evidence was however, used

1. This degree of evidence applies to administrative by the Court in a case where a judge was charged
cases, i.e., those filed before administrative and with “unbecoming conduct and/or harassment”
quasi-judicial bodies and which requires that in order used the “substantial evidence rule.” Declared the
to establish a fact, the evidence should constitute Court:
that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to Administrative charges against members of the
support a conclusion. (Sec. 6, Rule 133) judiciary must be supported at least by substantial
evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a
2. Substantial evidence is more an a mere scintilla of conclusion. (Gutierrez v. Belen)
evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, 8. In an administrative case against an OIC-Clerk of
even if other minds, equally reasonable, might Court for unexplained wealth, the quantum of proof
conceivably opine otherwise. required to establish a respondent’s malfeasance is
not proof beyond reasonable doubt but substantial
3. In claims for workmen’s compensation, the degree evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that
of proof required is merely substantial evidence. a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
Likewise in agrarian cases. support a conclusion. (Alejandro v. Martin)
4. In one case, while recognizing the rule that in 9. In another case against a process server for
administrative proceedings, complainants have the dereliction of duty, conduct prejudicial to the best
burden of proof of proving the allegations in their interest of the service, incompetence and absence
complaints by substantial evidence, the Supreme without official leave, the Court followed the
Court held that administrative proceedings against “substantial-evidence-rule.” (Necesario v. Dinglasan)
judges are highly penal in character and are to be
governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases.
The quantum of proof required to support Preponderance of Substantial evidence
administrative charges against judges should thus be Evidence
more than substantial and requires proof beyond It is the evidence that is It is required in order to
reasonable doubt. (Daducao v. Laquindanum) more convincing and establish a fact, the
more credible than the evidence should
5. This quantum of proof was later extended to an one offered by the constitute that amount
administrative case filed against a sheriff for adverse party. It means of relevant evidence
harassment and misconduct where the court held that the evidence as a which a reasonable mind
that administrative proceedings against judicial whole adduced by one might accept as
employees, are by nature, highly penal in character side is superior to that of adequate to support a
and are to be governed by the rules governing the other. conclusion.
criminal cases. It applies in civil cases It applies to cases filed
before administrative or
6. A similar ruling was made in another case where a quasi-judicial bodies
judge was administratively charged with sexual
harassment by a court employee. The Court ruled:
10. In a petition for a writ of amparo, the parties shall
While substantial evidence would ordinarily suffice establish their claims by substantial evidence. (Sec.
to support a finding of guilt, the rule is different 17, Rule on the Writ of amparo)
where the proceedings involve judges charged with
grave offenses. Administrative proceedings against 11. Effect of failure to prove administrative liability on
judges are highly penal in character and are to be the criminal case:It is indeed a fundamental
governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. principle…that administrative cases are independent
The quantum of proof required to support the from criminal actions for the same act or omission.
administrative charges or to establish the ground/s Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a
for removal of judicial officer should thus be more bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa.
than substantial; they must be proven beyond One thing is administrative liability; quite another
reasonable doubt. (Alcuizar v. Carpio)

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
thing is the criminal liability for the same act.

(Paredes v. CA) 2. An arbitrary or unreasonable limitation of the
number of witnesses as to the main facts or issues or
Domondon those the sole issue is, no doubt, an abuse of judicial
12. Administrative or quasi-judicial bodies which require discretion, and in numerous cases appellate courts
only substantial evidence: (to name a few) have reversed such limiting trial court rulings that are
a. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found to be arbitrary and unreasonable. (Herrera,
b. Commission on Audit (COA) 1999)
c. Boar of Medicine (BOM)
d. Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
H. Evidence on Motion
13. Generally, findings of fact by administrative agencies When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record,
and quasi-judicial bodies are generally accorded the court may hear the matter on affidavits or
great respect, if not finality, by the courts by reason depositions presented by the respective parties, but the
of the special knowledge and expertise of said court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or
administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies partly on oral testimony or depositions.
over matters falling under their jurisdiction.
(Doctrine of great respect and finality) 1. While the court may hear and rule upon motions
Exceptions: solely on the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits,
a) When the finding is grounded entirely on if the affidavits contradict each other on matters of
speculations, surmise or conjecture fact, the court can have no basis to make its findings
b) When inference made is manifestly absurd, of fact and the prudent course is to subject the
mistaken or impossible affiants to cross-examination so that the court can
c) When the judgment is premised on a decide whom to believe. (Regalado)
misrepresentation of facts
d) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the 2. Examples:
appreciation of facts a) A Motion to Lift an Order of Default must be
e) When the findings of fact are conflicting supported by an Affidavit of Merits stating fraud,
f) When the findings of fact are conclusions without accident, mistake or excusable negligence and a
citation of specific evidence on which they are meritorious defense
based b) A Motion for Summary Judgement may be
g) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as proved on the basis of affidavits
in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not c) In a Motion to Postpone, an affidavit of the
disputed by the respondents doctor or a medical certificate under oath is
necessary
14. Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as d) Motion for Bail when bail is not a matter of right
such facts and circumstances which would lead a since prosecutor must prove that the evidence
reasonably discrete and prudent man to believe that of guilt is strong
an offense has been committed and that objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched. Probable cause I. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness
demands more than bare suspicion; it require less
than evidence which would justify conviction. 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
G. Power of the Court to Stop Further Evidence wide latitude of discretion in determining the weight to
The court may stop the introduction of further be given to such opinion, and for that purpose may
testimony upon any particular point when the consider the following:
evidence upon it is already so full that more (a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or
witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably data;
expected to be additionally persuasive. This power (b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and
shall be exercised with caution. (Sec. 7, Rule 133) methods;
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and
1. The court has the power to stop the introduction of methods reliably to the facts of the case; and
testimony which will merely be cumulative. (d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to
(Regalado) make such determination

lOMoARcPSD|31058984
Notes (Señga):
This is a new insertion. It provides that in case of opinion
of expert witness, the court has a wide latitude of
discretion in determining the weight of evidence to be
given to such opinion. Even prior to this amendment,
such rule was already settled by jurisprudence.
The opinion of an expert witness or expert evidence is

admissible, but such testimony is merely persuasive and
are not binding upon the courts. (Orense, Jr. v. Recasas,
G.R. No. 199992 (Notice), 19 April 2017) Courts may
place whatever weight they may choose upon such
testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The
relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is
peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide,
considering the ability and character of the witness, his
actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process
of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion,
his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies,
the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative
opportunities for study and observation of the matters
about which he testifies, and any other matters which
deserve to illuminate his statements. 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
abuse of discretion. (Tabao v. People, G.R. No. 187246, 20
July 2011)
With the incorporation of the foregoing jurisprudential

pronouncement, the revised rule also provides for the
factors for the court to consider in determining the
weight to be given to such opinion.

2021 Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 Evidence Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|31058984

2021 Evidence-Reviewer Evidence-Reviewer

Juris Doctor (San Beda College Alabang)

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES A means of ascertaining the truth not in all types of

Basic Concepts of Evidence Purpose of Evidence: to ascertain the truth respecting a

D. Constitutional Provisions Construction of the Electronic Evidence Rule:

E. Substantive and Remedial Statute

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

16. Clear and Convincing Evidence is a kind of evidence

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

REQUISITES 2. Conditional Admissibility - where the evidence at the

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

Relevance is a matter of relationship between the Types of collateral matter

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE MANDATORY? WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY?

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

1. During pre-trial and trial, the court motu proprio, or 2. Certain;

Judicial Admission Source: (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the B. Documentary Evidence

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

Original Document must be Produced When Document is Merely Collaterally in Issue

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020

Downloaded by AJ Hope Sanchez (ajvillsan09@gmail.com)

authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it

EVIDENCE REVIEWER | 2019-2020