MLS Material 2

PRE-WEEK NOTES AND CASES
IN
REMEDIAL LAW
(EVIDENCE)
FOR MOYA LECTURE SERIES

(2020-2021 BAR EXAMINATION)
BY:
DEAN SALVADOR N. MOYA II, LL.M.

BSC, LL.B., LL.M., DCL (Cand.)
Founding Dean, Tomas Claudio Colleges, College of Law, Morong, Rizal
Managing Partner, Moya Ablola Ebarle Law Firm
MCLE Lecturer on Trial Advocacy
Bar Reviewer [Legal EDGE Review Center, Villasis Law Center,
Powerhaus Review Center, Recoletos Law Center, Magnificus Juris
Reviews and Seminars Inc., UP Law Center, University of Cebu,
Albano Bar Review Center, PUP Bar Review Center]
Author [The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Notes and Cases (2017);
The Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases in
Relation to The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (2018); Bar Notes and
Cases in Remedial Law (2018); Bar Notes and Cases in Criminal Law,
2018 & 2019; Notes and Cases in Remedial Law (Volumes I-IV), 2019;
Notes and Cases in Civil Procedure, Volume I (Parts I, II, IV), 2020;
Notes and Cases in Remedial Law, Volume IV (Evidence), 2020;
Notes and Cases in Civil Procedure, Volume I (Part III), 2021; Bar Reviewer in
Remedial Law (Syllabus-Based), Volumes I (Parts 1 & 2) to IV, 2021 Ed.]
Professor in Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Special
Proceedings, Remedial Law Review I-II, Criminal Law I-II, Criminal Law Review
[TCC-COL, TSU-SOL, NEU-COL,
SSCR-COL, UE-COL, BulSU-COL, UP-COL]
1
2
GENERAL MATTERS
It is a basic rule in evidence that he who alleges must prove his case or claim by the degree of evidence
required. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (Manlar Rice Mill, Inc. vs. Deyto, 715 SCRA 81, 29 January
2014) (Second Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
The omission to rebut that which would have naturally invited an immediate, pervasive and stiff opposition
creates an adverse inference that either the controverting evidence presented will only prejudice its case, or that
the uncontroverted evidence indeed speaks of the truth. (Castro vs. Palenzuela, 689 SCRA 30, 21 January
2013)(Second Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
It is well to remember that good intentions do not win cases, evidence does. (Catacutan vs. People, 656 SCRA
524, 31 August 2011)(First Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. (Social Security
Commission vs. Favila, 646 SCRA 462, 28 March 2011)(First Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
RULE 128
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(Sections 1-4)
Q1. What is Evidence?
A1. SECTION 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceedings the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
Q2. Can legal relationship be established aside from documentary evidence?
A2. Yes. Competent proof of a legal relationship is not limited to documentary evidence. Object and
testimonial evidence may be admitted for the same purpose. Indeed, the relationship may be established by
all the relevant facts and circumstances that constitute a preponderance of evidence.
Under the RROE, evidence is defined as the means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact16 may be object,17 documentary,18 and testimonial.19
It is required that evidence, to be admissible, must be relevant and competent.20 But the admissibility
of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. (Tabuada, et al. vs. Tabuada, G.R. No. 196510, 12
September 2018)(First Division)[Bersamin, J.].
Q3. What is prima facie evidence? Explain.
A3. Prima facie evidence is evidence that is not rebutted or contradicted, making it good and sufficient
on its face to establish a fact constituting a party‘s claim or defense.21
Tan vs. Hosana22 defines prima facie evidence as evidence that is ―good and sufficient on its face. Such
evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts
constituting the· party‘s claim or defense and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain
sufficient.‖23 (Bicol Medical Center vs. Botor, et al., G.R. No. 214073, 4 October 2017)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
SCOPE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE (SECTION 2)
SECTION 2. Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2)
REVIEW NOTES AND CASES
DISTINGUISH: PROOF AND EVIDENCE
Proof is the establishment by evidence of a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the
________________________
16
Section 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court.
17
18
19
20
21
Wa-acon vs. People, 539 Phil. 485 (6 December 2006)(Third Division) [Velasco, J.].
22
G.R. No. 190846 (3 February 2016)(Second Division)[Brion, J.].
23
Id. at 101, citing Wa-acon vs. People, supra.
3
trier of fact or the court. [Calif. Evidence Code].
Whereas, evidence is any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the train of an issue,
by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete
objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing the belief in the minds of the court as to their contention.24
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE (SECTION 3)
OLD PROVISION NEW PROVISION
SECTION 3. Admissibility of SECTION 3. Admissibility of

evidence. — Evidence is evidence. — Evidence is
admissible when it is relevant admissible when it is
to the issue and is not relevant to the issue and is
excluded by law or these not excluded by the
rules. (3a) Constitution, the law or
these rules. (3a)
Q4. What is the difference between admissibility of evidence and the determination of its probative
weight?
A4. Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the circumstance (or evidence) is
to be considered at all.
On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves an
issue.25 [Republic vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673 (11 January 2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]. See also Yokohama
Tire Philippines, Inc. vs. Reyes, et al., G.R. No. 236686 (5 February 2020)(First Division)[Peralta, C.J.].]
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE; EXCLUSIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS,

AND THE RULES OF COURT
Evidence is admissible when:
1. it is relevant to the issue; and
2. it is not excluded by:
i. the constitution;
ii. the law; or
iii. the rules of court.
RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AND COLLATERAL MATTERS
SECTION 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue. (4)
Q5. Explain the concept of relevancy.
A5. Relevancy of Evidence refers to the probative value in relation to the purpose for which it is
offered.26 The term describes the logical relationship between a proffered item of evidence and a proposition
that is material or provable in a given case27 and means a logical relation between evidence and fact to be
________________________
24
Taylor vs. Howard, supra.
25
See also Atienza vs. Board of Medicine, et al., 657 Phil. 536 (2011)(Second Division)[Nachura, J.]; Cabreza, Jr., et al. vs. Cabreza, 679
Phil. 30 (2012) (Second Division)[Sereno, J.]; PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. CA, 358 Phil. 38 (8 October 1998)(Third
Division)[Romero, J.]; Heirs of Lourdes Sabanpan vs. Comorposa, 456 Phil. 161 (12 August 2003)(Third Division) [Panganiban, J.].
26
Vine Street Corp. vs. City Council Bluffs, Iowa 220 N.W.2d 860.
27
U.S. vs. Allison, C.A. La., 474 F.2d 286.
4
established.28
Q6. What does collateral matter mean in the rules of evidence?
A6. Collateral matter is any matter on which evidence could not have been introduced for a relevant
purpose. If a witness has erred in testifying about detail collateral to the relevant facts, then another party
cannot call witnesses to contradict that point – cross-examination alone must suffice.29
Q7. Under the rules of evidence, collateral matters shall not be allowed. What is the exception?
Explain.
A7. The exception is when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue. 30 The reason for this rule is that such evidence tends to draw the mind of
the court away from the point in issue and misleads it. Moreover, the adverse party having no notice of such
course of evidence is not prepared to rebut it. 31
To be admissible, however, the fact must be the natural, necessary or logical connection of the
ultimate fact in issue. To this end, the trial court may in its discretion permit its introduction. 32
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Q8. What is the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence?
A8. The difference are as follows:
(1) Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without drawing any inference.33
Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, ―indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the fact finder
must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.‖34
(2) In criminal cases, the probative value of direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor
superior to circumstantial evidence. 35 The RROE do not distinguish between ―direct evidence of fact and
evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred.‖ The same quantum of
evidence is still required. Courts must be convinced that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Whereas, a number of circumstantial evidence may be so credible to establish a fact from which it may
be inferred, beyond reasonable doubt, that the elements of a crime exist and that the accused is its
perpetrator. There is no requirement in our jurisdiction that only direct evidence may convict. 36 After all,
evidence is always a matter of reasonable inference from any fact that may be proven by the prosecution
provided the inference is logical and beyond reasonable doubt.
The commission of a crime, the identity of the perpetrator, (Cirera vs. People, 739 Phil. 25 (14 July
2014)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.] and the finding of guilt may all be established by circumstantial evidence.37
The circumstances must be considered as a whole and should create an unbroken chain leading to the
conclusion that the accused authored the crime. 38
The determination of whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt is a

qualitative test not a quantitative one. (People vs. Ludday, 61 Phil. 216 (7 March 1935)(En Banc)[Vickers,
J.].The proven circumstances must be ―consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every
other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.‖ (Bacerra vs. People, G.R. No. 204544, 3 July 2017)(Second
Division)[Leonen, J.].39
________________________
28
State vs. Whalon, 1 Wash. App. 785, 464, P.2d 730.
29
Fed. R. Evid. 608(b).
30
Second sentence, Section 4, Rule 128, The Revised Rules of Evidence.
31
20 Am. Jur. 242.
32
The Chamberlayne Trial Evidence, 105, 106.
33
People vs. Ramos, 310 Phil. 186 (18 January 1995)(Second Division)[Puno, J.].
34
People vs. Villaflores, 685 Phil. 595 (11 April 2012)(First Division)[Bersamin, J.].
35
People vs. Fronda, 384 Phil. 732 (15 April 2000)(First Division)[Davide, J.].
36
See People vs. Villaflores, supra; People vs. Whisenhunt, 420 Phil. 677 (14 November 2001)(First Division)[Ynares-Santiago, J.]
37
People vs. Villaflores, supra.
38
People vs. Whisenhunt, supra.
39
A case for violation of Sec. 1, 1st par. of P.D. No. 1613, which provides:
Section 1. Arson. – Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall be punished by Prision Mayor.
The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property under circumstances which expose to
danger the life or property of another.
The conviction of the accused was affirmed by the Supreme Court even though only circumstantial evidence was presented by
the prosecution. [See also People vs. Abayon, G.R. No. 204891 (14 September 2016)(Second Division)[Brion, J.]; People vs. Acosta, 382
Phil. 810 (2000)(Second Division)[Quisumbing, J.](where the accused conviction for arson was sustained by the High Court based on
circumstantial evidence)].
5
Q9. How should the appellate court treat the findings of fact of the trial court on appeal?
A9. Factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, EXCEPT: If the trial court is
shown to have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and
substance.‖40 (People vs. ZZZ, G.R. No. 228828, 24 July 2019)(Third Division) [Leonen, J.]; People vs. Baron,
776 Phil. 725 (2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
Q10. Distinguish competent from credible evidence.
A10. Competent evidence is that which the very nature of the thing to be proven requires, as, the
production of a writing where its contents are the subject of inquiry. Also, generally, admissible (i.e. relevant
and material) as opposed to incompetent or inadmissible evidence. 41
Whereas, credible evidence is not evidence which is necessarily true, but is evidence worthy of belief,
that is, worthy to be considered. It is often natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe.
SECTION 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue. (4)
RELEVANCY VS. COLLATERAL MATTERS
Relevancy of Evidence refers to the probative value in relation to the purpose for which it is
offered.42 The term describes the logical relationship between a proffered item of evidence and a proposition
that is material or provable in a given case43 and means a logical relation between evidence and fact to be
established.44
COLLATERAL MATTER
Any matter on which evidence could not have been introduced for a relevant purpose. If a witness
has erred in testifying about detail collateral to the relevant facts, then another party cannot call witnesses to
contradict that point – cross-examination alone must suffice.45
COLLATERAL MATTERS, EXCEPTION
Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. 46 The reason for this rule is that such evidence
tends to draw the mind of the court away from the point in issue and misleads it. Moreover, the adverse party
having no notice of such course of evidence is not prepared to rebut it.47
To be admissible, however, the fact must be the natural, necessary or logical connection of the
ultimate fact in issue. To this end, the trial court may in its discretion permit its introduction. 48
EVIDENCE MUST BE OF PROBATIVE VALUE
In all trials, the basic principle involved is to get at the truth of the issues presented by the pleadings.
Evidence, which is otherwise reliable, important and competent, may have no bearing on those issues
whatsoever. To reduce the burden on the courts, it is required that evidence be of probative value on the
very issues presented and sufficiently connected thereto. This is what is meant by relevant evidence. 49
DUAL PURPOSE OF RELEVANCY
1. The very purpose and aim of the rule of relevancy is to restrain the field of inquiry to its proper
________________________
40
People vs. De Jesus, 695 Phil. 114 (17 September 2012)(Second Division) [Brion, J.].
41
Frick vs. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 135, 136.
42
Vine Street Corp. vs. City Council Bluffs, Iowa 220 N.W.2d 860.
43
U.S. vs. Allison, C.A.La., 474 F.2d 286.
44
State vs. Whalon, 1 Wash. App. 785, 464, P.2d 730.
45
Fed. R. Evid. 608(b).
46
Second sentence, Section 4, Rule 128, The Revised Rules of Evidence.
47
20 Am. Jur. 242.
48
The Chamberlayne Trial Evidence, 105, 106.
49
Gilbert Law Summaries on Evidence, p. 3.
6
scope and to prevent the issues from becoming beclouded;
2. Another purpose of the rule is to prevent surprise of a litigant or the subjection of a party to the
necessity of meeting evidence possibly prejudicial, and the character of which he has no means of
anticipating.50
RULE 129
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
(Sections 1-4)
JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Q1. What is Judicial Notice? Explain.
A1. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on
without proof because these facts are already known to them; it is the duty of the court to assume
something as matters of fact without need of further evidentiary support. 51 (Lagman vs. Pimentel III, 854
SCRA 184, 6 February 2018)(En Banc)[Tijam J.].
Q2. When is judicial notice mandatory?
A2. Under Section 1, Rule 129, judicial notice is mandatory without the introduction of evidence in
the following:
a. The existence and territorial extent of states;
b. their political history;
c. forms of government and symbols of nationality;
d. the law of nations;
e. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
f. the political constitution and history of the Philippines;
g. official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of
the Philippines;
h. the laws of nature;
i. the measure of time; and
j. the geographical divisions.
Q3. When is judicial notice discretionary?
A3. In case of discretionary judicial notice, a court may take judicial notice of matters which are of
public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions. [Section 2, Rule 129, RROE].
Q4. What are the material requisites for the court to take judicial notice?
A4. Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites:
(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
(2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of
notoriety.52 Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts
of general notoriety. (Sps. Latip vs. Chua, G.R. No. 177809, 16 October 2009)(Third Division)[Nachura, J.].
________________________
50
2 Jones on Evidence, 2nd Ed. 1086-1087.
51
CLT Realty Development Corp. vs. Hi-grade Feeds Corp., et al., 768 Phil. 149 (2 September 2015)(First Division)[Perez, J.].
52
Notoriety means the state of being known and spoken of generally for un-favorable acts. For instance, when a person flews to another
country to avoid tax payment, s/he is said to have achieved notoriety. An after acquired notoriety in an object called for by an entry
will not aid it. Accordingly, the loss of notoriety in an object called for by an entry, after the entry has been made, ought not to destroy
the entry. [https://definitions.uslegal.com].
7
Q5. Are the courts in the Philippines bound to take judicial notice of the diplomatic relations
between our country and Japan? Explain.
A5. Yes. The courts of the Philippines are bound to take judicial notice of the existence of the diplomatic
relations between our country and Japan pursuant to both Section 1 and Section 2, Rule 129 of the Revised
Rules of Evidence. Diplomatic relations form part of the official acts of the Executive Department of our
Government. They are also matters of public knowledge. (In Re: Petition for Adoption of Jan Aurel Maghanoy
Bulayo with Application for Change of Name of Adoptee from ‖Jan Aurel Maghanoy Bulayo‖ to ‖Jan Aurel Bulayo Kimura,‖
Sps. Mary Jane B. Kimura and Yuichiro Kimura, G.R. No. 205752, 1 October 2019)(First Division)[Bersamin, C.J.].
Q6. Can a foreign decree of divorce be given judicial notice in our courts of law? Explain.
A6. No. The foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on
evidence, together with the alien‘s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien
himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in
another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his or her claim or defense. 53
(Arreza vs. Toyo, G.R. No. 213198, 1 July 2019)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS (SECTION 4)
SECTION 4. Judicial SECTION 4. Judicial admissions.

admissions. — An — An admission, oral or written,
admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course
made by a party in the of the proceedings in the same
course of the proceedings in case, does not require proof.
the same case, does not The admission may be
require proof. The admission contradicted only by showing
may be contradicted only by that it was made through pal-
showing that it was made pable mistake or that the impu-
through palpable mistake or ted admission was not, in fact,
that no such admission was made. (4a)
made. (2a)
Q7. Explain the concept of judicial admission.
A7. A judicial admission is a formal statement, either by party or his or her attorney, in the course
of judicial proceeding which removes an admitted fact from field of controversy. It is a voluntary
concession of fact by a party or a party‘s attorney during judicial proceedings. (Agbayani vs. Lupa Realty Holding
Corporation, G.R. No. 201193, 10 June 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].
Q8. The defendants, in their answer, admitted that the plaintiff was the former owner of the
subject property before it was sold to them. Is the plaintiff still required to introduce evidence on the issue
of prior physical possession? Explain.
A8. No. Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court on judicial admission states that an admission,
verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require
proof. (Heirs of Montevilla vs. Sps. Vallena, G.R. No. 234419, 5 December 2019)(First Division)[Reyes, Jr., J.].
EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Q9. What is the effect of judicial admissions?
A9. Judicial admissions are evidence against the party who made them, and are considered
conclusive and binding as to the party making the judicial admission. A judicial admission bars the
admitting party from disputing it.
HOW JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS MAY BE CONTRADICTED
Q10. How can judicial admission be contradicted?
________________________
53
See Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas, 642 Phil. 420 (2010)(Third Division)[Brion, J.].
8
A10. As provided for in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, the general rule that a judicial
admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof admits of two exceptions:
1) when it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake; and
2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made.54
PRE-TRIAL ADMISSIONS
Q11. What is the effect of admissions during the pre-trial? Explain.
A11. Pre-trial admission in civil cases is one of the instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided
for under Section 7, Rule 18 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that the contents
of the pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the
issues to be tried.
In Bayas vs. Sandiganbayan,55 the Supreme Court emphasized that:
Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the parties and their counsels, they become
binding on the parties who made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or facts stipulated. Even
if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party may not be allowed to rescind them unilaterally, it must
assume the consequences of the disadvantage.56
The admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be treated as
a judicial admission. Under Section 4, of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof. 57
[Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. BPI/MS Insurance Corp. & Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No.
182864 (12 January 2015)(First Division)[Perez, J.]; Agbayani vs. Lupa Realty Holding Corporation (G.R. No.
201193 (10 June 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].
RULE 130
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
(Sections 1-54)
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE (SECTION 1)
Q1. What is an object evidence?
A1. SECTION 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the
court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
court. (1)
Q2. What is physical Evidence?
A2. Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred
witnesses.‖58 They have been characterized as ―that mute but eloquent manifestations of truth which rate
high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.‖59 Thus, in People vs. Vasquez,60 this Court refused to
undiscerningly lend credence to the incriminating assertions of prosecution witnesses as to an alleged
mauling, and stated that ―this Court cannot be persuaded by the prosecution‘s claim of perpetration of
physical violence in the absence of any marked physical injuries on the various parts of the victim‘s face and
body.‖ (Daayata, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 205745, 8 March 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
Q3. What are the requisites for the admissibility of object or real evidence?
A3. The requisites are as follows:
________________________
54
(Atillo III vs. CA, G.R. No. 119053, 23 January 1997)(Third Division)[Francisco, J.].
55
440 Phil. 54 (2002).
56
See also Alfelor vs. Halasan, 520 Phil. 982 (2006).
57
SCC Chemicals Corporation vs. CA, 405 Phil. 514 (28 February 2001)(Second Division)[Quisumbing, J.].
58
People vs. Sacabin, 156 Phil. 707 (1974)(Second Division)[Fernandez, J.].
59
People vs. Vasquez, 345 Phil. 380 (1997)(First Division)[Hermosisima, Jr., J.], citing People vs. Uycoque, 316 Phil. 930 (1995)(Second
Division)[Puno, J.].
60
345 Phil. 380 (1997)(First Division)[Hermosisima, Jr., J.], citing People vs. Uycoque, ibid.
9
a) It must be marked during the pre trial;
b) It must be presented in court;
c) It must be authenticated;
d) The authentication must be made by a competent witness;
e) It must be formally offered;
f) It must be admitted by the court.
Q4. During the initial stage of evidence gathering, the only readily available types of actual evidence
reasonably obtainable by law enforcers are unique objects and non-unique objects. What are unique and
non-unique objects?
A4. Unique objects are either:
(a) already exhibit identifiable visual or physical peculiarities such as a particular paint job or an
accidental scratch, dent, cut, chip, disfigurement or stain; or
(b) have a readily distinguishable mark such as a unit-specific serial number in case of an
industrially manufactured item.
Whereas, non-unique objects such as narcotic substances, industrial chemicals, and body fluids cannot
be distinguished and are not readily identifiable; that is why they present an inherent problem of fungibility 61
or substitutability and contamination which adversely affects their relevance or probative value. This is the
reason why non-unique objects have to be made unique by law enforcers upon retrieval or confiscation in
order for these articles to be authenticated by a sponsoring witness so that trial and reviewing courts can
determine their relevance or probative value. (People vs. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, 11 March 2019)(First Division)
[Gesmundo, J. (now C.J.)].
Q5. How should object evidence be authenticated?
A5. In its previous rulings, the Supreme Court had sought the guidance of U.S. courts in interpreting or
explaining the rational basis underlying this jurisdiction‘s evidentiary principles. Some provisions of the
Philippine Rules on Evidence were derived from or bear some semblance to some provisions of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. In this regard, Rule 902(a) of the Federal Rules pertaining to authentication and
identification provides:
In general, to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent
must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
Admittedly, the practice of testimonial sponsorship of object evidence in the Federal Rules is not
specifically mentioned in the Rules on Evidence. Nothing in the Rules on Evidence deals with the
authentication of object evidence during the trial. Apart from the requirement of formal offer, 62 however, such
practice is part and parcel of having an object evidence admitted, because authenticity is an inherent attribute
of relevance—a component of admissibility.63 The obvious reason is that an object offered in court as evidence
but without having any part in the fact or event sought to be proven by the proponent is irrelevant because it
has no ―relation to the fact in issue as to induce a belief in its existence or nonexistence.‖64
Relatedly, the Supreme Court promulgated the Judicial Affidavit Rule65 which mandates parties to file,
not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference, judicial affidavits executed by their
witnesses which shall take the place of their direct testimonies.66 Here, parties seeking to offer documentary
and/or object evidence are now required to describe, authenticate, and make the same evidence form part
of the witness‘ judicial affidavit under the said Rule.67 Therefore, as a rule, object evidence now requires
authentication or testimonial sponsorship before it may be admitted or considered by the court. (People vs.
Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, 11 March 2019)(First Division) [Gesmundo, J. (now C.J.)].
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN RELATION TO SECTION 21 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS

ACT OF 2002
Q6. What is the purpose of the chain of custody rule in drug cases?
A6. The chain of custody requirement aims to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized item are preserved, so much so that doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. To be
admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at
least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to
________________________
61
The quality of being fungible depends upon the possibility of the property, because of its nature or the will of the parties, being
substituted by others of the same kind, not having a distinct individuality [BPI Family Bank vs. Franco, et al., 563 Phil. 495 (2007)].
62
RULES OF COURT, Section 35, Rule 132.
63
See State of Arizona vs. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376 (1991).
64
See Gumabon vs. PNB, 791 Phil. 101 (2016), citing Section 4, Rule 128, Rules of Court.
65
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (4 September 2012).
66
Section 2 of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC.
67
Section 8(c) of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC.
10
determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence.68
Q7. What is the effect if the prosecution fails to establish the chain of custody in drug cases?
A7. The failure to establish the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution‘s case. There can be no
crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated
was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.69 In People vs. Casimiro,70 citing
People vs. Mapa,71 the Supreme Court acquitted the accused for failure of the prosecution to establish the
identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti. Equally true in Zarraga vs. People,72 the
Court also acquitted the accused in view of the prosecution‘s failure to indubitably show the identity of the
shabu.
Q8. Can the accused still be held criminally liable for violations of R.A. No. 9165 despite the failure
to faithfully observe the provision of Section 21?
A8. Yes. It is settled that an accused may still be found guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe
the requirements provided under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, for as long as the chain of custody remains
unbroken.73
In People vs. Diaz,74 the prosecution was able to establish the necessary links in the chain of custody of
the subject specimen from the moment it was seized from appellant up to the time it was presented during
trial as proof of the corpus delicti.
A.M. NO. 06-11-5-SC (RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE), EFFECTIVE 15 OCTOBER 2007
Q9. What is the purpose of DNA evidence? Explain.
A9. The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide the Bench and the Bar for the introduction
and use of DNA evidence in the judicial system. It provides the ―prescribed parameters on the requisite
elements for reliability and validity (i.e., the proper procedures, protocols, necessary laboratory reports,
etc.), the possible sources of error, the available objections to the admission of DNA test results as
evidence as well as the probative value of DNA evidence.‖ It seeks ―to ensure that the evidence gathered,
using various methods of DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and properly, and shall not be misused and/or
abused and, more importantly, shall continue to ensure that DNA analysis serves justice and protects, rather
than prejudice the public.‖75
Q10. What is the nature of the issuance of DNA Testing Order from the Court? Explain.
A10. During the hearing of the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie
evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a DNA testing order remains
discretionary upon the court. The court may, for example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for
the DNA testing. If there is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test result
would only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA testing.76
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
MEANING OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (SECTION 2)
Q11. What is the legal definition of a document?
A11. Section 2, Rule 130 provides:
SECTION 2. Documentary SECTION 2. Documentary

evidence. — Documents as evidence. — Documents as
evidence consist of writings or evidence consist of writings,
________________________
68
People vs. Unisa, 658 SCRA 305 (28 September 2011); People vs. Basilio, 751 SCRA 351 (23 February 2015); People vs. Eyam, 686 SCRA
408 (26 November 2012).
69
Valdez vs. People, 538 SCRA 611 (23 November 2007).
70
432 Phil. 966 (2002).
71
220 SCRA 670 (31 March 1993).
72
484 SCRA 639 (14 March 2006).
73
People vs. Amarillo, 678 SCRA 568 (15 August 2012).
74
752 SCRA 17 (25 February 2015).
75
Rationale of the Rule on DNA Evidence.
76
Lucas vs. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710 (6 June 2011)(Second Division) [Nachura, J.].
11
any material containing letters, recordings, photographs or

words, numbers, figures, any material containing
symbols or other modes of letters, words, sounds,
written expressions offered as numbers, figures, symbols, or
proof of their contents. (n) their equivalent, or other
modes of written expression
offered as proof of their
contents. Photographs
include still pictures,
drawings, stored images, x-
ray films, motion pictures or
videos. (2a)
Q12. Which will prevail between documentary and testimonial evidence in the appreciation of
evidence? Explain.
A12. Documentary evidence will generally prevail over testimonial evidence. Documentary evidence
has more evidentiary weight as opposed to a testimony which can be easily fabricated. 77 [Gotesco
Properties, Inc. vs. Solid Bank Corporation (Now Metropolitan Bank And Trust Company)](G.R. No. 20945, 26 July
2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
Q13. What are the requisites for the admissibility of documentary evidence?
i. The document must be relevant;
ii. The document must be authenticated;
iii. The authentication must be made by a competent witness;
iv. The document must be formally offered in accordance with Section 34, Rule 132 of the RROE to
be considered by the court.
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE (RULE 130, SECTION 3)
OLD SUB-TITLE NEW SUB-TITLE
1. BEST EVIDENCE RULE 1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE
SECTION 3. Original SECTION 3. Original document

document must be must be produced; exceptions. —
produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the
When the subject of inquiry contents of a document, writing,
is the contents of a recording, photograph or other
document, no evidence record, no evidence is
shall be admissible other admissible other than the
than the original document original document itself, except
itself, except in the in the following cases:
following cases:
(a) When the original is lost or
(a) When the original has destroyed, or cannot be
been lost or destroyed, or produced in court, without bad
cannot be produced in faith on the part of the offeror;
court, without bad faith on (Also provided by Section 5)
the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the
(b) When the original is in custody or under the control of
the custody or under the the party against whom the
control of the party against evidence is offered, and the
whom the evidence is
latter fails to produce it after
offered, and the latter fails
reasonable notice, or the
to produce it after
original cannot be obtained by
reasonable notice;
local judicial processes or
________________________
77
GSIS vs. CA, 293 Phil. 699 (1993)(Third Division)[Melo, J.].
12
(c) When the original procedures; (Also provided by

consists of numerous Section 6)
accounts or other
documents which cannot be (c) When the original consists
examined in court without of numerous accounts or other
great loss of time and the documents which cannot be
fact sought to be examined in court without
established from them is great loss of time and the fact
only the general result of sought to be established from
the whole; and them is only the general result
of the whole;
(d) When the original is a
public record in the (d) When the original is a
custody of a public officer public record in the custody of
or is recorded in a public a public officer or is recorded in
office. (2a) a public office; and (Also
provided by Section 8)
(e) When the original is not

closely-related to a controlling
issue. (3a)
Q14. What is the applicability of the original document rule?
A14. The original document rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the
inquiry.78 Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to
account for the original. Moreover, production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court‘s
discretion, whenever the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful
purpose will be served by requiring production.79
In case of unavailability of the original document, secondary evidence may be presented80 as provided
for under Sections 5 to 6, Rule 130.81 (Republic vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, 11 January 2016)(Second Division)
[Leonen, J.].
The original document rule prohibits the introduction into evidence of secondary evidence unless it is
shown that original document has been lost or destroyed or is beyond jurisdiction of court without fault of
offering party; if original document is lost, then secondary evidence is properly admissible.82
MEANING OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND DUPLICATE
SECTION 4. Original of SECTION 4. Original of

document. — document. —
(a) The original of a (a) An ―original‖ of a

document is one the contents document is the document
of which are the subject of itself or any counterpart
inquiry. intended to have the same
effect by a person executing
(b) When a document is in or issuing it. An ―original‖ of
two or more copies executed a photograph includes the
at or about the same time, negative or any print
with identical contents, all therefrom. If data is stored in
such copies are equally a computer or similar device,
________________________
78
See Republic vs. Marcos-Manotoc, et al., 681 Phil. 380 (2012)(Second Division)[Sereno, J.]; Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of
Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Clave, 704 SCRA 465 (2 September 2013)(First Division)[Bersamin, J.]; and Bognot vs. RRI Lending
Corporation, 736 SCRA 357 (24 September 2014)(Second Division)[Brion, J.].
79
Estrada vs. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108 (3 April 2001), citing Wigmore on Evidence, Sec. 1191, p. 334. See also Gaw vs. Chua, G.R. No.
160855 (16 April 2008)(Third Division)[Nachura, J.]; Citibank, N.A. vs. Sabeniano, 504 SCRA 378 (12 October 2006)(First
Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.]; and Estrada vs. Hon. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15 (2 March 2001) (En Banc)[Puno, J.].
80
See Dantis vs. Maghinang, Jr., 695 SCRA 599 (10 April 2013)(Third Division) [Mendoza, J.].
81
See also Citibank, N.A. vs. Sabeniano, supra, citing Estrada vs. Hon. Desierto, 408 Phil. 194 (2001)(En Banc)[Puno, J.]; and Republic vs.
Mupas, 769 SCRA 384 (8 September 2015)(En Banc)[Brion, J.].
82
State of Stephens, Mo.App., 556 S.W.2d 722.
13
regarded as originals. any printout or other output

readable by sight or other
(c) When an entry is means, shown to reflect the
repeated in the regular course data accurately, is an
of business, one being copied ―original.‖
from another at or near the
time of the transaction, all the (b) A ―duplicate‖ is a
entries are likewise equally counterpart produced by the
regarded as originals. (3a) same impression as the
original, or from the same
matrix, or by means of
photography, including
enlargements and
miniatures, or by
mechanical or electronic
rerecording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other
equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduce the
original.
(c) A duplicate is
admissible to the same
extent as an original unless (1)
a genuine question is raised
as to the authenticity of the
original, or (2) in the
circumstances, it is unjust or
inequitable to admit the
duplicate in lieu of the
original. (4a)
Q15. What does original of a writing mean?
A15. An original of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended
to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An original or a photograph includes the negative
or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable
by sight shown to reflect the data accurately, is an original.83
Q16. Is there any exception to the original document rule? Explain.
A16. Yes. One of which is known as the ―XEROX‖ RULE pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence
(FRE) 1003. The ―Xerox‖ rule, says duplicate are generally admissible. This represents a major change from
the common law, under which the offeror had the burden of establishing an adequate excuse for failing to
produce the original before secondary evidence was admissible. Rule 1003 reverses this burden with respect
to duplicate.
In sum, duplicates are typically admissible as originals. If the principal concern of the best evidence
rule (now original document rule) is the reliability of secondary evidence, the accuracy of modern technology
should be taken into account.84
EXCEPTIONS:
Thus, duplicates are admissible unless the adverse party raised the following:
i. Authenticity questioned. Duplicates are not admissible if there is a genuine question about the
authenticity of the original—for example, when it is ―barely legible‖85 or otherwise suspect.
________________________
83
Fed.Evid.R. 1001.
84
See U.S. vs. Haddock, 956 F.2d 1534, 1545 (10th Cir. 1992)(―Rule 1003 is part of a broadened set of evidentiary rules that reflect the fact
that, due to modern and accurate reproduction techniques, duplicates and originals should normally be treated interchangeably.‖);
Fed. R. Evid. 1003 advisory committee‘s note (―When the only concern is with getting the words or other contents before the court
with accuracy and precision, then a counterpart serves equally as well as the original, if the counterpart is the product of a method
which insures accuracy and genuineness. By definition in Rule 1001(4), a ‗duplicate‘ possesses this character.‖).
85
Losano vs. Ashcroft, 258 F.3d 1160, 1166 (10th Cir. 2001). The House Judiciary Committee approved the federal rule ―with the
expectation that the court‘s would be liberal in deciding that a ‗genuine question is raised as to authenticity of the original.‘ H.R. Rep.
No. 650, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7075, 7090.
14
ii. Unfairness. Fairness is jeopardized ―when only a part of the original is reproduced and the
remainder is needed for cross-examination or may disclose matters qualifying the part offered or
otherwise useful to the opposing party.‖86
A party seeking to exclude a ―duplicate‖ under Rule 1003 has the burden of demonstrating that the
duplicate should not be admitted. This issue is entrusted to the discretion of the judge. 87
Q17. What is a duplicate in contemplation of the rules of evidence? Explain.
A17. Section 4(b) was taken from Rule 1001(e) of the FRE. It defines duplicate as a counterpart
produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique
that accurately reproduces the original. Thus, handwritten copies are not duplicates.88
If a counterpart, no matter how produced, is intended by the person executing or issuing it to have the
same effect as the original, the counterpart is an original under Rule 1001(d) of the FRE. A counterpart,
therefore, may be either an original or a duplicate depending on the intent of the person executing or
issuing it.
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
(SECTIONS 5 TO 6)
[Also Provided by SECTION 3(a) and (b) above]
Q18. What is the rationale for the admission of secondary evidence of the contents of the original?
Explain.
A18. Secondary evidence of the contents of writings is admitted on the theory that the original cannot
be produced by the party who offers the evidence within a reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable
diligence.89
Q19. When can the presentation of the original document be dispensed?
A19. If the party never objected to the submission of the photostatic copies as evidence, the production
of the originals is dispensable. This was the ruling in Estrada vs. Hon. Desierto90 where the Supreme Court
ruled that the production of the original may be dispensed with if the opponent does not dispute the
contents of the document and no other useful purpose would be served by requiring its production. In
such case, the secondary evidence of the content of the writing would be received in evidence if no objection
was made to its reception. [People vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), 665 SCRA 89, 7 February 2012](En
Banc)[Brion, J.].91
SUMMARIES (SECTION 7)
SECTION 7. Summaries. — When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous

accounts are voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought
to be established is only the general result of the whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented
in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation.
The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party at a
reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court. (n)
Q20. What is the rationale of summaries under the Revised Rules of Evidence? Explain.
A20. The rationale is that, in some cases, there are simply too many records. Rule 1006 of the FRE (Section
7, Rule 130) permits them to ―be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation.‖92 The summary itself
________________________
86
Fed. R. Evid. 1003 advisory committee‘s note.
87
Fed. R. Evid 104(a); Giannelli, P.C. (2009). Understanding Evidence. Third Edition (pp. 420-422). U.S.A.: LexisNexis.
88
Fed. R. Evid. 1001 advisory committee‘s note (―Copies subsequently produced manually, whether handwritten or typed, are not within
the definition. It should be noted that what is an original for some purposes may be duplicate for others. Thus a bank‘s microfilm
record of checks cleared is the original as a record. However, a print offered as a copy of a check whose contents are in controversy is a
duplicate.‖).
89
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188881 (21 April 2014).
90
408 Phil. 194 (2001).
91
The petition for certiorari filed by the People assailed the decision dated 22 March 2002 of the Sandiganbayan which granted the
demurrers to evidence filed by Imelda R. Marcos, Jose Conrado Benitez, and Rafael Zagala.
92
Fed. R. Evid. 1006 advisory committee‘s note (The ―admission of summaries of voluminous books, records, or documents offers the only
practicable means of making their contents available to the judge and jury. The rule recognizes this practice, with appropriate
safeguards.‖).
15
may be presented as a tangible exhibit or through the testimony of a witness. The underlying materials that are
summarized, however, must be a writing, recording, or photograph. The rule does not encompass a summary of
verbal statements.93 The summary must also be distinguished from the originals. For example, printouts of a
business ledger kept on computer are the actual records, not summaries; Rule 803(6), the hearsay exception for
business records, controls, not Rule 1006.94
Q21. What are the requisites for the summaries to be admitted as evidence?
i. Voluminous requirement. While the writings that are summarized, it must be voluminous,
convenience (not necessity) is the standard in this Context.95
ii. Right of inspection. Rule 1006 explicitly provides that the underlying materials must be made
available for inspection and copying by the other parties.96
iii. Production of originals. Rule 1006 explicitly authorizes the trial judge to order in-court production
of the originals or duplicates, a decision left to the judge‘s discretion.97
iv. Admissibility of underlying documents. Although not explicitly stated in the rule, summary is not
admissible if the originals upon which it is based are inadmissible.98
v. Accuracy requirement. Although not explicitly required by the rule, a summary must ―fairly
represent and be taken from‖ the originals. 99 On one case, a summary of medical articles was ruled
inadmissible because the expert who prepared the summary had not read all the articles.100 In another case,
summaries of figures were excluded because ―there was virtually no documentation.‖101
vi. Experts. The use of summaries often requires expert testimony (e.g., an accountant), in which case the
expert must be qualified.102 Expert testimony, however, is not always required.
A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC (RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE), EFFECTIVE 1 AUGUST 2001
Q22. What is electronic document and electronic data message?
A22. Electronic document refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is
established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed
documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the
electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term ―electronic document‖
may be used interchangeably with ―electronic data message‖. [Section 1(h), Rule 2, ROEE].
Whereas, Electronic data message refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means. [Section 1(g), Rule 2, ROEE].
Authentication of Electronic Documents and Electronic Signatures
Q23. Who has the burden of providing the authenticity of an electronic document?
A23. Under Section 1, Rule 5 of the ROEE, the person seeking to introduce an electronic document in
any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule.
Q24. What is the manner of authenticating electronic document introduce as evidence?
A24. Under Section 2, Rule 5 of ROEE, before any private electronic document offered as authentic is
________________________
93
See US vs. Goss, 650 F.2d 1336, 1344 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1981)(―There is no provision for the admission of summaries of the testimony of out-
of-court witnesses.‖).
94
See U.S. vs. Catabaran, 836 F.2d 453,457 (9th Cir. 1988); US vs. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248,256 n.6 (7th Cir. 1986) (properly kept business
records under Rule 803(6) are not subject to Rule 1006 even if they are summary of their records); US vs. Sanders, 749 F.2d 195, 199 (5th
Cir. 1984) (data stored on a computer, as opposed to a selective compilation of random pieces of data, are not summaries).
95
See U.S. vs. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476, 495 (7th Cir. 1990); US vs. Possick, 849 F.2d 332, 339 (8th Cir. 1988) (―Rule 1006 does not require that
it be literally impossible to examine all the underlying records, but only that in-court examination would be an inconvenience.‖).
96
See Coates vs. Johnson & Johnson, 756 F.2d 524, 549-50 (7th Cir. 1985) (right of inspection limited to underlying materials and not the
summary itself).
97
See Air Safety, Inc. vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, 94 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1996) (―Common sense dictates that this guaranteed
access, designed to give the opponent the ability to check the summary‘s accuracy and prepared for cross-examination, must include
unequivocal notice of the other party‘s intent to invoke Rule 1006. It seemingly was the lack of such notice that gave rise to the
misunderstanding and confusion here.‖); Fla. Stat. Avid. Code Sec. 90.956 (requiring pre-trial notice).
98
See US vs. Pellulo, 964 F.2d 193, 204 (3d Cir. 1992); State Office Sys., Inc. vs. Olivetti Corp. of Am., 762 F.2d 843, 845 (10 th Cir. 1985);
Paddack vs. Dave Christensen, Inc., 745 F.2d 1254, 1259 (9th Cir. 1984).
99
Gomez vs. Great Lakes Steel Div., Nat‘l Steel Corp., 803 F.2d 250, 257 (6th Cir. 1986). Accord U.S. vs. Drougas, 748 F.2d 8, 25 (1 st Cir.
1984)(―Charts and summaries are inadmissible if they contain information not present in the original or duplicate materials on which
they are based.‖). modified sub nom. US vs. Piper, 35 F.3d 611 (1st Cir. 1994).
100
Needham vs. White Labs, Inc. 639 F.2d 394, 403 (7th Cir. 1981).
101
US vs. Sorrentino, 726 F.2d 876, 884 (1st Cir. 1984).
102
See US vs. Kaatz, 705 7.2d 1237, 1245 (10th Cir. 1983). Fed. R. Evid. 702 govern qualifications of experts.
16
received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
Q25. What is the probative value of electronically notarized document?
A25. Under Section 3, Rule 5 of ROEE, a document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules
promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document
under the Rules of Court.
Q26. Is an electronic signature admissible in evidence as signature of the person in a written

document?
A26. Yes. Under Section 1, Rule 6 of ROEE, an electronic signature or a digital signature authenticated
in the manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of
a person on a written document.
Q27. What is the manner of authenticating an electronic signature?
A27. Under Section 2, Rule 6 of ROEE, an electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the
following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and verify the
same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic
signature.
Electronic Documents and the Hearsay Rule
Q28. What are the factors in assessing the evidentiary weight of electronic documents?
A28. Under Section 1, Rule 7 (Evidentiary weight of electronic document) of the ROEE, in assessing
the evidentiary weight of an electronic document, the following factors may be considered:
(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or communicated,
including but not limited to input and output procedures, controls, tests and checks for accuracy and
reliability of the electronic data message or document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any
relevant agreement;
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
(c) The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is recorded or stored,
including but not limited to the hardware and computer programs or software used as well as
programming errors;
(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the communication and
information system;
(e) The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and information
system upon which the electronic data message or electronic document was based; or
(f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity of the
electronic document or electronic data message.
Q29. If electronic evidence of business records is introduced, will the hearsay rule apply?
A29. No. Section 1, Rule 8 (Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay Rule), provides:
SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule.—A memorandum, report, record or data compilation
of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other similar means at or
near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and
kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular practice to make the
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are
shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay
evidence.
17
Q30. How can an electronic document introduced as evidence be established?
A30. Under Section 1, Rule 9 (Method of Proof), all matters relating to the admissibility and
evidentiary weight of an electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct
personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the
competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein.
Audio, Photographic, Video and Ephemeral Evidence
Q31. What is ephemeral electronic communication?
A31. Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone conversations, text messages,

chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the
evidence of which is not recorded or retained.103
Q32. How should audio, photographic, and video be introduced as evidence?
A32. Under Section 1, Rule 11 (Audio, Photographic, Video, and Ephemeral Evidence), after summarily
hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules, the court may authorize the presentation of testimonial
evidence by electronic means. Before so authorizing, the court shall determine the necessity for such
presentation and prescribe terms and conditions as may be necessary under the circumstances, including the
protection of the rights of the parties and witnesses concerned.
Q33. How should ephemeral electronic communications be proven?
A33. Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the ROEE, ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by
the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or
unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.
A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by

the immediately preceding section.
If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document, then the
provisions of Rule 5 shall apply.
It may be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the communications or has personal
knowledge thereof.104
Q34. Are facsimile printouts considered electronic documents under the ROEE?
A34. No. Section 1(h), Rule 2 of the ROEE, provides that:
―(h) ‗Electronic document‘ refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is
established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is
received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes
digitally signed documents and any printout or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately
reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term
‗electronic document‘ may be used interchangeably with ‗electronic data message‘.
The terms ―electronic data message‖ and ―electronic document,‖ as defined under the Electronic
Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot
be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence
Rule (now Original Document Rule) and is not admissible as electronic evidence.
Since a facsimile transmission is not an ―electronic data message‖ or an ―electronic document,‖ and
cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax
transmission not electronic evidence.
Thus, in MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs. Ssangyong Corporation (G.R. No. 170633, 17 October
2007)(Third Division)[Nachura, J.], it was held that: The Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-
POSTS0401-2 (Exhibits ―E‖ and ―F‖), which are mere photocopies of the original fax transmittals, are not
electronic evidence, contrary to the position of both the trial and the appellate courts.
________________________
103
Sec. 1(k), Rule 2, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC (Re: Rules on Electronic Evidence) dated 17 July 2001.
104
Section 2, Rule 11, id.
18
APPLICATION OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
SECTION 9. Evidence of SECTION 10. Evidence of

written agreements. — When written agreements. — When
the terms of an agreement the terms of an agreement
have been reduced to writing, have been reduced to
it is to be considered as writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can agreed upon and there can
be, between the parties and be, as between the parties
their successors in interest, and their successors in
no evidence of such terms interest, no evidence of such
other than the contents of the terms other than the
written agreement. contents of the written
agreement.
However, a party may present
evidence to modify, explain or However, a party may
add to the terms of the present evidence to modify,
written agreement if he puts explain or add to the terms
in issue in his pleadings: of the written agreement if
he or she puts in issue in a
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity,
verified pleading:
mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity,
mistake or imperfection in
(b) The failure of the written
the written agreement;
agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the
(b) The failure of the
parties thereto;
written agreement to
(c) The validity of the express the true intent and
written agreement; or agreement of the parties
thereto;
(d) The existence of other
terms agreed to by the parties (c) The validity of the
or their successors in interest written agreement; or
after the execution of the
written agreement. (d) The existence of other
terms agreed to by the
The term "agreement" parties or their successors in
includes wills. (7a) interest after the execution
of the written agreement.
The term "agreement"

includes wills. (9a)
Q35. What is the purpose of parol evidence?105
________________________
105
What is the Parol Evidence Rule?
In general, the parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of evidence of prior or contemporaneous negotiations and
agreements that contradict, modify, or vary the contractual terms of a written contract when the written contract is intended to
be a complete and final expression of the parties‘ agreement. A merger clause strengthens the presumption that the written
document is complete and final by expressly stating that the written document is the final and full expression of the parties‘
agreement. Thus, even if the parties later agree that they had a conversation creating, for example, a ―side agreement‖ that was
not included in the original written contract, and the side agreement contradicts the written contract (e.g., by changing the
delivery date or price of a purchase), the additional or different terms included in the side agreement may not be enforced by the
court when there is a merger clause in the written contract.
There are some exceptions to the parol evidence rule. Evidence of the following is admissible:
1. Defects in the formation of the contract (such as fraud, duress, mistake or illegality).
2. The parties‘ intent regarding ambiguous terms in the contract.
3. Problems with the consideration (e.g., the consideration was never paid).
4. A prior valid agreement that is incorrectly reflected in the written instrument in question.
5. A related agreement, if it does not contradict or change the main contract.
6. A condition that had to occur before contract performance was due.
19
A35. Per this rule, reduction to written form, regardless of the formalities observed, 106 forbids any
addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written agreement by testimony or other evidence
purporting to show that different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the
written contract.107 [Sps. Paras vs. Kimwa Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 171601, 8 April
2015)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]. See also Ibanez vs. People, G.R. No. 198932 (9 October 2019)(First Division)[Bersamin,
C.J.].]
Parol evidence rule seeks to preserve the integrity of written agreements by refusing to permit
contracting parties to attempt to alter the import of their contract through the use of contemporaneous oral
declarations.108
Q36. When can evidence aliunde be introduced?
A36. A party may present evidence aliunde to modify, explain or add to the terms of a written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading any of the four exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule:
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement; (Applies when the
ambiguity or uncertainty is readily apparent from reading the contract.‖109
b. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto; (Pertains to instances where ―the contract is so obscure that the contractual intention of the parties
cannot be understood by mere inspection of the instrument.‖
c. The validity of the written agreement; or (The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply ―where the purpose
of introducing the evidence is to show the invalidity of the contract.‖
d. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.110 (This involves a situation where the parties agreed to other terms after
the execution of the written agreement. (Shemberg Corporation, Marketing vs. Citibank, N.A., G.R. No.
216029, 4 September 2019)(Third Division)[Inting, J.].
Q37. Who are governed by the parol evidence rule? Explain.
A37. The Parol Evidence Rule is exclusive only as between the parties and their successor-in-interest.
The Parol Evidence Rule may not be invoked where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a
privy of a party to the written document in question, and does not base his claim on the instrument or assert a
right originating in the instrument. 111 Thus, when the parties admit the contents of written documents but put
in issue whether these documents adequately and correctly express the true intention of the parties, the
deciding body is authorized to look beyond these instruments and into the contemporaneous and subsequent
actions of the parties in order to determine such intent.112
Well-settled is the rule that in case of doubt, it is the intention of the contracting parties that prevails, for
the intention is the soul of a contract, 113 not its wording which is prone to mistakes, inadequacies, or
ambiguities. To hold otherwise would give life, validity, and precedence to mere typographical errors and
defeat the very purpose of agreements. [Eagleridge Development Corporation vs. Cameron Granville 3 Asset
Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204700 (10 April 2013)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.](Main Decision); Eagleridge Development
Corporation vs. Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204700 (24 November 2014)(Special Third
Division)[Leonen, J.] (Resolution that denied the Motion for Reconsideration)]; Macalino vs. Pis-an, 791 SCRA 672 (1 June
2016), citing Marquez vs. Espejo, 629 SCRA 117 (2010)].
Q38. Distinguish original document rule from parol evidence rule.
A38. The distinctions are as follows:
a. Under the Original Document Rule, the original document is not available or there is a dispute as
to whether said writing is original.
Whereas under Parol Evidence Rule, it presupposes that the original document is available in court.
________________________
7. Subsequent modification of the contract. (http://jec.unm.edu/ education/online-training/contract-law-tutorial/the-parol-
evidence-rule).
106
See Inciong, Jr. vs. CA, 327 Phil. 364 (1996)(Second Division)[Romero, J.].
107
Seaoil Petroleum Corporation vs. Autocorp Group, 590 Phil. 410 (2008) (Third Division)[Nachura, J.], citing Sps. Edrada vs. Sps. Ramos,
505 Phil. 672 (2005)(Second Division)[Tinga, J.]; Norton Resources and Development Corporation vs. All Asia Bank Corporation, 605
SCRA 370 (25 November 2009).
108
Rose vs. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 437 Pa. 117, 262 A.2d 851.
109
Sps. Amoncio vs. Benedicto, 582 Phil. 217 (2008).
110
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 9.
111
Lechugas vs. CA, 227 Phil. 310 (1986).
112
Marquez vs. Espejo, supra:
―When the parties admit the contents of written documents but put in issue whether these documents adequately and correctly
express the true intention of the parties, the deciding body is authorized to look beyond these instruments and into the
contemporaneous and subsequent actions of the parties in order to determine such intent.‖
113
Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Guingona, Jr., 232 SCRA 110 (5 May 1994).
20
b. The Original Document Rule applies to all forms of writings and the content of the document is the
subject of the inquiry.
Whereas, Parol Evidence Rule applies to contracts entered into by the parties. Only the parties therein
can invoke the parol evidence rule.
c. The Original Document Rule ensures that the exact contents of a document are brought before the
court which is the subject of the inquiry. Unless it falls under the five (5) exceptions in Section 3 (a-e) in
relation to Section 4(a-c), Rule 130 of the ROC.
Whereas, the parole evidence rule, forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written
agreement by testimony or other extrinsic evidence purporting to show that, at or before the execution of the
parties‘ written agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of
the written contract. When an agreement has been reduced to writing, the parties cannot be permitted to
adduce evidence to prove alleged practices which, to all purposes, would alter the terms of the written
agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE; QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS (SECTION 21 WITNESSES; THEIR

QUALIFICATIONS)
1. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
SECTION 20. Witnesses; their SECTION 21. Witnesses; their

qualifications. — Except as qualifications. — All persons
provided in the next who can perceive, and
succeeding section, all perceiving, can make known
persons who can perceive, their perception to others,
and perceiving, can make may be witnesses. (20a)
known their perception to
others, may be witnesses. Religious or political belief,
interest in the outcome of
Religious or political belief, the case, or conviction of a
interest in the outcome of the crime, unless otherwise
case, or conviction of a crime provided by law, shall not be
unless otherwise provided by a ground for disqualification.
law, shall not be a ground for (20)
disqualification. (18a)
Q39. What are the qualifications of a witness?
A39. As the rules show, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses. Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or
conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.
The generosity with which the Rules of Court allows people to testify is apparent, for religious beliefs,
interest in the outcome of a case, and conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law are not grounds
for disqualification.114
Q40. What are the grounds for disqualification of witnesses?
A40. Specific rules of witness disqualification are provided under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Rule 130
of the Rules on Evidence:
a. Section 23 disqualifies a witness by reason of marriage with exceptions;
b. Section 24 disqualifies a witness by reason of privilege communications with exceptions;
c. Section 25 disqualifies a witness by reason of Parental and filial privilege, except when such
testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or by one parent against the other.
d. Section 26 disqualifies a witness by reason of privilege relating to trade secrets with

exceptions.
________________________
114
Cavili vs. Judge Florendo, 154 SCRA 610 (9 October 1987).
21
In Cavili vs. Judge Florendo,115 it was held that the specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses
excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the Rules. The Rules should not
be interpreted to include an exception not embodied therein.
Q41. How an out-of-court identification should be done?
A41. It is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is
brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are
shown to the witness to identify the suspect. (People vs. Pepino, 779 SCRA 170, 2 January 2016)(En Banc)[Brion, J.].116
It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up
for the purpose in resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects,
courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz:
(1) the witness‘ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
(2) the witness‘ degree of attention at that time;
(3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
(4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
(5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.117
Q42. Can an intellectually disabled person be qualified as a witness?
A42. Yes. To qualify as a witness, the basic test is ―whether he or she can perceive and, perceiving, can
make known his or her perception to others, may be witnesses.‖118 [Section 21 RROE].(People vs. Padilla, 361
Phil. 216 (1999)(En Banc)[Mendoza, J.].
Therefore, an intellectually disabled person is not, solely by this reason, ineligible from testifying in
court. ‖He or she can be a witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows.‖ If an
intellectually disabled victim‘s testimony is coherent, it is admissible in court.119 (People vs. Corpuz, G.R. No.
208013, 3 July 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q43. What are the exceptions to the marital disqualification rule?
A43. The exceptions, both in civil actions between the spouses and in criminal cases for offenses
committed by one against the other. Like the rule itself, the exceptions are backed by sound reasons which,
in the excepted cases, outweigh those in support of the general rule. For instance, where the marital and
domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility
which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of
interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent. Likewise, in
such a situation, the security and confidences of private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be
nothing but ideals, which through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home.120
Q44. What is the rationale of the marital privilege communications rule? Explain.
A44. In recognition of the significance of marriage to Philippine society, testimonial privilege and
communication privilege have been granted to spouses. This is to preserve their harmonious relationship
and to prevent any party, including a spouse, to take advantage of the free communication between the
spouses or of information learned within the union. (Sanchez vs. Darroca, G.R. No. 242257, 15 October 2019)(En
Banc)[Leonen, J.].121
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS; RULE ON THIRD PARTIES

(SECTION 24)

SECTION 24. Disqualification SECTION 24. Disqualification by
by reason of privileged reason of privileged commu-
________________________
115
238 Phil. 597 (1987).
116
Citing People vs. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128 (1995).
117
People vs. Sinco, 408 Phil. 1 (2001); Dizon vs. People, 616 Phil. 498 (2009); Vidar vs. People, G.R. No. 177361 (1 February 2010)(Second
Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
118
People vs. Padilla, 361 Phil. 216 (1999)(En Banc)[Mendoza, J.].
119
People vs. Monticalvo, 702 Phil. 643 (2013)(Second Division)[Perez, J.].
120
Ordoo vs. Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270 (31 January 1975); People vs. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694 (16 July 1947), and Cargill vs. State, 220, Pac.,
64, 65; 25 Okl. Cr., 314; 35 A.L.R., 133.
121
Citing People vs. Francisco, 78 Phil. 693 (1947)(En Banc)[Hilado, J.].
22
communication. — The nications. — The following per-

following persons cannot sons cannot testify as to
testify as to matters matters learned in confidence
learned in confidence in the in the following cases:
following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife,
(a) The husband or the during or after the marriage,
wife, during or after the cannot be examined without
marriage, cannot be the consent of the other as to
examined without the any communication received in
consent of the other as to confidence by one from the
any communication other during the marriage ex-
received in confidence by cept in a civil case by one
one from the other during against the other, or in a crimi-
the marriage except in a nal case for a crime committed
civil case by one against by one against the other or the
the other, or in a criminal latter‘s direct descendants or
case for a crime committed ascendants.
by one against the other or
the latter's direct (b) An attorney or person rea-
descendants or ascendants; sonably believed by the client
to be licensed to engage in the
(b) An attorney cannot,
practice of law cannot, without
without the consent of his
the consent of the client, be
client, be examined as to
examined as to any communi-
any communication made
cation made by the client to
by the client to him, or his
him or her, or his or her advice
advice given thereon in the
course of, or with a view to, given thereon in the course of,
professional employment, or with a view to, professional
nor can an attorney's employment, nor can an
secretary, stenographer, or attorney‘s secretary,
clerk be examined, without stenographer, or clerk, or other
the consent of the client persons assisting the attorney
and his employer, be examined without the
concerning any fact the consent of the client and his or
knowledge of which has her employer, concerning any
been acquired in such fact the knowledge of which
capacity; has been acquired in such
capacity, except in the
(c) A person authorized to following cases:
practice medicine, surgery
or obstetrics cannot in a (i) Furtherance of crime or
civil case, without the fraud. If the services or advice
consent of the patient, be of the lawyer were sought or
obtained to enable or aid
examined as to any advice
anyone to commit or plan to
or treatment given by him commit what the client knew
or any information which or reasonably should have
he may have acquired in known to be a crime or fraud;
attending such patient in a
professional capacity, which (ii) Claimants through same
information was necessary deceased client. As to a com-
to enable him to act in that munication relevant to an issue
capacity, and which would between parties who claim
blacken the reputation of through the same deceased
client, regardless of whether
the patient;
the claims are by testate or
intestate or by inter vivos
(d) A minister or priest transaction;
cannot, without the
consent of the person (iii) Breach of duty by lawyer
making the confession, be or client. As to a communi-
examined as to any cation relevant to an issue of
confession made to or any breach of duty by the lawyer to
advice given by him in his his or her client, or by the
professional character in client to his or her lawyer;
the course of discipline (iv) Document attested by the
enjoined by the church to lawyer. As to a communication
which the minister or priest relevant to an issue concerning
belongs; an attested document to which
the lawyer is an attesting
(e) A public officer cannot witness; or
23
be examined during his

term of office or afterwards, (v) Joint clients. As to a
as to communications communication relevant to a
matter of common interest
made to him in official
between two or more clients if
confidence, when the court
the communication was made
finds that the public inte- by any of them to a lawyer
rest would suffer by the retained or consulted in
disclosure. (21a) common, when offered in an
action between any of the
clients, unless they have
expressly agreed otherwise.
(c) A physician, psycho-

therapist or person reasonably
believed by the patient to be
authorized to practice
medicine or psychotherapy
cannot in a civil case, without
the consent of the patient, be
examined as to any confiden-
tial communication made for
the purpose of diagnosis or
treatment of the patient‘s
physical, mental or emotional
condition, including alcohol or
drug addiction, between the
patient and his or her physi-
cian or psychotherapist. This
privilege also applies to
persons, including members of
the patient‘s family, who have
participated in the diagnosis
or treatment of the patient
under the direction of the
physician or psychotherapist.
A ―psychotherapist‖ is:
(a) A person licensed to

practice medicine engaged in
the diagnosis or treatment of a
mental or emotional condition,
or
(b) A person licensed as a

psychologist by the
government while similarly
engaged.
(d) A minister, priest or person

reasonably believed to be so
cannot, without the consent of
the affected person, be
examined as to any communi-
cation or confession made to or
any advice given by him or
her, in his or her professional
character, in the course of
discipline enjoined by the
church to which the minister
or priest belongs.
(e) A public officer cannot be

examined during or after his
or her tenure as to
communications made to him
or her in official confidence,
when the court finds that the
public interest would suffer
by the disclosure.
24
The communication shall

remain privileged, even in the
hands of a third person who
may have obtained the
information, provided that the
original parties to the
communication took
reasonable precaution to
protect its confidentiality. (24a)
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT; EXCEPTIONS [SECTION 24 (b)]
Q45. What is the rationale of the attorney-client privilege communication?
A45. The attorney-client privilege is intended to permit clients to receive informed legal advice and
effective representation, which depends on full and frank communication between attorneys and their
clients.122 This, in turn, is thought to promote broader public interests in the observance of law and
administration of justice. The privilege recognizes that sound legal advice or advocacy serves public ends and
that such advice or advocacy depends upon the lawyer‘s being fully informed by the client.
Q46. When is the attorney-client privilege rule applicable? Explain.
A46. The attorney-client privilege applies only where the communication is made for the purpose of
receiving legal advice.123 It protects a client disclosure of facts revealed in non-litigious as well as in litigation
consultation124—e.g., in preparing a contract or will. The privilege extends to communications made to an
attorney by a person seeking legal services, even if the attorney decides not to represent that person. 125 It
applies to attorneys serving pro bono as well as to in-house counsel.
Q47. Who are covered by the attorney-client privilege communication?
A47. Those covered are as follows:
a) A Lawyer who is a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized, to

practice law.126
b) A ―representative of the lawyer‖ who is one employed to assist the lawyer in the rendition of
professional legal services.127
c) Agents who assist in providing legal services, such as associates and secretaries, are included.
When determining whether the privilege applies to communication between a client and agent of attorney,
what is vital is that the communication be made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from
the lawyer.128 Extending the privilege to cover communications between a client and the attorney‘s agent is
necessary for the effective operation of the privilege of client and lawyer under conditions where the lawyer
needs outside held.129
EXCEPTIONS
Q48. What are the exceptions to the Attorney-Client Privilege Communication Rule?
A48. The exceptions are provided by Section 24 (b)(i-v), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence
which was taken from the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 503, viz:
(i) Crime-Fraud Exception. The privilege does not apply to communication concerning future criminal
or fraudulent acts.130 It is the purpose of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege to assure
that the ‗seal of secrecy,‘ between lawyer and client does not extend to communications ‗made for the purpose
of getting advice for the commission of a fraud‘ or crime.131 It is the client‘s intent, not the attorney‘s, that is
determinative.132 The privilege is not lost if the client innocently proposes an illegal course or conduct to
________________________
122
Ibid.
123
Upjohn, 449 US at 393.
124
Swidler vs. Berlin, 524 US at 407-08.
125
US vs. Dennis, 843 F.2d 652, 656-57 (2d Cir. 1988).
126
Proposed Fed. R. Evid. 503(a)(2), 56 F.R.D. 236 (1972).
127
Proposed Fed. R. Evid. 503(a)(3), 56 F.R.D. 236 (1972).
128
US vs. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 922 (2d Cir. 1961).
129
Accord States vs. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir. 1989), modified, 924 F.2d 443 (2d Cir. 1991).
130
Proposed Fed. R. Evid. 503 advisory note; Clark vs. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933); In re Richard Roe, Inc. 68 F.3d 38, 40 (2d Cir.
1995).
131
United States vs. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 906 (D.C. 2003).
132
In re Napstar, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 479 F.3d 1078, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2007).
25
explore with his counsel what he may or may not do. Only when a client knowingly seeks legal counsel to
further a continuing or future crime does the crime-fraud exception apply.133
(ii) Claimant through Same Deceased Client. Normally the privilege survives the death of the client
and may be asserted by his representative. When, however, the identity of the person who steps into the
client‘s shoes is in issue, as in a will contest, the identity of the person entitled to claim the privilege remains
undetermined until the conclusion of the litigation. The choice is thus between allowing either sides or neither
to assert the privilege, with authority and reason favoring the latter view.134
(iii) Breach of Duty by Attorney or Client. In some cases, a client‘s assertion of a claim, counterclaim,
or affirmative defense that places an otherwise privilege matter at issue may be deemed a limited exception
(―waiver‖).135 Often, this exception applies to a malpractice suit against the attorney or an incompetence-of-
counsel claim in post-conviction criminal cases.136 The privilege also does not apply in an action by an attorney
against the client for the collection of legal fees.137
(iv) Document Attested by a Lawyer. The privilege does not apply where the attorney also acted as a
subscribing witness.138 When a testator uses his attorney as a subscribing witness to his will, the attorney
should be treated like any other subscribing witness. The only purpose a testator has in requesting any person
to witness his will is to assure its legal execution.
(v) Joint Clients. An exception for joint representation is widely recognized in situations where two
clients subsequently disagree and litigation ensues—e.g., clients A and B retain an attorney to draw up a
partnership agreement, and they later have a dispute that results in a lawsuit. The privilege does not apply in
later litigation between the joint clients; in that situation, one client‘s interest in the privilege is
counterbalanced by the other‘s interest in being able to waive it. The communications, however, remain
privileged from disclosure at the insistence of outsiders.139
PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT [SECTION 24(c)] (DOCTOR AND PSYCHOTHERAPIST PRIVILEGES)
The amendments in Section 24(c) of the Revised Rules of Evidence were taken from FRE Rule 504.
Q49. Does the doctor-patient privilege include the communication between a psychotherapist and
his patient? Explain.
A49. Yes. The doctor-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges share much in common. In
contrast, the Supreme Court of the United States recognized the psychotherapist-privilege in Jaffee vs.
Redmond140 in 1996.
Q50. What is the legal basis of psychotherapist-patient privilege?
A50. The amended portion in Section 24(c), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, which includes
psychotherapist, was taken from Rule 504 of the FRE. However, it was not enacted by the United States
Congress.
Q51. What is the purpose of the doctor-patient privilege communication rule? Explain.
A51. This rule on the physician-patient privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe full and
confidential disclosure by the patient to the physician of all facts, circumstances and symptoms,
untrammeled by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness
stand, to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion, and be enabled safely and efficaciously to
treat his patient. It rests in public policy and is for the general interest of the community.141
The physician-patient privileged communication rule essentially means that a physician who gets
information while professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil case be examined without the patient‘s
consent as to any facts which would blacken the latter‘s reputation. This rule is intended to encourage the
patient to open up to the physician, relate to him the history of his ailment, and give him access to his body,
enabling the physician to make a correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any fear
that a physician could be compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all that had transpired between
him and the patient might prompt the latter to clam up, thus putting his own health at great risk.142
________________________
133
United States vs. Doe, 429 F.3d 450, 454, 455 (3d Cir. 2005).
134
Proposed Fed. R. Evid. 503 advisory committee‘s note; Swidler & Berlin vs. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 406 (1998).
135
Hunt vs. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 470-71 (1888).
136
Johnson vs. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1178 (11th Cir. 2001).
137
Giannelli, P.C. (2009). Understanding Evidence. Third Edition (p. 604). U.S.A.: LexisNexis.
138
Proposed Fed. R. Evid. 503 advisory committee‘s note. (―When a lawyer acts as attesting witness, the approval of the client to his so
doing may safely be assumed, and waiver of the privilege as to any relevant lawyer-client communication is a proper result.‖).
139
In re Bank America Corp. Securities Litig. 270 F.3d 639, 644 (8th Cir. 2001), cited in Giannelli, P.C. (2009). Understanding Evidence.
Third Edition (p. 603). U.S.A.: LexisNexis.
140
518 U.S. 1 (1996).
141
Chan vs. Chan, G.R. No. 179786 (24 July 2013)(Third Division)[Abad, J.]; Lim vs. CA, G.R. No. 91114 (25 September 1992)(Third
Division)[Davide, Jr., J.].
142
Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, Volume VII, Part I, 1997 ed., p. 282, citing Will of Bruendi, 102 Wis. 47, 78
N.W. 169 and McRae vs. Erickson, 1 Cal. App. 326; Chan vs. Chan, G.R. No. 179786 (24 July 2013) (Third Division)[Abad, J.].
26
The privilege has been expanded to include dentists in order to protect communications concerning
HIV and AIDS.143
The privilege may apply to doctor of medicine, doctors of osteopathic medicine, doctors of pediatric
medicine, and dentists. Sometimes nurses are also included. Frequently, other medical personnel who work
under a doctor‘s supervision fall within the privilege‘s protection. 144
The privilege covers communications made to a physician by a patient and usually covers advice given
by the physician to a patient.145 Matters other than communications and advice do not fall within the privilege,
and a treating physician may be compelled to testify about such other matters. 146 Thus, the privilege does not
prevent testimony by a physician as to the effect of professional consultation by a person on a certain date.
However, some jurisdiction defines ―communication‖ broadly to include any medical, dental or hospital
communication ―such as record, chart, letter, memorandum, laboratory test and results, x-ray, photograph,
financial statement, diagnosis, or prognosis.‖ 147
Q52. What are the requisites to claim the existence of physician-patient privilege communication?
A52. In order that the privilege may be successfully claimed, the following requisites must concur:
1. the privilege is claimed in a civil case;
2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics;
3. such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his professional
capacity;
4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and
5. the information was confidential, and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation (formerly
character) of the patient.
Q53. What are the exceptions to the physician-patient privilege?
A53. The exceptions are as follows:
(1) required reports of gunshot, stab, or other wounds;148
(2) required reports of suspected child abuse and neglect;149
(3) required reports of abuse of mentally disabled persons;150 and
(4) test results showing the presence of alcohol or drugs in a criminal suspect‘s body.151
Q54. What is the patient-litigant waiver rule?
A54. This rule prevents a plaintiff from filing a suit against a physician or hospital; thereby putting his
medical condition at issue, and then refusing to answer questions about this condition based on the privilege.
Failure to object to the physician/s testimony at trial waives the privilege, as doe‘s voluntary disclosure
to a third party. The privilege may also be waived by the holder testifying about the communication. 152
Q55. What is the rationale of psychotherapist-patient privilege?
A55. All jurisdictions recognize psychotherapist-patient privilege.153 In Jafee vs. Redmond,154 the
therapist was a licensed clinical social worker who had counseled a police officer after she shot and killed a
man on duty. In the lawsuit filed by the victim‘s family against the officer, the family sought to discover the
social worker‘s notes. The Supreme Court of the United States concluded that the communications were
protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege.
________________________
143
Ohio Rev. Stat. 2317.02(B); Development in the Law-Privileged Communications, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 1450, 1533 (1985).
144
145
Trammel vs. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980).
146
In re Grand Jury Investigation in New York County, 779 N.E.2d 173, 176 (N.Y. 2002).
147
Ohio Rev. Code 2317.02(B)(3); Stagte vs. Moses, 80 P.3d 1, 17 (Hawaii App. 2002).
148
Ohio Rev. Code 2921.22(B).
149
Ohio Rev. Code 2951.421.
150
Ohio Rev. Code 5123.61.
151
Ohio Rev. Code 2317.02(B)(1)(b).
152
Giannelli, P.C. (2009). Understanding Evidence. Third Edition (p. 628-629). U.S.A.: LexisNexis.
153
Jaffee vs. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1996).
154
518 U.S. 1 (1996).
27
PRIEST AND PENITENT [SECTION 24 (d)]
Q56. What is the purpose of the priest and penitent privilege?
A56. The encouragement of the communicant to disclose troubling matters is the immediate goal. The
overarching aim is the recognition of ―the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and
absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and
guidance in return.‖155
Q57. Define Clergyperson.
A57. Clergyman is a minister, priest, rabbi, or other similar functionary of a religious organization,
or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the person consulting him. 156 A fair construction of the
language requires that the person to whom the status is sought to be attached be regularly engaged in
activities conforming at least in a general way with those of a Catholic priest, Jewish rabbi, or minister of
established Protestant denomination, though not necessarily on a full-time basis. No further specification
seems possible in view of the lack of licensing and certification procedure for clergymen. 157
Q58. What is the nature of the priest and penitent privilege?
A58. The communication must be made for the purpose of obtaining spiritual guidance.158
Consultations for other reasons do not fall within the privilege. 159
Q59. What is not covered by the priest and penitent privilege rule?
A59. Crime-fraud is an exception because the nature of what may reasonably be considered spiritual
advice makes it unnecessary to include in the rule a specific exception for communications in furtherance of
crime fraud.160
PUBLIC OFFICERS [SECTION 24 (e)]
Q60. What is the purpose of the public officer privilege?
A60. This common law privilege is intended to protect the public interest in effective law
enforcement. The privilege recognizes the obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the
commission of crimes to law-enforcement official and, by preserving their anonymity, encourages them to
perform that obligation.161
Q61. What are the exceptions to the public officers privilege rule?
A61. There are two (2) exceptions to the privilege, viz:
First, once the identity of the informant becomes known, the privilege ceases.162
Second, if the identity of the informant would provide substantial assistance to the defense at trial, the
state is required to reveal the identity of the informant or dismiss the prosecution.163
Q62. Can an informer‘s identity be revealed without violating the public officers privilege rule?
A62. Yes. In the 1957 case of Roviaro vs. US,164 the trial judge denied a defense motion to compel the
prosecution to disclose the informer‘s identity. The Supreme Court of the United States held that where
disclosure is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a
cause, the privilege must give way. In these situations, the trial court may require disclosure and, the
government withholds the information, dismiss the action.
Q63. What is the concept of executive privilege communication?
A63. The concept is for the maintenance of the confidentiality of conversations of the President
which is necessary in the exercise of her executive and policy decision making process. The expectation of
a President to the confidentiality of her conversations and correspondences, 165 like the value which we accord
________________________
155
Trammel vs. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980).
156
Waters vs. O‘Connor, 103 P.3d 292, 297 (Ariz. App. 2004).
157
In re Venplank, 329 F.Supp. 433, 436 (C.D. Cal. 1971).
158
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374, 377 (3d Cir. 1990).
159
Cox vs. Miller, 296 F.3d 89, 111 (2d Cir. 2002).
160
161
Roviaro vs. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957).
162
Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 60.
163
Giannelli, P.C. (2009). Understanding Evidence. Third Edition (pp. 645-646). U.S.A.: LexisNexis.
164
353 U.S. 53 (1957).
165
The issue raised was whether the conversation of the President of the Philippines and the petitioner is covered by the executive
privilege communication rule as regards to the following:
28
deference for the privacy of all citizens, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid,
objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. Disclosure of conversations of the
President will have a chilling effect on the President, and will hamper her in the effective discharge of her
duties and responsibilities, if she is not protected by the confidentiality of her conversations. [Neri vs. Senate
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, et al., G.R. No. 180643 (25 March 2008)(En Banc)
[Leonardo-De Castro, J.]; Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777 (20 April 2006)(En Banc)[Carpio-Morales].]166
Q64. Why is the executive privilege communication necessary?
A64. The privilege is said to be necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential advisors and to
provide the President and those who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives in the process of shaping
policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.
In United States vs. Nixon,167 (Nixon and post-Watergate) the U.S. Court recognized a great public interest
in preserving the confidentiality of conversations that take place in the President‘s performance of his official
duties. It thus considered presidential communications as presumptively privileged. Apparently, the
presumption is founded on the President‘s generalized interest in confidentiality.
Q65. What are the two kinds of executive privilege? Explain.
A65. The two (2) kinds of executive privilege are:
1. The communication privilege pertains to communications, documents or other materials that

reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain
confidential.
2. The deliberative process privilege includes advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations
comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. (In re: Sealed Case
No. 96-3124, 17 June 1997).
Q66. Who are the officials covered by the presidential communication privilege?
IN THE UNITED STATES
A66. In re: Sealed Case, it was held that the privilege confines only to White House Staff that has
operational proximity to direct presidential decision-making.
Thus, the privilege is meant to encompass only those functions that form the core of presidential
authority, involving what the court characterized as quintessential and non-delegable Presidential power,
such as commander-in-chief power, appointment and removal power, the power to grant pardons and
reprieves, the sole-authority to receive ambassadors and other public officers, the power to negotiate
treaties, etc.168
IN THE PHILIPPINES
The situation in Judicial Watch, Inc. vs. Department of Justice 169 tested the In Re: Sealed Case
principles. There, while the presidential decision involved is the exercise of the President‘s pardon power, a
non-delegable, core-presidential function, the Deputy Attorney General and the Pardon Attorney were
deemed to be too remote from the President and his senior White House advisors to be protected. The Court
conceded that functionally those officials were performing a task directly related to the President‘s
pardon power, but concluded that an organizational test was more appropriate for confining the
potentially broad sweep that would result from the In re: Sealed Case‘s functional test. The majority
concluded that, the lesser protections of the deliberative process privilege would suffice. That privilege was,
however, found insufficient to justify the confidentiality of the 4,341 withheld documents.
Q67. What are the elements of presidential communications privilege?
A67. The elements of presidential communications privilege are as follows:
1) The protected communication must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable presidential

power.
________________________
a) Whether the President followed up the (NBN) project?
b) Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?
c) Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe?
166
See also Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95637 (23 May 1995); Chavez vs. PEA, G.R. No. 133250 (9 July 2002).
167
418 U.S. 683.
168
CRS Report for Congress, Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law, Practice and Recent Developments at pp. 18-19.
169
365 F.3d 1108, 361 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 64 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 141.
29
2) The communication must be authored or solicited and received by a close advisor of the
President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in operational proximity with
the President.
3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome
by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought likely contains important evidence and by
the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. 170 (In re: Sealed Case
and Judicial Watch, supra).
Q68. What are the limitations of the executive privilege?
A68. The limitations are those provided for by law. Some of these laws are Section 7 of R.A. No.
6713,171 Article 229172 of the RPC, Section 3(k)173 of R.A. No. 3019, and Section 24(e)174 of Rule 130 of the
RROE. These are in addition to what our body of jurisprudence classifies as confidential and what our
Constitution considers as belonging to the larger concept of executive privilege. Clearly, there is a
recognized public interest in the confidentiality of certain information.
Further, the right to public information, like any other right, is subject to limitation. Section 7 of Article III
of the 1987 Constitution provides:
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
Q69. When can the executive privilege be properly invoked?
A69. Jurisprudence teaches that for the claim to be properly invoked there must be a formal claim of
privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter.175 A formal and proper
claim of executive privilege requires a precise and certain reason for preserving their confidentiality. 176
Q70. Will absolute privilege communication apply to pleadings submitted during the preliminary
investigation in criminal cases? Explain.
A70. Yes, provided it is relevant. In the case of Belen vs. People,177 the High Court ruled:
A communication is absolutely privileged when it is not actionable, even if the author has acted in
bad faith. This class includes allegations or statements made by parties or their counsel in pleadings or
motions or during the hearing of judicial and administrative proceedings, as well as answers given by the
witness in reply to questions propounded to them in the course of said proceedings, provided that said
allegations or statements are relevant to the issues, and the answers are responsive to the questions
propounded to said witnesses.178
The reason for the rule that pleadings in judicial proceedings are considered privileged is not only
because said pleadings have become part of public record open to the public to scrutinize, but also to the
undeniable fact said pleadings are presumed to contain allegations and assertions lawful and legal in
________________________
170
CRS Report for Congress, Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law Practice and Recent Developments at p. 2, cited in
Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate
Committee on National Defense and Security, supra.
171
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. – In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in
the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee
and are hereby declared to be unlawful: x x x
(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information.–Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge, confidential or
classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public, either:
(1) To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or
(2) To prejudice the public interest.
172
ARTICLE 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. — Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his
official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be
published, shall suffer the penalties of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification and
a fine not exceeding Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000) if the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have
caused serious damage to the public interest; otherwise, the penalties of prisión correccional in its minimum period, temporary special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand (P100,000) pesos shall be imposed. (As amended by R.A. No. 10951,
approved on 29 August 2017).
173
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position
to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.
174
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications. — The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned
in confidence in the following cases: x x x
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or her tenure as to communications made to him or her in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
x-x-x
175
United States vs. Reynolds, 345 U.S 1, 73 S. Ct. 528.
176
Unites States vs. Article of Drug, 43 F.R.D. at 190.
177
817 SCRA 370 (13 February 2017)(Second Division)[Peralta, J.].
178
Orfanel vs. People, 141 Phil. 519 (1969); Malit vs. People, 199 Phil. 532 (1982).
30
nature, appropriate to the disposition of issues ventilated before the courts for proper administration of
justice and, therefore, of general public concern. Moreover, pleadings are presumed to contain allegations
substantially true because they can be supported by evidence in good faith, the contents of which would be
under scrutiny of courts and, therefore, subject to be purged of all improprieties and illegal statements contained
therein.179 In fine, the privilege is granted in aid and for the advantage of the administration of justice.180
While Philippine law is silent on the question of whether the doctrine of absolutely privileged
communication extends to statements in preliminary investigations or other proceedings preparatory to trial,
the Supreme Court found as persuasive in this jurisdiction the U.S. case of Borg vs. Boas181 which
categorically declared the existence of such protection.
Q71. What is the extent of the absolute privilege communication? Explain.
A71. The absolute privilege remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence of malice, if
the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in and or subject of the inquiry. 182 Sarcastic,
pungent and harsh allegations in a pleading although tending to detract from the dignity that should
characterize proceedings in courts of justice, are absolutely privileged, if relevant to the issues. 183 As to the
degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to make the alleged defamatory matter privileged, the courts are
inclined to be liberal. The matter to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in
relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy and
impropriety.184
In order that a matter alleged in the pleading may be privileged, it need not, in any case, be material to
the issue presented by the pleadings; however, it must be legitimately related thereto or so pertinent to the
subject of the controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial. 185 What is
relevant or pertinent should be liberally considered to favor the writer, and the words are not to be scrutinized
with microscopic intensity,186 as it would defeat the protection which the law throws over privileged
communication.187
Q72. Why was the absolute privilege not applied in the case of Belen vs. People? Explain.
A72. The statements in petitioner‘s Omnibus Motion filed before the OCP of San Pablo City as a remedy
for the dismissal of his estafa complaint during preliminary investigation, fall short of the test of relevancy.
An examination of the motion shows that the following defamatory words and phrases used, even if liberally
construed, are hardly material or pertinent to his cause, which is to seek a reconsideration of the dismissal of
his estafa complaint and the disqualification of ACP Suñega-Lagman from further acting on the case:
(1) manifest bias for 20,000 reasons;
(2) the Investigating Fiscal‘s wrongful assumptions were tarnished in silver ingots;
(3) the slip of her skirt shows a corrupted and convoluted frame of mind;
(4) corrupted and convoluted 20,000 reasons;
(5) moronic resolution;
(6) intellectually infirm or stupid blind;
(7) manifest partiality and stupendous stupidity;
(8) idiocy and imbecility of the Investigating Fiscal; and
(9) a fraud and a quack bereft of any intellectual ability and mental honesty.
These statements are neither relevant grounds for a motion for reconsideration nor valid and justifiable
reasons for disqualification. These diatribes pertain to ACP Suñega-Lagman‘s honor, reputation, mental
and moral character, and are no longer related to the discharge of her official function as a prosecutor.
They are devoid of any relation to the subject matter of petitioner‘s Omnibus Motion that no reasonable
man can doubt their irrelevancy, and may not become the subject of inquiry in the course of resolving the
motion.
________________________
179
Cuenca vs. Cuenca, 162 Phil. 299 (1976).
180
Malit vs. People, supra.
181
231 F 2d 788 (1956).
182
Navarrete vs. CA, 382 Phil. 427 (2000), citing Deles vs. Aragona, Jr., 27 SCRA 633 (28 March 1969).
183
Sison vs. David, 110 Phil. 662 (1960).
184
Malit vs. People, supra.
185
Gonzales vs. Alvarez, 122 Phil. 238 (1965).
186
Navarrete vs. CA, supra, citing People vs. Aquino, 18 SCRA 555 (29 October 1966).
187
US. vs. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731 (1918).
31
2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE [SECTION 25]
SECTION 25. Parental and SECTION 25. Parental and

filial privilege. — No person filial privilege. — No person
may be compelled to testify shall be compelled to testify
against his parents, other against his or her parents,
direct ascendants, children or other direct ascendants,
other direct descendants. children or other direct
(20a) descendants, except when
such testimony is
indispensable in a crime
against that person or by one
parent against the other.
(25a)
Q73. What is the applicability of parental and filial privilege rule?
A73. Section 25, Rule 130 is an adaptation from a similar provision in Article 315 of the Civil Code that
applies only in criminal cases.
But those who revised the Rules of Civil Procedure choose to extend the prohibition to all kinds of
actions, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, filed against parents and other direct ascendants or
descendants.188
Q74. Can a stepmother invoke the filial privilege rule? Explain.
A74. No. The privilege cannot apply to the stepmother because the rule applies only to direct
ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no
common ancestry by her stepmother. Article 965 of the Civil Code thus provides:
Art. 965. The direct line is either descending or ascending. The former unites the head of the family with
those who descend from him. The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends.
Q75. Can filial privilege be invoked or waived like other privileges? Explain.
A75. Yes. This rule is not strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is not incompetent or
disqualified to testify against an ascendant.189 The rule refers to a privilege not to testify, which can be
invoked or waived like other privileges. (People vs. Invencion, G.R. No. 131636, 5 March 2003)(En Banc) [Davide,
Jr., C.J.].
TRADE SECRETS [SECTION 26]
SECTION 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets. — A person cannot be compelled to testify about any
trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is
directed, the court shall take such protective measure as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and
of the parties and the furtherance of justice may require. (n)
Q76. What is a trade secret? Explain.
A76. A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound known only to its
owner and those of his employees to whom it is necessary to confide it. 190 The definition also extends to a
secret formula or process not patented, but known only to certain individuals using it in compounding some
________________________
188
In re: Petition for Cancellation and Correction of Entries in the Record of Birth, Emma K. Lee vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 177861 (13 July
2010)(Second Division)[Abad, J.].
189
See 2 Florenz Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium 583 (7th rev. ed. 1995).
190
Black‘s Law Dictionary 1494 (1991), 6th ed.
32
article of trade having a commercial value. 191 A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device, or
compilation of information that:
(1) is used in one‘s business; and
(2) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not possess
the information.192
Generally, a trade secret is a process or device intended for continuous use in the operation of the
business, for example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list or catalogue or specialized customer
list.193 It is indubitable that trade secrets constitute proprietary rights. The inventor, discoverer, or possessor
of a trade secret or similar innovation has rights therein which may be treated as property, and ordinarily an
injunction will be granted to prevent the disclosure of the trade secret by one who obtained the information
―in confidence‖ or through a ―confidential relationship.‖ 194 (Air Philippines Corporation vs. Pennswell, Inc., 540 SCRA
215, 13 December 2007)(Third Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.].
Q77. What are the factors in determining whether an information is a trade secret?
A77. American jurisprudence has utilized the following factors 195 to determine if an information is a
trade secret, to wit:
(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the employer‘s business;
(2) the extent to which the information is known by employees and others involved in the
business;
(3) the extent of measures taken by the employer to guard the secrecy of the information;
(4) the value of the information to the employer and to competitors;
(5) the amount of effort or money expended by the company in developing the information; and
(6) the extent to which the information could be easily or readily obtained through an independent
source.
Q78. When can an employer validly terminate an employee based on alleged unauthorized
disclosure of trade secrets?
A78. Any determination by management as to the confidential nature of technologies, processes,

formulae or other so-called trade secrets must have a substantial factual basis which can pass judicial
scrutiny.196
Q79. What are the other privileged information, which cannot be disclosed but were not mentioned
in Rule 130 of the amended Rules of Evidence?
A79. Among them are the following:
(a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news;
(b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted;
(c) information contained in tax census returns; and
(d) bank deposits.197
Q80. What are the provisions related to trade secrets in the Revised Penal Code?
________________________
191
Id., citing Palin Mfg. Co., Inc. vs. Water Technology, Inc., 103 Ill.App.3d 926, 59 Ill. Dec. 553, 431
192
AMJUR EMPLOYMENT § 178, citing Saunders vs. Florence Enameling Co., Inc., 540 So. 2d 651 (Ala. 1988); Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc. vs. Johnson, 296 Pa. Super. 405, 442 A.2d 1114 (1982). The foregoing citation also expounded that trade secrets need
not be technical in nature. Market-related information such as information on current and future projects, as well as potential future
opportunities for a firm, may constitute a trade secret., citing Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. vs. Johnson, 296 Pa. Super. 405, 442
A.2d 1114 (1982).
193
Id., citing Saunders vs. Florence Enameling Co., Inc., 540 So. 2d 651 (Ala. 1988); Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. vs. Johnson, 296 Pa.
Super. 405, 442 A.2d 1114 (1982). A former employee of an insurance company, who routinely received information regarding the
company's customer list and policy termination dates while serving as vice-president, was barred from disclosing that information,
even though the company had partially disclosed the customer list in attempts to secure new clients. Alexander & Alexander, Inc. vs.
Drayton, 378 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1974), aff'd, 505 F.2d 729 (3d Cir. 1974).
194
9 A.L.R.3d 665, citing Am Jur, Injunctions (Rev ed § 72). The Restatement of the Law of Torts § 757, emphasizes that liability for the
disclosure of a trade secret learned under conditions giving no privilege of disclosure or use is not based on the mere copying or use
but on the improper means by which the information was procured.
195
Id., as adopted from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act which is intended to provide states with a legal framework for improved trade-
secret protection.
196
328 Phil. 351 (1996).
197
Francisco, Evidence (3rd ed., 1996), pp. 171-173. [See amended provision of Section 24, Rule 130, per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, effective
1 May 2020].
33
A80. These are the following articles:
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) shall be imposed upon any manager, employee or servant who, in
such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets. (RA 10951)
Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. — The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) shall be imposed upon the
person in charge, employee or workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the
prejudice of the owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter. [RA 10951].
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Admission by a Party
SECTION 26. Admission of a SECTION 27. Admission of a

party. — The act, declaration party. — The act, declaration
or omission of a party as to a or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him. (22) evidence against him or her.
(26a)
Q81. Can the admission in the counter affidavit be considered a confession? Explain.
A81. No. It is only an admission. In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth
or by showing they were made by mistake. The party may also establish that the response that formed the
admission was made in a jocular, not a serious, manner; or that the admission was made in ignorance of the
true state of facts.198
Nevertheless, whether categorized as a confession or as an admission, it is admissible in evidence

against him. (Ladiana vs. People, G.R. No. 144293, 4 December 2002) (Third Division)[Panganiban, J.].
Q82. Distinguish confession from admission.
A82. Sections 27 and 34 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence 199 distinguishes one from the
other as follows:
In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt;200
Whereas, in an admission, there is merely a statement of fact not directly involving an

acknowledgment of guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is charged.201
(People vs. Licayan, G.R. No. 144422, 28 February 2002)(En Banc)[Per Curiam].
A statement by the accused admitting the commission of the act charged against him but denying that it was done
with criminal intent is an admission, not a confession.202 (Ladiana vs. People, G.R. No. 144293, 4 December 2002)(Third
Division)[Panganiban, J.].
Q83. What is the effect of admission of counsel?
A83. The admission of counsel is considered as admission by client. The unbroken stream of judicial
dicta is that, in the conduct of their case, clients are bound by the actions of their counsels; save when the
latter‘s negligence is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the former are deprived of their day in
court.203 Also, clients, being bound by the actions of their counsels, cannot complain that the result of the
litigation might have been different had their lawyers proceeded differently.204 A counsel may err as to the
competency of witnesses, the sufficiency and the relevance of evidence, the proper defense, the burden of
proof, the introduction or the withholding of witnesses or pieces of evidence, or the manner of arguing the
case. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled several times that those are not even proper grounds for a
new trial, unless the counsel‘s incompetence is so gross that the clients are prevented from fairly
________________________
198
Francisco, supra, p. 319.
199
Per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, to take effect on 1 May 2020.
200
People vs. Sourisseau, 62 Cal.App.2d917, 145 P.2d 916, 923.
201
People vs. Lorenzo, 240 SCRA 624 (26 January 1995).
202
Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines Evidence, Vol. VII, Part I, 1997 ed., p. 303.
203
Ramos vs. Dajoyag, Jr., AC 5174 (28 February 2002); Villanueva vs. People, 330 SCRA 695 (12 April 2000); Sublay vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA
188 (21 January 2000); Alarcon vs. CA, 323 SCRA 716 (28 January 2000); Velasquez vs. CA, 309 SCRA 539 (30 June 1999).
204
People vs. Remudo, G.R. No. 127905 (30 August 2001); Gold Line Transit, Inc. vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 144813 (15 August 2001); People vs.
Villanueva, 339 SCRA 482 (31 August 2000).
34
presenting their case.205
Q84. Explain the concept of admission against interest.
A84. An admission against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the
facts in dispute since no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true. Thus, an
admission against interest binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was
made through palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. 206 (Heirs of Peter Donton vs. Stier, 837
SCRA 583, 23 August 2017)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
RES INTER ALIAS ACTA RULE; ADMISSION BY A THIRD PARTY
Section 28. Admission by SECTION 29. Admission by

third party. — The rights of a third party. — The rights of a
party cannot be prejudiced by party cannot be prejudiced
an act, declaration, or by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, except as omission of another, except
hereinafter provided. (25a) as hereinafter provided. (28)
Q85. Explain the res inter alios acta rule.
A85. The principle of res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by
an act, declaration, or omission of another.207 This rule, however, applies to extrajudicial declarations or
admissions. It does not apply to testimonies given on the witness stand where the party adversely affected
had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.208 (People vs. Pagapulaan, et al., G.R. No. 216936, 29 July 2019)
(Second Division)[Lazaro-Javier, J.].
Q86. What is the effect of an extra-judicial confession?
A86. An extra-judicial confession is binding only on the confessant. 209 It cannot be admitted against
his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them.210
Q87. What is the effect of the confession made by a party to the alleged co-accused? Explain.
A87. It is not binding to the co-accused.
On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man‘s own acts are binding upon himself, and
are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient,
but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a
party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence
against him. (Tamargo vs. Awingan, 610 SCRA 316, 19 January 2010)(Third Division)[Corona, J.]; Salapuddin vs. CA
(G.R. No. 184681, 25 February 2013)(Third Division)[Velasco, Jr., J.].
ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR AGENT (SECTION 30)
Q88. What are the exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule?
A88. The exceptions are as follows:
1. Admission by co-partner or agent under Section 30;
2. Admission by Conspirator under Section 31;
3. Admission by privies under Section 32.
Q89. As an exception to the res inter alios rule, what is necessarily required in the admission by the
conspirator?
________________________
205
Abrajano vs. CA, 343 SCRA 68 (13 October 2000); People vs. Salido, 258 SCRA 291 (5 July 1996).
206
Stanley Fine Furniture vs. Galiano, 748 Phil. 624 (2014).
207
Tamargo vs. Awingan, 624 Phil. 312 (2010).
208
People vs. Comiling, 468 Phil. 869 (2004).
209
Citing People vs. Vda de Ramos, 451 Phil. 214 (2003).
210
Citing People vs. Tizon, Jr., 385 SCRA 364 (30 July 2002).
35
A89. The rule allowing the admission of a conspirator 211 requires the prior establishment of the
conspiracy by evidence other than the confession.
Q90. Is a joint venture akin to partnership and thus, falls under the exception to res inter alios acta
rule?
A90. Yes. A joint venture is akin to partnership.
A partnership is defined as two or more persons who bind themselves to contribute money, property, or
industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. 212
Whereas, a joint ventures have been deemed to be akin to partnerships since it is difficult to distinguish
between joint ventures and partnerships. (Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp. vs. Redmont Consolidated
Mines Corp., G.R. No. 195580, 21 April 2014)(Third Division)[Velasco, Jr., J.].
ADMISSION BY A CONSPIRATOR (SECTION 31)
SECTION 30. Admission by SECTION 31. Admission by

conspirator. — The act or conspirator. — The act or
declaration of a conspirator declaration of a conspirator
relating to the conspiracy and in furtherance of the
during its existence, may be conspiracy and during its
given in evidence against the existence may be given in
co-conspirator after the evidence against the co-
conspiracy is shown by conspirator after the
evidence other than such act conspiracy is shown by
or declaration. (27) evidence other than such act
of declaration. (30a)
Q91. What are the requisites for the admission of a conspirator to be received against his or her co-
conspirators?
(a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself;
(b) the admission relates to the common object; and
(c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.213
Q92. Can the testimonies of the whistleblowers in the PDAF scam be given probative value during
the preliminary investigation without violating the res inter alios acta rule? Explain.
A92. Yes. The res inter alios acta rule under Section 29, Rule 130 of the RROE, which states that
the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, unless the
admission is by a conspirator under the parameters of Section 31 of the same Rule,214 constitutes a
technical rule on evidence which should not be rigidly applied in the course of preliminary investigation
proceedings. In Estrada vs. Ombudsman,215 the Supreme Court sanctioned the Ombudsman‘s appreciation of
hearsay evidence, which would otherwise be inadmissible under technical rules on evidence, during the
preliminary investigation as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. This is because
such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.
Applying the same logic, and with the similar observation that there lies substantial basis for crediting the
________________________
211
Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator. – The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be
given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. [Now
Section 31, Rule 130 per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, The Revised Rules of Evidence (effective 1 May 2020)].
212
Art. 1767, Civil Code.
213
See People vs. Bokingo, 655 SCRA 313 (10 August 2011).
214
An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
(Now Section 31, Rule 130 per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, The Revised Rules of Evidence, effective 1 May 2020). This provision states
that the act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against
the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. (30a)
Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that: (a) the
conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; (b) the admission relates to the common object; and (c) it has
been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. (People vs. Ibañez, 698 SCRA 161, 10 June 2013).
215
G.R. Nos. 212140-41 (21 January 2015), citing Unilever Philippines, Inc. vs. Tan, 715 SCRA 36 (29 January 2014).
36
testimonies of the whistleblowers herein, the objection interposed by the Napoles siblings under the
evidentiary res inter alios acta rule should falter. Ultimately, as case law edifies, the technical rules on
evidence are not binding on the fiscal who has jurisdiction and control over the conduct of a preliminary
investigation, as in this case. (Reyes vs. Ombudsman, 787 SCRA 354, 15 March 2016)(En Banc)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
ADMISSION BY PRIVIES (SECTION 32)

privies. — Where one derives privies. — Where one derives
title to property from another, title to property from
the act, declaration, or another, the latter‘s act,
omission of the latter, while declaration, or omission, in
holding the title, in relation to relation to the property, is
the property, is evidence evidence against the former
against the former. (28) if done while the latter was
holding the title. (31a)
Q93. Who are considered as privies?
A93. Those who are partakers or have an interest in any action or thing, or any relation to
another.216
Q94. What are the kinds of privies?
A94. Traditionally there are six (6) kinds of privies:
1. Privies of blood, such as the heir to his ancestor;
2. Privies in representation, as executors or administrators to their deceased testator or intestate;
3. Privies in estate, as grantor and grantee, lessor and lessee assignor and assignee, etc;
4. Privies in respect to contract;
5. Privies in respect of estate and contract, as where the lessee assigns his interest, but the contract
between lessor and lessee continues, the lessor not having accepted of the assignee;
6. Privies in law, as the lord by escheat, a tenant by the curtesy, or in dower, the incumbent of a
benefice, a husband suing or defending in right of his wife, etc.
Q95. What is the effect of a person‘s declaration if there exists a privity of estate between the
declarant and the party?
A95. The declarations of a person are admissible against a party whenever a privity of estate exists
between the declarant and the party, the term privity of estate generally denoting a succession in
rights.217 Consequently, an admission of one in privity with a party to the record is competent.218 And where
several co-parties to the record are jointly interested in the subject matter of the controversy, the admission of
one is competent against all.
The individual and separate admissions of each respondent bind all of them pursuant to Section 30
and Section 32, Rule 130219 of the RROE. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 406 SCRA 190, 15 July 2003)(En Banc)
[Corona, J.].
The rule is that the testimony on the witness stand partakes of the nature of a formal judicial
admission when a party testifies clearly and unequivocally to a fact which is peculiarly within his own
knowledge.220
________________________
216
Brown vs. Fedility Union Trust Co., 126 N.J. Eq. 406, 9 A.2d 311, 326; Hamelik vs. Sypek, 152 Misc. 799, 274 N.Y.S. 875.
217
29 Am Jur 2d Par. 824, p. 211.
218
31A C.J.S., Par. 322, p. 817.
219
Per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, The Revised Rules of Evidence, effective (1 May 2020).
220
31A C.J.S., Par. 311, p.795.
37
ADMISSION BY SILENCE (SECTION 33)

silence. — An act or silence. — An act or
declaration made in the declaration made in the
presence and within the presence and within the
hearing or observation of a hearing or observation of a
party who does or says party who does or says
nothing when the act or nothing when the act or
declaration is such as declaration is such as
naturally to call for action or naturally to call for action or
comment if not true, and comment if not true, and
when proper or possible for when proper and possible for
him to do so, may be given in him or her to do so, may be
evidence against him. (23a) given in evidence against
him or her. (32a)
Q96. What is the concept of admissions by silence? Explain.
A96. Failure of one not under arrest to respond by denial to accusation of crime, or element of crime,
maybe construed as admission of guilt if such person understood accusation and could have responded.221
If a statement is made by another person in the presence of a party to the action, containing assertions of
facts which, if untrue, the party would under all the circumstances naturally be expected to deny, his failure
to speak traditionally been receivable against him as an admission.
Q97. Explain the doctrine of estoppel in pais.
A97. It is the doctrine by which a person may be precluded by his act or conduct, or silence when
it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. 222
Q98. What is the applicability of admission by silence?
A98. The rule on admission by silence applies to adverse statements in writing if the party was
carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant. However, if there was no such mutual
correspondence, the rule is relaxed on the theory that while the party would have immediately reacted by a
denial if the statements were orally made in his presence, such prompt response can generally not be
expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply. 223 (Villanueva vs. Balaguer, 590 SCRA 661, 23 June 2009)
(Third Division)[Ynares-Santiago, J.]. (People vs. Español).224
CONFESSIONS (SECTION 34)
SECTION 33. Confession. — SECTION 34. Confession. —

The declaration of an accused The declaration of an
acknowledging his guilt of the accused acknowledging his or
offense charged, or of any her guilt of the offense
offense necessarily included charged, or of any offense
therein, may be given in necessarily included therein,
evidence against him. (29a) may be given in evidence
against him or her. (33a)
Q99. What is the concept of confession?
________________________
221
Black, H.C. (1979). Black‘s Law Dictionary. Fifth Edition (p. 44). St. Minn.: West Publishing Co.
222
Mitchell vs. McIntee, 15 Or.App. 85 514 P.2d 1357, 1359.
223
Regalado, F.D. (2004). Remedial Law Compendium. Volume II (p. 772).
224
G.R. No. 175603 (13 February 2009)(En Banc)[Corona, J.].
38
A99. Confession, under Section 34, Rule 130 of the RROE, is the declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged or any offense necessarily included therein.
More particularly, a confession is a declaration made at any time by a person, voluntarily and without
compulsion or inducement stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the
commission of a crime.
In short, in a confession, an accused acknowledges his guilt. 225 (San Vicente vs. People, G.R. No. 132081, 26
November 2002)(First Division)[Ynares-Santiago, J.].
4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE (SECTION 35)
SECTION 34. Similar acts as SECTION 35. Similar acts as

evidence. — Evidence that evidence. — Evidence that
one did or did not do a certain one did or did not do a
thing at one time is not certain thing at one time is
admissible to prove that he not admissible to prove that
did or did not do the same or he or she did or did not do
similar thing at another time; the same or similar thing at
but it may be received to another time; but it may be
prove a specific intent or received to prove a specific
knowledge, identity, plan, intent or knowledge,
system, scheme, habit, identity, plan, system,
custom or usage, and the like. scheme, habit, custom or
(48a) usage, and the like. (34a)
Q100. What does character evidence mean? Explain.
A100. Section 35, Rule 130 of the RROE is otherwise known as Character Evidence. Evidence of a
person‘s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in
conformity therewith on a particular occasion. 226
Q101. What is the effect of the admission by accused on the acts of lasciviousness case filed by his
eleven-year old daughter, while he has a pending rape case filed by his six-year old daughter?
A101. It only proves that such a case was filed and pending with the municipal court. It does not prove
the propensity of the accused-appellant to crave for his children. [People vs. Losano, 310 SCRA 707 (20 July 1999)
(En Banc)[Per Curiam]; People vs. Magpayo, G.R. Nos. 92961-64 (1 September 1993)(Third Division)[Bidin, J.].]
The pendency of another case, does not affect the constitutional presumption of innocence afforded
to the accused-appellant.
As a rule, evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal case
has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense for which he is on trial. It is not competent to prove
that he committed other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing that he committed the crime
charged in the complaint or information. (People vs. Magpayo, supra).
An exception to this rule is when such evidence tends directly to establish the particular crime, and
it is usually competent to prove the motive, the intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common
scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of
one tends to establish the other, or the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime
on trial.
ADMISSIBILITY OF OFFERS OF COMPROMISE (SECTION 28)
SECTION 27. Offer of SECTION 28. Offer of

compromise not admissible. — compromise not admissible. —
________________________
225
People vs. Sevilla, 339 SCRA 625 (2000).
226
Strong, John.W. (1999). McCormick on Evidence. Fifth Edition (p. 281). St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.
39
In civil cases, an offer of In civil cases, an offer of

compromise is not an compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and admission of any liability,
is not admissible in evidence and is not admissible in
against the offeror. evidence against the offeror.
Neither is evidence of conduct
In criminal cases, except nor statements made in
those involving quasi-offenses compromise negotiations
(criminal negligence) or those admissible, except evidence
allowed by law to be otherwise discoverable or
compromised, an offer of offered for another purpose,
compromised by the accused such as proving bias or
may be received in evidence prejudice of a witness,
as an implied admission of negativing a contention of
guilt. undue delay, or proving an
effort to obstruct a criminal
A plea of guilty later investigation or prosecution.
withdrawn, or an unaccepted
offer of a plea of guilty to In criminal cases, except those
lesser offense, is not involving quasi-offenses
admissible in evidence against (criminal negligence) or
the accused who made the those allowed by law to be
plea or offer. compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused
An offer to pay or the payment may be received in evidence
of medical, hospital or other as an implied admission of
expenses occasioned by an guilt.
injury is not admissible in
evidence as proof of civil or A plea of guilty later
criminal liability for the injury. withdrawn or an unaccepted
(24a)
offer of a plea of guilty to a
lesser offense is not
admissible in evidence
against the accused who
made the plea or offer.
Neither is any statement
made in the course of plea
bargaining with the
prosecution, which does not
result in a plea of guilty or
which results in a plea of
guilty later withdrawn,
admissible.
An offer to pay, or the

payment of medical, hospital
or other expenses occasioned
by an injury, is not
admissible in evidence as
proof of civil or criminal
liability for the injury. (27a)
Q102. What are pleas of nolo contendere?
A102. Pleas of nolo contendere are recognized by Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure (Federal
Rules), although the law of numerous States is to the contrary. The present rule gives effect to the principal
traditional characteristic of the nolo plea, i.e., avoiding the admission of guilt which is inherent in pleas of
guilty. This position is consistent with the construction of Section 5 of the Clayton Act, 227 recognizing the
inconclusive and compromise nature of judgments based on nolo pleas.228
________________________
227
15 U.S.C. §16(a).
228
General Electric Co. vs. City of San Antonio, 334 F.2d 480 (5th Cir. 1964); Commonwealth Edison Co. vs. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 323
F.2d 412 (7th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 376 U.S. 939, 84 S.Ct. 794, 11 L.Ed.2d 659; Armco Steel Corp. vs. North Dakota, 376 F.2d 206 (8th
Cir. 1967); City of Burbank vs. General Electric Co., 329 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1964). See also state court decisions in Annot., 18 A.L.R.2d
1287, 1314.
40
Exclusion of offers to plead guilty or nolo has as its purpose the promotion of disposition of criminal cases
by compromise. As pointed out in McCormick §251, p. 543:
―Effective criminal law administration in many localities would hardly be possible if a large proportion of
the charges were not disposed of by such compromises.‖
The last paragraph of Section 28, Rule 130 (Offer to Pay Medical/Hospital Expenses) finds reference
from Rule 409 of the Federal Rules of Evidence:
Rule 409. Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses
Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses
resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.229
Q103. What is the effect of the offer of compromise in civil cases?
A103. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror.
Q104. What is the effect of the offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases? Explain.
A104. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed
by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as implied
admission of guilt.
If the offer of Compromise was made, prior to the filing of the criminal complaint against the offeror, the
offer of Compromise was clearly not made in the context of a criminal proceeding and, therefore, cannot be
considered as an implied admission of guilt.
Q105. What is the effect of plea for forgiveness of the accused?
A105. A plea for forgiveness is analogous to an attempt to compromise. In People vs. Español,230 a
parricide case, the Supreme Court considered appellant‘s act of pleading for his sister-in-law‘s forgiveness as
analogous to an attempt to compromise, which in turn can be received as an implied admission of guilt under
Section 28, Rule 130 of the RROE.
Q106. In an Estafa case under Art. 315(2)(a) of the RPC, will the accused be absolved from his
criminal liability if he returns the money involved?
A106. No. The return by the accused of money belonging to the private complainant will not reverse a
consummated act of Estafa. Quite the contrary, such action may even uphold a conviction. Section 28, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court states that in criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or criminal
negligence or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. (Arriola vs. People, G.R. No. 199975, 24 February 2020)
(Second Division)[Hernando, J.].
HEARSAY RULE (SECTION 37)
Meaning of Hearsay (Reason for Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence)
SECTION 37. Hearsay. — Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement is (1) an
oral or written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an
assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-exa-
mination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with the declarant‘s testimony,
and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a
deposition; (b) consistent with the declarant‘s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied
charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or (c) one of
identification of a person made after perceiving him or her. (n)
HEARSAY DEFINITIONS
Q107. What is the declarant-focused definition of hearsay?

________________________
229
Enacted Jan. 2, 1975; as restyled; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.
230
G.R. No. 175603 (13 February 2009)(En Banc)[Corona, J.].
41
A107. Hearsay can be defined as an out-of-court statement whose probative value depends on the
credibility of the declarant.231 Such a ―declarant-focused‖ definition highlights the underlying policy of the
hearsay rule.
Q108. Who is a declarant?
A108. Rule 801(b), FRE defines ―declarant‖ as a ―person who makes a statement.‖ This definition
makes clear that the hearsay rule does not apply to devices, such as radar, or to tracking dogs. 232 The
principal objection to hearsay is the lack of cross-examination. It makes no sense to demand cross-
examination of a machine or a dog, even though both still raise reliability concerns. Nevertheless, those
concerns are better addressed as problems of scientific proof.
Computer-generated records may also fall into this category if they do not contain an assertion of a
person – e.g., automated telephone logs.233
OUT-OF-COURT (EXTRA-JUDICIAL) REQUIREMENT
Q109. When is an out-of-court (extra-judicial) statement considered not a hearsay?
A109. Rule 801(c), FRE defines hearsay as a ―statement,‖ other than one made by the declarant
while testifying at the trial or hearing.‖ Hence, an out-of-court (extrajudicial) statement does not lose its
hearsay character simply because the declarant later becomes a witness at trial and testifies about the state-
ment. For example, if an eyewitness to an accident makes a statement at the time of the accident and later
testifies at trial, the prior statement is hearsay if offered for its truth; to be admissible, it must fall within an
exception or exemption. The witness, of course, may testify about what she saw; only the witness‘s prior
statement is hearsay.234
DOUBLE HEARSAY
Q110. When can multiple or double hearsay be admitted in evidence?
A110. Rule 805 (FRE) governs the admissibility of multiple hearsay. The rule permits the admission
of hearsay within hearsay if each part of the hearsay chain falls within an exception. Multiple hearsay
issues often arise in connection with the public 235 and business records exceptions.236 Those exceptions
encompass a double-hearsay component if both declarants are under a business duty or an official duty. In
this situation, there is no need to resort to Rule 805.
If, however, only the entrant is under such a duty, the statement is inadmissible in the absence of
another hearsay exception. Here Rule 805 comes into play. The federal drafters provided several examples:
Thus, a hospital record might contain an entry of the patient‘s age based on information furnished by
his wife. The hospital record would qualify as a regular entry except that the person who furnished the
information was not acting in the routine of the business. However, her statement independently qualifies as
a statement of pedigree (if she is unavailable) or as a statement made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment,
and hence each link in the chain falls under sufficient assurance. Or, further to illustrate, a dying declaration
may incorporate a declaration against interest by another declarant. 237
Other examples are found in the cases,238 including one involving triple hearsay. 239
CALLING HEARSAY DECLARANT
Q111. What is the right of a party against whom hearsay statement is admitted when the declarant
is called as a witness?
A111. Under Rule 806 of the FRE, if a party against whom a hearsay statement is admitted calls the
declarant as a witness, the party may examine the declarant ―as if under cross-examination.‖ This
provision provides an automatic exception to Rule 611, which generally prohibits the use of leading question
________________________
231
Park, McCormick on Evidence and the Concept of Hearsay: A Critical Analysis Followed by Suggestions to Law Teachers, 65 Minn. L.
Rev. 423, 424 (1981).
232
The time of day as ―told‖ by a clock is another example.
233
United States vs. Washington, 494 F.3d 225, 231 (4th Cir. 2007), cited in Giannelli, P.C. (2009). Understanding Evidence. Third Edition
(p. 434). U.S.A.: LexisNexis.
234
235
Fed. R. Evid. 803(8).
236
Fed, R. Evid. (803)(6).
237
Fed. R. Evid. 805 advisory committee‘s note.
238
United States vs. Steele, 685 F.2d 793, 809 (3d Cir. 1982)(co-conspirator admission within recorded recollection exception); United
States vs. Diez, 515 F.2d 892, 895-96 n.2 (5th Cir. 1975)(state of mind statement within co-conspirator admission).
239
Unites States vs. Portsmouth Paving Corp. 694 F.2d 312, 321-23 (4th Cir. 1982)(Immediately following a telephone conversation, (1) the
declarant told the witness (2) what a party‘s secretary had said that (3) the party had told her. The first link is a present sense
impression under Rule 803(1). The secretary‘s statement to the declarant qualifies as an admission by an agent under Rule
801(d)(2)(D). The party‘s statement to the secretary is an individual admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(A).
42
on direct examination.240
HEARSAY EVIDENCE UNDER PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE
Q112. What is the concept of the hearsay rule in this jurisdiction?
A112. Under the hearsay rule, any evidence — whether oral or documentary — is hearsay if its
probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness, but on that of some other person
who is not on the witness stand.241 Hence, information that is relayed to the former by the latter before it
reaches the court is considered hearsay.242
Jurisprudence instructs that evidence of statement made or a testimony is hearsay if offered against a
party who has no opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Hearsay evidence is excluded precisely because
the party against whom it is presented is deprived of or is bereft of opportunity to cross-examine the
persons to whom the statements or writings are attributed. 243
Q113. What is the evidentiary value of newspaper articles?
A113. Newspaper articles amount to hearsay evidence, twice removed and are, therefore, not only
inadmissible but without any probative value at all whether objected to or not, unless offered for a
purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted. 244 As it is, the news article is admissible only
as evidence that such publication exists with the tenor of the news therein stated. The same rules apply to
news article published via the broadcast media or the internet communication. (Ocampo vs. Enriquez, G.R. No.
225973, 8 August 2017)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].245
Q114. What is the exception to the non-application of the hearsay rule?
A114. While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person given for the
purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is
otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the
statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when
what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the
statement may be shown.246
Q115. What is the probative value of an affidavit? Explain.
A115. An affidavit is commonly recognized as hearsay evidence.247 Since it is often prepared not by
the affiant but by another person who makes use of his or her own language in writing the statements, it is
generally rejected unless the affiant is placed on the witness stand to testify. Courts take judicial notice of
the fact that an affidavit does not purport to contain a complete narration of facts.248 Court testimonies,
therefore, are favored because these can be subjected to cross-examination. [Atienza vs. People, 716 SCRA 84 (12
February 2014)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.]; Office of the Court Administrator vs. Tormis, 801 SCRA 530 (30
August 2016)(En Banc)[Per Curiam].]249
Q116. Is hearsay evidence to establish probable causes admissible during preliminary

investigation? Explain.
A116. Yes. The determination of probable cause can rest partially, or even entirely, on hearsay
evidence, as long as the person making the hearsay statement is credible. 250
Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis
for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary
investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and
obligations of parties. [Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 748 SCRA 1 (21 January 2015)(En Banc)[Carpio, J.],
citing Unilever Philippines, Inc. vs. Tan, 715 SCRA 36 (29 January 2014)].
Q117. Explain the doctrine of independently relevant statements.
________________________
240
Giannelli, P.C. (2009). Understanding Evidence. Third Edition (p. 448-449). U.S.A.: LexisNexis.
241
PNOC Shipping & Transport Corp. vs. CA, 358 Phil. 38 (8 October 1998); Phil. Home Assurance Corp. vs. CA, 327 Phil. 255 (20 June
1996); Valencia vs. Atty. Cabanting, 196 SCRA 302 (26 April 1991).
242
Go vs. CA, 351 SCRA 145 (5 February 2001); Philippine Free Press, Inc. vs. CA, 473 SCRA 639 (24 October 2005)[Garcia, J.]; Espineli vs.
People, 725 SCRA 365 (9 June 2014).
243
Philippine Home Assurance Corp. vs. CA, 257 SCRA 468 (1996), citing Baguio vs. CA, 226 SCRA 366 (1993).
244
Feria vs. CA, 382 Phil. 412 (2000).
245
Interment of the Late Former President Ferdinand Marcos at LNMB.
246
Espineli vs. People, supra.
247
Flores, et al. vs. Lofranco, 576 Phil. 25 (2008)(Second Division)[Carpio-Morales, J.], citing People's Bank and Trust Co. vs. Judge
Leonidas, 283 Phil. 991 (1992)(Second Division)[Nocon, J.].
248
People vs. Villena, 439 Phil. 509 (2002)(En Banc)[Per Curiam].
249
The case in MTC, Cebu City for turning the solemnization of marriages into business.
250
United States vs. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965).
43
A117. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the
fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements
are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for
the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of
such a fact.251 (Cambe vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 812 SCRA 537, 6 December 2016)(En Banc)[Perlas-
Bernabe, J.].
Q118. Does the hearsay rule apply to independently relevant statements? Explain.
A118. No. The hearsay rule does not apply to independently relevant statements. Regardless of the
truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the
hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the
making of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in
issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. This is the doctrine of independently
relevant statements. [Arriola vs. People, G.R. No. 199975 (24 February 2020)(Second Division)[Hernando, J.], citing
People vs. Umapas].252
Q119. What is the probative value of a traffic accident investigation report?
A119. It is considered hearsay unless the public officer who caused the recording or the person who
made the report is presented in court and subjected to cross-examination by the adverse party. (DST Movers
Corporation vs. People‘s General Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 198627, 13 January 2016)(Second Division)[Leonen,
J.].
6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
DYING DECLARATION (SECTION 38)

SECTION 37. Dying SECTION 38. Dying
declaration. — The declaration. — The
declaration of a dying person, declaration of a dying
made under the person, made under the
consciousness of an consciousness of an
impending death, may be impending death, may be
received in any case wherein received in any case wherein
his death is the subject of his or her death is the subject
inquiry, as evidence of the of inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death. circumstances of such death.
(31a) (37a)
Q120. What are the requisites of a dying declaration?
A120. For a dying declaration to constitute as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule,253 four (4)
conditions must concur:
(a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant‘s
death;
(b) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending death;
(c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and
(d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the
declarant is the victim.254 [People vs. Palanas, 759 SCRA 318 (17 June 2015)(First Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.];
People vs. Rarugal alias ―Amay Bisaya,‖ G.R. No. 188603 (16 January 2013)(First Division)[Leonardo-De Castro,
J.].]
Q121. Why is a dying declaration an exception to the hearsay evidence rule?
________________________
251
People vs. Estibal, 743 SCRA 215 (26 November 2014), citing People vs. Velasquez, 405 Phil. 74 (2001).
252
807 Phil. 975 (2017).
253
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the competency and credibility of some persons other
than the witness by whom it is sought to produce. (See Espineli vs. People, G.R. No. 179535, 9 June 2014; See also Section 36, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court.).
254
People vs. Salafranca, 666 SCRA 501 (22 February 2012).
44
A121. This is because a dying declaration is an evidence of the highest order; it is entitled to the
utmost credence on the premise that no person who knows of his impending death would make a careless
and false accusation.255
STATEMENT OF DECEDENT OR PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND (SECTION 39)
SECTION 23. Disqualification SECTION 39. Statement of

by reason of death or insanity decedent or person of
of adverse party. — Parties or unsound mind. — In an
assignors of parties to a case, action against an executor or
or persons in whose behalf a administrator or other
case is prosecuted, against an representative of a deceased
executor or administrator or person, or against a person of
other representative of a unsound mind, upon a claim
deceased person, or against a or demand against the estate
person of unsound mind, upon of such deceased person or
a claim or demand against the against such person of
estate of such deceased unsound mind, where a
person or against such person party or assignor of a party
of unsound mind, cannot or a person in whose behalf a
testify as to any matter of fact case is prosecuted testifies
occurring before the death of on a matter of fact occurring
such deceased person or before the death of the
before such person became of deceased person or before the
unsound mind. (20a) person became of unsound
mind, any statement of the
deceased or the person of
unsound mind, may be
received in evidence if the
statement was made upon
the personal knowledge of
the deceased or the person
of unsound mind at a time
when the matter had been
recently perceived by him or
her and while his or her
recollection was clear. Such
statement, however, is
inadmissible if made under
circumstances indicating its
lack of trustworthiness. (23a)
DEAD MAN‘S STATUTE RULE
Q122. What is the concept of the dead man‘s statute or dead person‘s statute?
A122. Under the Dead Man‘s Statute Rule, if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from
testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the undue
advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.256
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (SECTION 40)
SECTION 38. Declaration SECTION 40. Declaration

against interest. — The decla- against interest. — The dec-
ration made by a person laration made by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, deceased or unable to testify
against the interest of the against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact asserted declarant, if the fact asserted
________________________
255
People vs. Sanchez, 622 SCRA 548 (29 June 2010); People vs. Cortezano, 425 Phil. 696 (2002); People vs. Cabtalan, 666 SCRA 174 (15
February 2012); People vs. Cerilla, 564 Phil. 230 (2007).
256
Tan vs. CA, 295 SCRA 247 (9 September 1998); Garcia vs. Robles Vda. de Caparas, 696 SCRA 649 (17 April 2013).
45
in the declaration was at the in the declaration was at the

time it was made so far time it was made so far con-
contrary to declarant's own trary to the declarant's own
interest, that a reasonable interest that a reasonable
man in his position would not person in his or her position
have made the declaration would not have made the
unless he believed it to be declaration unless he or she
true, may be received in believed it to be true, may be
evidence against himself or received in evidence against
his successors in interest and himself or herself or his or
against third persons. (32a) her successors in interest
and against third persons. A
statement tending to expose
the declarant to criminal
liability and offered to
exculpate the accused is not
admissible unless
corroborating circumstances
clearly indicate the
trustworthiness of the state-
ment. (38a)
Q123. Will the confirmation of an extra-judicial partition be considered as admission against

interest?
A123. Yes. Confirmation of an Extra-Judicial Partition partakes of the nature of an admission

against a person‘s proprietary interest. 257 As such, the same may be admitted as evidence against him and
his successors-in-interest. The theory under which declarations against interest are received in evidence,
notwithstanding that they are hearsay, is that the necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such
evidence advisable and, further, that the reliability of such declaration asserts facts which are against his
own pecuniary or moral interest. 258 (Cavile, et al. vs. Litania-Hong, G.R. No. 179540, 13 March 2009)(Third Division)
[Chico-Nazario, J.].
ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE (SECTION 41)
SECTION 39. Act or SECTION 41. Act or

declaration about pedigree. — declaration about pedigree. —
The act or declaration of a per- The act or declaration of a
son deceased, or unable to person deceased or unable to
testify in respect to the testify, in respect to the pe-
pedigree of another person digree of another person re-
related to him by birth or lated to him or her by birth,
marriage, may be received in adoption, or marriage or, in
evidence where it occurred the absence thereof, with
before the controversy, and whose family he or she was
the relationship between the so intimately associated as to
two persons is shown by evi- be likely to have accurate
dence other than such act or information concerning his
declaration. The word or her pedigree, may be
"pedigree" includes received in evidence where
relationship, family genealogy, it occurred before the
birth, marriage, death, the controversy, and the
dates when and the places relationship between the
where these facts occurred, two persons is shown by
and the names of the relatives.
evidence other than such act
It embraces also facts of family
or declaration. The word
history intimately connected
"pedigree" includes
with pedigree. (33a)
relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage,
death, the dates when and
________________________
257
Section 38, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
258
Parel vs. Prudencio, 487 SCRA 405 (19 April 2006).
46
the places where these facts

occurred, and the names of
the relatives. It embraces also
facts of family history
intimately connected with
pedigree. (39a)
Q124. What are the requisites in order that pedigree may be proved by acts or declarations of
relatives?
(a) the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify;
(b) the act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject by birth or marriage;
(c) the relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration; and
(d) the act or declaration was made ante litem motam, or prior to the controversy.259 (Tandog, et al.
vs. Macapagal, et al., G.R. No. 144208, 11 September 2007)(First Division) [Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.].
Q125. What is the purpose of filiation proceedings?
A125. Filiation proceedings are usually filed not just to adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal
right associated with paternity, such as citizenship,260 support or inheritance. The burden of proving paternity is
on the person who alleges that the putative father is the biological father of the child. (Herrera vs. Alba, G.R. No.
148220, 15 June 2005)(First Division)[Carpio, J.].
Q126. What are the procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action?
A126. There are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action, viz:
1) a prima facie case — A prima facie case exists if a woman declares that she had sexual relations
with the putative father. In our jurisdiction, corroborative proof is required to carry the burden forward and
shift it to the putative father;261
2) Affirmative defenses — There are two (2) affirmative defenses available to the putative father:
1. The putative father may show incapability of sexual relations with the mother, because of either
physical absence or impotency.262
2. The putative father may also show that the mother had sexual relations with other men at the
time of conception.
3) Presumption of legitimacy — A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is
presumed legitimate.263 The child‘s legitimacy may be impugned only under the strict standards provided by
law.264
4) Physical resemblance between the putative father and child 265 — Physical resemblance between
the putative father and child may be offered as part of evidence of paternity. Resemblance is a trial
technique unique to a paternity proceeding. However, although likeness is a function of heredity, there is no
mathematical formula that could quantify how much a child must or must not look like his biological father. 266
This kind of evidence appeals to the emotions of the trier of fact.
________________________
259
Regalado, Remedial Law Compedium, 1997 edition, p. 646.
260
See Tecson vs. COMELEC, 424 SCRA 277 (3 March 2004); Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 199 SCRA 692 (30
July 1991); Board of Commissioners (CID) vs. Dela Rosa, 197 SCRA 854 (31 May 1991).
261
See Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines (―Family Code‖), Arts. 172-173, 175; Rule 130,
Sections 39-40.
262
See Art. 166, Family Code.
263
See Arts. 165, 167, Family Code.
264
See Arts. 166-167, 170-171, Family Code.
265
See E. Donald Shapiro, Stewart Reifler, and Claudia L. Psome, The DNA Paternity Test: Legislating the Future Paternity Action, 7 J.L.
& Health 1, 7-19 (1993).
266
See Cabatania vs. CA, G.R. No. 124814 (21 October 2004).
47
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE (SECTION 42)
SECTION 40. Family SECTION 42. Family

reputation or tradition reputation or tradition
regarding pedigree. — The regarding pedigree. — The
reputation or tradition reputation or tradition
existing in a family previous to existing in a family previous
the controversy, in respect to to the controversy, in respect
the pedigree of any one of its to the pedigree of any one of
members, may be received in its members, may be received
evidence if the witness in evidence if the witness
testifying thereon be also a testifying thereon be also a
member of the family, either member of the family, either
by consanguinity or affinity. by consanguinity, affinity, or
Entries in family bibles or adoption. Entries in family
other family books or charts, bibles or other family books
engravings on rings, family or charts, engraving on rings,
portraits and the like, may be family portraits and the like,
received as evidence of may be received as evidence
pedigree. (34a) of pedigree. (40a)
Q127. What are the two important features of Section 42, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of
Evidence?
A127. Section 42,267 Rule 130 is divided into two (2) parts, viz:
1. the portion which pertains to testimonial evidence, under which the documents in question may
not be admitted as the authors thereof did not take the witness stand; and
2. to qualify as entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rights and
family portraits.268
COMMON REPUTATION (SECTION 43)
SECTION 41. Common repu- SECTION 43. Common

tation. — Common reputation reputation. — Common
existing previous to the reputation existing previous to
controversy, respecting facts the controversy, as to
of public or general interest boundaries of or customs
more than thirty years old, or affecting lands in the
respecting marriage or moral community and reputation as
character, may be given in to events of general history
evidence. Monuments and important to the community,
inscriptions in public places or respecting marriage or
may be received as evidence moral character, may be given
of common reputation. (35) in evidence. Monuments and
inscriptions in public places
may be received as evidence
of common reputation. (41a)
Q128. When can reputation be admitted to prove the location?
A128. When the location of boundaries of and is at issue, reputation is admitted to prove that
location. Traditionally, the reputation not only had to antedate the beginning of the present controversy,
but also it had to be ancient, i.e., to extend beyond a generation. Some recent cases suggest that the
________________________
267
Per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, The Revised Rules of Evidence (effective 1 May 2020).
268
Jison vs. CA, 286 SCRA 495 (24 February 1998)[First Division][Davide, Jr., J.].
48
requirement is only that the monuments or markers of the original survey must have disappeared. Federal
Rule 803(20) dispenses completely with a requirement that the reputation be ancient or that the passage of
time have rendered other evidence of the boundaries unavailable.
Reputation is also admissible to prove a variety of facts which can best be described as mattes of
general history. Wigmore suggested that the matter must be one as to which it would be unlikely that
living witness could be obtained. Rule 803(20) does not impose that requirement, although by use of the
term history some requirement of substantial age is imposed. In addition, the matter must be one of
general interest, so that it can accurately be said that there is a high probability that the matter
underwent general scrutiny as the community reputation was formed. Thus, when the navigable nature
of a certain river was at issue, newspaper accounts and histories describing its use during the nineteenth
century were admissible to prove reputation for navigability at that time.
In addition to these well-developed exceptions, reputation evidence is sometimes admitted under

statute or local law to prove a variety of other miscellaneous matters. These include ownership of
property, financial standing, and maintenance of a house as an establishment for liquor-selling or
prostitution.269
Q129. Will the ancient document rule apply in authenticating a writing?
A129. Yes. Under the US jurisprudence the ancient document rule applies. One method of authenticating
a writing is to show that it is at least twenty years old, (in this jurisdiction, under Section 21, Rule 132, to
qualify as an ancient document, a private document must be more than 30 years old) is unsuspicious in
appearance, and came from a place of custody natural for such writing. Indeed, historically the ancient
document rule related only to authentication, but American courts began recognizing a hearsay exception
for written statements that met these requirements. Thus, what originated as an aspect of authentication
also became an exception to the hearsay rule in some jurisdictions.
PART OF THE RES GESTAE (SECTION 44)
SECTION 42. Part of res SECTION 44. Part of the res

gestae. — Statements made by gestae. — Statements made
a person while a startling by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with subsequent thereto, under the
respect to the circumstances stress of excitement caused
thereof, may be given in by the occurrence with
evidence as part of the res respect to the circumstances
gestae. So, also, statements thereof, may be given in
accom-panying an equivocal evidence as part of the res
act material to the issue, and gestae. So, also, statements
giving it a legal significance, accompanying an equivocal
may be received as part of act material to the issue, and
the res gestae. (36a) giving it a legal significance,
may be received as part of
the res gestae. (42a)
Q130. What is res gestae as an exception to the hearsay rule? Explain.
A130. Res gestae is one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. It contemplates testimonial evidence on
matters not personally witnessed by the witness but is relayed to him or her by a declarant.
It refers to ―those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and
which are admissible when illustrative of such act.‖270 It contemplates statements that were ―voluntarily
and spontaneously made so nearly contemporaneous as to be in the presence of the transaction which they
illustrate and explain, and were made under such circumstances as necessarily to exclude the idea of design
________________________
269
Strong, J.W. (1999). McCormick on Evidence. Fifth Edition (p. 477). St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.
270
People vs. Feliciano, Jr., 734 Phil. 499 (2014)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.], citing People vs. Salafrancay Bello, 682 Phil. 470 (2012)(First
Division) [Bersamin, J.].
49
or deliberation.271 (Aleson Shipping Lines vs. CGU International Ins. PLC and Candado Shipping Lines, Inc., G.R. No.
217311, 15 July 2020)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Res gestae speaks of a quick continuum of related happenings, starting with the occurrence of a startling
event which triggered it and including any spontaneous declaration made by a witness, participant or
spectator relative to the said occurrence. [People vs. Tamano, G.R. No. 227866 (8 July 2020)(Third
Division)[Carandang, J.], citing People vs. Estibal].272
Res gestae means the ―things done.‖ It refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the
commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. A spontaneous exclamation
is defined as a statement or exclamation made immediately after some exciting occasion by a participant
or spectator and asserting the circumstances of that occasion as it is observed by him.
Q131. What are the acts which form part of the res gestae?
A131. There are two (2) acts which form part of the res gestae:
(1) in spontaneous exclamations where the res gestae is the startling occurrence; and
(2) in verbal acts where res gestae is the statement accompanying the equivocal act.273
Q132. What are the elements of the first act (spontaneous exclamations where the res gestae is the
startling occurrence) in order to be admitted as part of the res gestae?
A132. To be admissible under the first class of res gestae, the following elements must be present:
(1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence;
(2) that the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise;
(3) that the statements made must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances.274
Q133. What are the elements of the second act in order to be admitted as part of the res gestae?
A133. Under the second class of res gestae, (verbal acts where res gestae is the statement
accompanying the equivocal act) the following requisites must be present:
(1) the principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
(2) the equivocal act must be material to the issue;
(3) the statement must accompany the equivocal act; and
(4) the statements give a legal significance to the equivocal act.275
In general, the test is whether or not an act, declaration, or exclamation is ―so intimately interwoven or
connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
testimony.‖(People vs. Feliciano, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196735, 5 May 2014)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q134. What is the importance of the element of spontaneity?
A134. The element of spontaneity is critical because the admissibility of res gestae is premised on
human experience. The rule presumes that an utterance made, immediately following a strong and stressful
stimulus, is an honest and uncontrolled reaction. (People vs. Cudal, G.R. No. 167502, 31 October 2006)(Third Division)
[Carpio-Morales, J.].
Q135. What are the factors to be considered in determining whether the utterances were in fact
―spontaneous‖?
A135. There is no hard and fast rule by which spontaneity may be determined although a number of
factors have been considered, including, but not always confined to:
________________________
271
People vs. Calungsag, 748 Phil. 850 (2014)(Third Division)[Reyes, J.], citing People vs. Ner, 139 Phil. 390 (1969)(En Banc)[Concepcion,
J.].
272
748 Phil. 850 (2014).
273
Talidano vs. Falcon Maritime & Allied Sen'ices, Inc., 580 Phil. 256 (2008) (Second Division)[Tinga, J.].
274
Ilocos Norte Electric Co. vs. CA, 258-A Phil. 565 (1989)(Second Division) [Paras, J.].
275
Talidano vs. Falcon Maritime & Allied Services, Inc., 580 Phil. 256 (2008) (Second Division)[Tinga, J.].
50
(1) the time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of the
statement;
(2) the place where the statement is made;
(3) the condition of the declarant when the utterance is given;
(4) the presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the statement
relative thereto; and
(5) the nature and the circumstances of the statement itself.276
Q136. As a general rule, a witness can testify only to the facts he knows of his personal knowledge;
that is, which are derived from his own perception. All other kinds of testimony are hearsay and are
inadmissible as evidence. Give an exception thereto.
A136. The Rules of Court provide several exceptions to the general rule, and one of which is when the
evidence is part of res gestae under Section Section 44, Rule 130 of the RROE.277 (People vs. Feliciano, Jr., et
al., G.R. No. 196735, 3 August 2016)(Special Third Division) [Leonen, J.].
RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY (SECTION 45)
SECTION 43. Entries in the SECTION 45. Records of

course of business. — Entries regularly conducted
made at, or near the time of business activity. — A
the transactions to which memorandum, report, record
they refer, by a person or data compilation of acts,
deceased, or unable to testify, events, conditions, opinions,
who was in a position to or diagnoses, made by
know the facts therein stated, writing, typing, electronic,
may be received as prima optical or other similar
facie evidence, if such person means at or near the time of
made the entries in his or from transmission or
professional capacity or in the supply of information by a
performance of a duty and in person with knowledge
the ordinary or regular course thereof, and kept in the
of business or duty. (37a) regular course or conduct of
a business activity, and such
was the regular practice to
make the memorandum,
report, record, or data
compilation by electronic,
optical or similar means, all
of which are shown by the
testimony of the custodian
or other qualified witnesses,
is excepted from the rule on
hearsay evidence. (43a)
Q137. How should the entries be made in the course of the business to qualify as an exception to
the hearsay rule?
A137. Before entries made in the course of business may qualify under the exception to the hearsay rule
and given weight, the party offering them must establish that:
(1) the person who made those entries is dead, outside the country, or unable to testify;
(2) the entries were made at, or near the time of the transaction to which they refer;
(3) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein;
(4) the entries were made in the professional capacity or in the course of duty of the entrant; and
________________________
276
Manulat vs. People, supra, citing People vs. Dianos, 357 Phil. 871 (1998).
277
See also People vs. Albarido, 420 Phil. 235 (2001)(Third Division)[Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.].
51
(5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.278
Q138. What is the rationale for admitting entries in the course of business and considering them as
exception to the hearsay rule?
A138. Necessity is given as a ground for admitting entries, in that they are the best available
evidence. Said a learned judge: What a man has actually done and committed to writing when under obligation
to do the act, it being in the course of the business he has undertaken, and he being dead, there seems to be
no danger in submitting to the consideration of the court. The person who maybe called to court to testify on
these entries being dead, there arises the necessity of their admission without the one who made them being
called to court be sworn and subjected to cross-examination. And this is permissible in order to prevent a failure
of justice.279
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS (SECTION 46)
SECTION 44. Entries in official SECTION 46. Entries in

records. — Entries in official official records. — Entries in
records made in the official records made in the
performance of his duty by a performance of his or her
public officer of the duty by a public officer of
Philippines, or by a person in the Philippines, or by a
the performance of a duty person in the performance of
specially enjoined by law, a duty specially enjoined by
are prima facie evidence of law, are prima facie evidence
the facts therein stated. (38) of the facts therein stated.
(44a)
Q139. What is the presumption on the entries made in the official records made by a public officer?
A139. Under Section 46 of Rule 130, of the Revised Rules of Evidence, entries in official records made
in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state. Thus, the testimony of the
chemical analyst, and the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug
enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation.280
COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE (SECTION 47)
SECTION 45. Commercial lists SECTION 47. Commercial

and the like. — Evidence of lists and the like. — Evidence
statements of matters of of statements of matters of
interest to persons engaged interest to persons engaged
in an occupation contained in in an occupation contained
a list, register, periodical, or in a list, register, periodical,
other published compilation is or other published compilation
admissible as tending to is admissible as tending to
prove the truth of any relevant prove the truth of any
matter so stated if that relevant matter so stated if
compilation is published for that compilation is published
use by persons engaged in for use by persons engaged
that occupation and is in that occupation and is
generally used and relied generally used and relied
upon by them therein. (39) upon by them therein. (45)
Q140. When can a document be considered as a commercial list?

________________________
278
Canque vs. CA, 365 Phil. 124 (1999); LBP vs. Oñate, 713 SCRA 678 (15 January 2014).
279
7 Vicente J. Francisco, The Revised Rule of Court (Evidence), 538-539 (1973).
280
People vs. Quebral, 606 SCRA 247 (27 November 2009), citing People vs. Cervantes, 581 SCRA 762 (17 March 2009); People vs.
Bandang, 430 SCRA 570 (3 June 2004); Malillin vs. People, 553 SCRA 619 (30 April 2008).
52
A140. Under Section 47, Rule 130 of the RROE, a document is considered as a commercial list if:
(1) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation;
(2) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other published compilation;
(3) said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that occupation; and
(4) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation.281
LEARNED TREATISES (SECTION 48)
SECTION 46. Learned SECTION 48. Learned

treatises. — A published treatises. — A published
treatise, periodical or treatise, periodical or
pamphlet on a subject of pamphlet on a subject of
history, law, science or art is history, law, science, or art is
admissible as tending to admissible as tending to
prove the truth of a matter prove the truth of a matter
stated therein if the court stated therein if the court
takes judicial notice, or a takes judicial notice, or a
witness expert in the subject witness expert in the subject
testifies, that the writer of the testifies, that the writer of
statement in the treatise, the statement in the treatise,
periodical or pamphlet is periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his profession recognized in his or her
or calling as expert in the profession or calling as
subject. (40a) expert in the subject. (46a)
Q141. Why are learned treatises admissible as evidence under Section 48, Rule 130 of the RROE?
A141. The admissibility of a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the subject of history, science
or art without the writer being called to the stand, rests on two grounds:
a) Necessity; and
b) Trustworthiness.
Necessity because of the unavailability of expert witness to testify on the matter or if available, because
of the tremendous expense of hiring them;
Trustworthiness because the learned witness in writing in his work or article has no motive to
misrepresent.
Another reason is that the writer of a learned treatise is more careful of what he writes because he
knows that every statement he makes will be subject to criticism and open refutation. Still another reason
is that writers of learned treatise write with no view to litigation and not for a fee as expert witness. 282
TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER TRIAL (SECTION 49)
SECTION 47. Testimony or SECTION 49. Testimony or

deposition at a former procee- deposition at a former procee-
ding. — The testimony or ding. — The testimony or depo-
deposition of a witness sition of a witness deceased
deceased or unable to testify, or out of the Philippines or
given in a former case or who cannot, with due
proceeding, judicial or diligence, be found therein,
administrative, involving the or is unavailable or
same parties and subject mat- otherwise unable to testify,
ter, may be given in evidence given in a former case or
________________________
281
PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. CA, 297 SCRA 402 (8 October 1998)(Third Division)[Romero, J.].
282
6 Wigmore Evidence 1690-1692 (Chadbourn Rev. 1976).
53
against the adverse party proceeding, judicial or

who had the opportunity to administrative, involving the
cross-examine him. (41a) same parties and subject
matter, may be given in
evidence against the adverse
party who had the oppor-
tunity to cross-examine him
or her. (47a)
Q142. What are the requisites for the admissibility of a testimony in a former proceeding?
A142. In order that a testimony in a former proceeding involving the same parties and subject matter
may be given in evidence against the adverse party, the following requisites must be satisfied:
(a) the witness is dead or unable to testify;
(b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
between the same parties or those representing the same interests;
(c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different
causes of action;
(d) the issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present
case; and
(e) the adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case.283
The reasons for the admissibility of testimony taken at a former trial or proceeding are the necessity for
the testimony and its trustworthiness. However, before the former testimony can be introduced in
evidence, the proponent must first lay the proper predicate therefor, i.e., the party must establish the
basis for the admission of testimony in the realm of admissible evidence. 284 (Ambray vs. Tsourous, 795 SCRA
627, 5 July 2016)(First Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
RESIDUAL EXCEPTION (SECTION 50)
SECTION 50. Residual exception. — A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing
exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court
determines that (a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (b) the statement is more
probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure
through reasonable efforts; and (c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will be
best served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under
this exception unless the proponent makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the
hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a
fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent‘s intention to offer the statement and the particulars of
it, including the name and address of the declarant. (n)
CONCEPT OF RESIDUAL EXCEPTION
A residual exception allows hearsay even if no other exception will allow it. If other circumstantial
guarantees trustworthiness of the evidence are offered to prove the material fact at issue in the statement,
and if the statement is more probative than other evidence reasonably available to the proponent, and if both
the spirit of the rules and the requirements of justice would be best served by admission, then the evidence
should be heard.
In a criminal trial, the allowance of hearsay by an exception is no assurance of the statement‘s final
admissibility. A statement otherwise admissible that is a testimonial statement that, if introduced would
violate the confrontation clause, is still barred. 285
________________________
283
Samalio vs. CA, 494 Phil. 456 (2005).
284
See Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 678 Phil. 358 (2011).
285
Bouvier Law Dictionary (2011). Compact Edition (pp. 479-480). The Wolters Kluwer.
54
RESIDUAL EXCEPTION (CATCH-ALL EXCEPTION) EXPLAINED
Hearsay that is sufficiently reliable that it should be admitted in the interest of justice. The residual
exception, or catch-all exception, to the hearsay rule allows the admission of hearsay statements that do not
fall under the exceptions covered under Rule 803 and 804 (FRE286) that, nevertheless, possess similar
circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness that are equivalent to those of the categorical exceptions.
Hearsay that is admissible under this exception must be offered as evidence of a material fact, be more
probative than other evidence that can be procured through reasonable efforts, and serve the purposes of the
rules of evidence and interests of justice. Hearsay statements proffered under this exception may only be
admitted after reasonable advance notice to the opposing party of the statement and such evidence as would
be required to evaluate the proffer under the rules. 287
7. OPINION RULE
SECTION 48. General rule. — SECTION 51. General rule. —

The opinion of witness is not The opinion of a witness is
admissible, except as not admissible, except as
indicated in the following indicated in the following
sections. (42) sections. (48)
OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS; WEIGHT GIVEN (SECTION 52)
SECTION 49. Opinion of SECTION 52. Opinion of

expert witnesses. — The expert witness. — The
opinion of a witness on a opinion of a witness on a
matter requiring special matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or knowledge, skill, experience,
training which he is shown to training or education, which
possess, may be received in he or she is shown to possess,
evidence. (43a) may be received in evidence.
(49a)
Q143. What is the probative value of the testimony of an expert witness? Explain.
A143. Testimonies of expert witnesses are not absolutely binding on courts. However, courts
exercise wide latitude of discretion in giving weight to expert testimonies, taking into consideration the
factual circumstances of the case. (Tortuna, et al. vs. Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 202612, 17 January 2018)(Third
Division)[Leonen, J.].
In Tamani vs. Salvador,288 the Supreme Court said that the value of the opinion of a handwriting expert
depends not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance
he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between
genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an
unpracticed observer.
The use of the word may in Section 52, Rule 130 of the RROE signifies that the use of opinion of an
expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts.289 Jurisprudence is also replete
with instances wherein this Court dispensed with the testimony of expert witnesses to prove forgeries. 290
However, we have also recognized that handwriting experts are often offered as expert witnesses considering
the technical nature of the procedure in examining forged documents. 291
Q144. In forgery cases, is the testimony of the expert witness mandatory? Explain.
________________________
286
Federal Rules of Evidence
287
Ibid, p. 484.
288
647 SCRA 132 (4 April 2011).
289
Tabao vs. People, 654 SCRA 216 (20 July 2011).
290
Manzano, Jr. vs. Garcia, 661 SCRA 350 (28 November 2011).
291
Mendez vs. CA, 672 SCRA 200 (13 June 2012).
55
A144. No. In forgery cases, the presentation of expert witness is not mandatory. Section 52, Rule 130 of
the RROE uses the word ―may,‖ which signifies that the use of opinion of expert witness is permissive and
not mandatory.292 (CSC vs. Dampilag, G.R. No. 238774, 10 June 2020)(First Division)[Lopez, J.].
OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS (SECTION 53)

SECTION 50. Opinion of SECTION 53. Opinion of
ordinary witnesses. — The ordinary witnesses. — The
opinion of a witness for which opinion of a witness, for
proper basis is given, may be which proper basis is given,
received in evidence may be received in evidence
regarding — regarding —
(a) the identity of a person (a) The identity of a person

about whom he has adequate about whom he or she has
knowledge; adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with (b) A handwriting with

which he has sufficient which he or she has
familiarity; and sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a (c) The mental sanity of a

person with whom he is person with whom he or she
sufficiently acquainted. is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify The witness may also testify
on his impressions of the on his or her impressions of
emotion, behavior, condition the emotion, behavior,
or appearance of a person. condition or appearance of a
(44a) person. (50a)
Q145. What is the probative value of the testimony of a person with sufficient familiarity with the
handwriting?
A145. While the testimony of a person, disavowing the genuineness of his signature may seem self-
serving at first blush, it cannot be ignored that such person is in the best position to know whether or not the
signature was his, and averments he would have on the matter, if adjudged as truthful, deserve primacy in
consideration.293 (Sps. Lim, et al. vs. Chuatoco, G.R. No. 161861, 11 March 2005) (Second Division)[Tinga, J.].
Q146. Can the testimonies of children on the genuineness of the signature of their deceased mother
be given probative value? Explain.
A146. Yes. It may be properly appreciated in evidence, as Section 53, Rule 130 of the RROE allows the
opinion of an ordinary witness to be received in evidence regarding a handwriting with which he has
sufficient familiarity.294 Thus, in the case of Lim vs. Chuatoco supra, the Supreme Court sustained the
findings of the appellate court committed no error in ruling that Eduardo would probably be the most reliable
witness to testify on the handwriting of his mother because he had worked closely with and exchanged
papers and communications with Leoncia on a regular basis, the latter being then the administrator of the
properties left by Jose.
Q147. How should mental retardation be proven? Explain.
A147. Mental retardation can be proven by evidence other than medical/clinical evidence, such as
the testimony of witnesses and even the observation by the trial court. The witness may also testify on his
impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
Accordingly, it is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or mental
condition of a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe the speech, manner,
habits, and conduct of the person in question. Commonly, it is required that the witness details the factors
and reasons upon which he bases his opinion before he can testify as to what it is. (People vs. Castillo, G.R.
________________________
292
See Marcos vs. Heirs of Navarro, Jr., G.R. No. 198240 (3 July 2013).
293
Samsung Construction vs. FEBTC, G.R. No. 129015 (13 August 2004).
294
See Section 50 (now Section 53), Rule 130, Rules of Court.
56
No. 186533, 9 August 2010)(First Division)[Perez, J.].295
Q148. Can a mother of a rape victim testify on the mental and physical condition of her daughter?
Explain.
A148. Yes. If the mother knows the physical and mental condition of the party, how she was born, what
she is suffering from, and what her attainments are, she is competent to testify on the matter.296 (People vs.
Duranan, G.R. No. 134074-75, 16 January 2001)(Second Division)[Mendoza, J.].
Q149. What is the difference between an expert witness and an ordinary or lay witness? Explain.
A149. Under the RROE, there is a substantial difference between an ordinary witness and an expert
witness. The opinion of an ordinary witness may be received in evidence regarding:
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
(b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. Furthermore, the witness
may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.297
On the other hand, the opinion of an expert witness may be received in evidence on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, and experience or training which he shown to possess. 298
However, courts do not immediately accord probative value to an admitted expert testimony, much less
to an unobjected ordinary testimony respecting special knowledge. The reason is that the probative value of
an expert testimony does not lie in a simple exposition of the expert‘s opinion. Rather, its weight lies in the
assistance that the expert witness may afford the courts by demonstrating the facts which serve as a basis
for his opinion and the reasons on which the logic of his conclusions is founded. 299 (De La Llano vs. Biong, G.R.
No. 182356, 4 December 2013)(Second Division) [Brion, J.].
CHARACTER EVIDENCE; CRIMINAL CASES; CIVIL CASES; CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES
8. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
SECTION 51. Character SECTION 54. Character

evidence not generally evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions: — admissible; exceptions. —
Evidence of a person‘s
(a) In Criminal Cases: character or a trait of
character is not admissible
(1) The accused may prove for the purpose of proving
his good moral character action in conformity
which is pertinent to the therewith on a particular
moral trait involved in the occasion, except:
offense charged.
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the
prosecution may not prove his (1) The character of the
bad moral character which is offended party may be
pertinent to the moral trait proved if it tends to establish
involved in the offense in any reasonable degree the
charged. probability or improbability
of the offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral
character of the offended (2) The accused may prove
party may be proved if it his or her good moral
tends to establish in any character, pertinent to the
reasonable degree the moral trait involved in the
probability or improbability of offense charged. However,
the offense charged. the prosecution may not
prove his or her bad moral
(b) In Civil Cases: character unless on rebuttal.
________________________
295
Citing People vs. Dalandas, 442 Phil. 688 (2002); and People vs. Dumanon, 401 Phil. 658 (2000).
296
See also People vs. Dalandas, G.R. No. 140209 (27 December 2002)(En Banc) [Callejo, J.].
297
Section 50 (now Section 53), Rule 130, Rules of Court.
298
Section 49 (now Section 52), Rule 130, Rules of Court.
299
People vs. Florendo, 68 Phil. 619 (1939), citing United States vs. Kosel, 24 Phil 594 (1913).
57
Evidence of the moral (b) In Civil Cases:

character of a party in civil
cases is admissible only when Evidence of the moral
pertinent to the issue of character of a party in a civil
character involved in the case is admissible only when
case. pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the
(c) In the case provided for case.
in Rule 132, Section 14. (46a,
47a) (c) In Criminal and Civil
Cases:
SECTION 14, RULE 132
Evidence of the good
SECTION 14. Evidence of character of a witness is not
good character of witness. — admissible until such
Evidence of the good character has been
character of a witness is not impeached.
admissible until such
character has been In all cases in which
impeached. (17) evidence of character or a
trait of character of a person is
admissible, proof may be
made by testimony as to
reputation or by testimony in
the form of an opinion. On
cross-examination, inquiry is
allowable into relevant
specific instances of conduct.
In cases in which character

or a trait of character of a
person is an essential
element of a charge, claim or
defense, proof may also be
made of specific instances of
that person‘s conduct. (51a;
14, Rule 132)
Q150. Differentiate character and good moral character.
A150. ―Character‖ is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals,
distinguishing him from others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common
report of the people who are acquainted with him; his reputation. 300
Whereas, ―good moral character‖ includes all the elements essential to make up such a character;
among these are common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse; a character that
measures up as good among people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to the standard
of the average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.301 (People vs.
Lee, G.R. No. 139070, 29 May 2002)(En Banc)[Puno, J.].
Q151. What is the rule on the character and reputation of a party in a case? Explain.
A151. The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in
determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in
the case were allowed to be influenced by evidence of the character or reputation of the parties, the trial
would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather than a factual inquiry into the merits of the
________________________
300
Bouvier‘s Law Dictionary, Vol. I, 3rd revision, p. 457 (1914). Strictly speaking, character is not synonymous with reputation. Character
is the nature of a person, his disposition generally, or his disposition in respect to a particular trait such as peacefulness or
truthfulness. Reputation is the community estimate of him. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence in the United States, failure to make
the distinction may result in confusion. Character evidence is governed by Rule 404 while reputation is a method of proving character
in Rules 405 and 608—M. Graham, Federal Rules of Evidence in a Nutshell Series, 2nd ed., p. 94 [1987].
301
14 C.J.S. Character p. 400 (1939); Also cited in V. Francisco, Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, Vol. VII, Part I, p. 743. The
concept of character has acquired strong moral overtones over the years owing perhaps to the far greater frequency with which it is
encountered in criminal cases. Inquiry into the nature of the person has largely been confined to considerations which can be
characterized as either goodness or badness. As psychiatry and psychology progress and win increasing acceptance in the law, the
concept seems destined to encompass a broadened view of human nature-- Graham, supra, at 94-95.
58
case. After all, the business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may have
a righteous cause.302 There are exceptions to this rule however and Section 54, Rule 130 gives the
exceptions in both criminal and civil cases.
Q152. When does the offended party may prove his/her character in a criminal case?
Q152. Sec. 54(a)(1), Rule 130 provides that: The character of the offended party may be proved if it
tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
Q153. Can the accused in a criminal case prove his good moral character? Explain.
A153. Yes. In criminal cases, Section 54 (a)(2), Rule 130 of the RROE provides that: ―(2) The accused
may prove his or her good moral character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
However, the prosecution may not prove his or her bad moral character unless on rebuttal.‖ 303 When the
accused presents proof of his good moral character, this strengthens the presumption of innocence, and where
good character and reputation are established, an inference arises that the accused did not commit the crime
charged. This view proceeds from the theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not likely
to have committed the act charged against him.304
Section 54(a)(2), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, provides that the prosecution may not
prove the bad moral character of the accused except only in rebuttal and when such evidence is pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
This is intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who might otherwise be convicted not because
he is guilty but because he is a person of bad character.305 The offering of character evidence on his behalf is a
privilege of the defendant, and the prosecution cannot comment on the failure of the defendant to produce
such evidence.306 Once the defendant raises the issue of his good character, the prosecution may, in rebuttal,
offer evidence of the defendant‘s bad character. Otherwise, a defendant, secure from refutation, would have a
license to unscrupulously impose a false character upon the tribunal. 307
Section 54(a)(2), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence refers to character evidence of the
accused. And this evidence must be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged, meaning, that
the character evidence must be relevant and germane to the kind of the act charged, 308 e.g., on a charge of
rape, character for chastity; on a charge of assault, character for peacefulness or violence; on a charge for
embezzlement, character for honesty and integrity. 309
Q154. What is the applicability of moral character in sex offenses? Explain.
A154. In the Philippine setting, proof of the moral character of the offended party is applied with
frequency in sex offenses and homicide.310 In rape and acts of lasciviousness or in any prosecution involving
an unchaste act perpetrated by a man against a woman where the willingness of a woman is material, the
woman‘s character as to her chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented to the man‘s act. 311
The exception to this is when the woman‘s consent is immaterial such as in statutory rape 312 or rape with
violence or intimidation.313 In the crimes of qualified seduction314 or consented abduction,315 the offended party
must be a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation, 316 or a virtuous woman of good
reputation. The crime of simple seduction involves the seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good
reputation, over twelve but under eighteen years of age. 317 The burden of proof that the complainant is a
woman of good reputation lies in the prosecution, and the accused may introduce evidence that the
complainant is a woman of bad reputation. 318
Q155. In homicide cases, how should the character trait of the victim be appreciated? Explain.
A155. In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissible in two situations:
________________________
302
Jones on Evidence, Civil and Criminal, Vol. I, 5th ed., Sec. 165, p. 294 (1958) citing Thompson vs. Church, 1 Root (Conn) 312, and other
cases; Also cited in O. Herrera, Remedial Law, Vol. V, p. 834 (1999).
303
Per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, The Revised Rules of Evidence (effective 1 May 2020).
304
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence, Sec. 367 (1994 ed.).
305
McCormick on Evidence, Vol. I, 4th ed., Sec. 190, p. 797 (1992); 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence, Sec. 365 (1994 ed.). See also People vs.
Rabanes, 208 SCRA 768 (1992).
306
Wharton‘s Criminal Evidence, Vol. I, 12th ed., Sec. 221, p. 456 (1955).
307
Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. I, 3rd ed., Sec. 58, p. 458 (1940); See footnotes for English and American cases.
308
Francisco, supra. See also Wharton‘s Criminal Evidence, Vol. I, 12th ed., Sec. 221, pp. 459-461 (1955).
309
Francisco, supra, citing Wigmore on Evidence (Stud. Txt) 62.
310
Francisco, supra.
311
Naval vs. Panday, 321 SCRA 290 (1999).
312
Citing Wigmore on Evidence (Stud. Text) 63; see also Wharton‘s Criminal Evidence, Vol. 1, 12th ed, Sec. 229 (1955).
313
People vs. Taduyo, 154 SCRA 349 (1987); People vs. Blance, 45 Phil. 113 (1923).
314
Article 337, Revised Penal Code.
315
316
II L. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code 862 (1981).
317
318
Francisco, supra, at 752.
59
(1) as evidence of the deceased‘s aggression; and
(2) as evidence of the state of mind of the accused.319
The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the deceased or his calmness, gentleness
and peaceful nature, as the case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the accused was
the aggressor.320 When the evidence tends to prove self-defense, the known violent character of the deceased
is also admissible to show that it produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused
and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary. 321
Thus, in the case of People vs. Lee, supra, the High Court said: Proof of the bad moral character of the
victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of his killing. Accused-appellant has not
alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense. There is no connection
between the deceased‘s drug addiction and thievery with his violent death in the hands of accused-
appellant. In light of the positive eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the victim‘s bad character
he could have been killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen is pure and simple speculation.
Q156. Does the character evidence apply in administrative cases? Explain.
A156. No. The provision on character evidence pertains only to criminal cases, not to administrative
offenses.
Thus, in CSC vs. Belagan (G.R. No. 132164, 19 October 2004)(En Banc)[Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.], it was
held that not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under the provision of
Section 54, Rule 130 of the RROE. Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the
offense charged.
This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved in the
type of offense charged. Thus, on a charge of rape — character for chastity, on a charge of assault — character
for peaceableness or violence, and on a charge of embezzlement — character for honesty. In one rape case,
where it was established that the alleged victim was morally loose and apparently uncaring about her
chastity, we found the conviction of the accused doubtful.322
A.M. NO. 12-8-8-SC (JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE),323 EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2013
Q157. Does the JAR require the inclusion of the offer or statement of the purpose of the witness'
testimony and does it impose a fine on a party for failure to include the same?
A157. No. The contents of a judicial affidavit are those listed under Section 3324 of the JAR, while
Section 6 thereof provides that the party presenting the witness' judicial affidavit in place of direct testimony
shall state the purpose of the same at the start of the presentation of the witness. (Miranda vs. OCA, A.M. No.
MTJ-17-1899, 7 March 2018)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].
Q158. In what instances can a fine be imposed under the JAR rule?
A158. The fine under Section 10325 of the JAR is only imposable in the following instances:
________________________
319
Wharton‘s Criminal Evidence, Vol. I, 12th ed., Sec. 228, p. 474 (1955). Also cited in Francisco, supra, at 752. See also Herrera, supra, at
839-840.
320
In People vs. Gungob, 108 Phil. 1174 (1960), it was found that the character of the deceased as reflected by his criminal record of theft
and physical injuries was consistent with the provocative acts ascribed to him by the witnesses.
321
In People vs. Sumicad, 56 Phil. 645 (1932), the deceased was a bully of known violent character, although himself unarmed, he
attempted to take from the accused a bolo, the only means of defense possessed by the latter. Under the circumstances, it was
observed that it would have been an act of suicide for the accused to allow the bolo to pass into the hands of the victim.
322
Francisco, Basic Evidence, Second Edition, 1999 at 168, citing 22A C.J.S., Criminal Law, Sec. 667(5).
323
By virtue of the Supreme Court's authority under Section 5(5), Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution to disapprove rules of procedure of
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
324
Sec. 3. Contents of Judicial Affidavit. — A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness and, if not in
English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the place where the
examination is being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that
he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance with the Rules of
Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by law to administer
the same.
325
Sec. 10. Effect of non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. — (a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and
exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the
same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of
not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
60
(a) the court allows the late submission of a party's judicial affidavit; and
(b) when the judicial affidavit fails to conform to the content requirements under Section 3 and the
attestation requirement under Section 4.326
Q159. What is the scope of the applicability of the Judicial Affidavit (JA) Rule?
A159. Section 1 of the JA Rule provides:
SECTION 1. Scope. — (a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the
reception of evidence before:
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari‘ a Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims cases under
A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari‘a District Courts;
(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the Shari‘a Appellate
Courts;
(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence,
including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval
of the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule.
(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall
be uniformly referred to here as the ―court.‖
SUBMISSION IN LIEU OF DIRECT TESTIMONY
Q160. What is the period for the submission of the JA?
SECTION 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. — (a) The
parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not
later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to
motions and incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses‘ direct
testimonies; and
(2) The parties‘ documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial
affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.
(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his
possession, he may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his
judicial affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of
that original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the original document or object evidence for
comparison during the preliminary conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing
which the latter shall not be admitted.
This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when
allowed by existing rules.
CONTENTS
Q161. What are the required contents of the Judicial Affidavit of the witness/es?
________________________
xxxx
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content requirements of Section 3 and the
attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may, however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant
replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing
party and provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than
P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
326
Sec. 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. — (a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer
who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers that the witness
gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding the latter's answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment.
61
SECTION 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. — A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language
known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino,
and shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness
and the place where the examination is being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he
does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is
authorized by law to administer the same.
SECTION 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. — (a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn
attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness,
to the effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding
answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding the
latter‘s answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including
disbarment.
SECTION 5. Subpoena. — If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither
the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or
refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available for
copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself of the issuance
of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules governing the
issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that
the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be understood to be ex parte.
OFFER AND OBJECTION
Q162. How should the JA, in lieu of the oral testimony of the witness, be offered and objected
during its presentation?
A162. Section 6 of the JA rule states:
SECTION 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit. — The party presenting the judicial
affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of the
presentation of the witness. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or
any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if
granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an
authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court.
SECTION 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. — The adverse party shall have the right to
cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who
presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in
examining the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers
that it needs for resolving the issues.
Q163. How are the exhibits offered and objected?
A163. Section 8 of the JA rule provides:
SECTION 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. — (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his
last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits,
piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular
exhibit.
62
(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his
objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and
authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the
objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES
Q164. What is the applicability of the JA rule in criminal cases?
SECTION 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. — (a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or
(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before the
pre-trial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the
affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No
further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.
(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the
prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court
within ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutor,
including his documentary and object evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits
shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they appear before the court to testify.
EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Q165. What is the effect of non-compliance with the JA rule?
SECTION 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule. — (a) A party who fails to
submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission.
The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid
reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less
than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled
hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be
deemed to have waived his client‘s right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses there present.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may, however, allow
only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial
provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and provided
further, that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less
than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
Q166. What is the purpose of the judicial affidavit rule?
A166. The JAR327 was promulgated to address case congestion and delays in courts. To this end, it
seeks to reduce the time needed to take witnesses‘ testimonies.328
Q167. When was the effectivity of the JAR and the extent of its applicability?
A167. The JAR took effect on January 1, 2013 and would also apply to pending cases pursuant to
Section 12 to wit:
________________________
327
Promulgated on 4 September 2012.
328
Ng Meng Tam vs. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 214054 (5 August 2015)(Third Division)[Villarama, Jr., J.](Direct recourse from
the RTC to the SC on the question of whether Section 52 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule applies to hostile or adverse witnesses).
Judicial Affidavit Rule, 4th Whereas Clause provides:
xxxx
Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases under litigation, on February
21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in place of the
direct testimonies of witnesses;
xxxx
63
Sec. 12. Effectivity.—This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two
newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing cases.
The Court En Banc gave public prosecutors in first and second level courts one year of modified
compliance.329 The JAR thus took full effect on 1 January 2014.
In Ng Meng Tam vs. China Banking Corporation (G.R. No. 214054, 5 August 2015)(Third Division)
[Villarama, Jr., J.], the parties were presenting their evidence for the RTC‘s consideration when the JAR took
effect. Therefore, pursuant to Section 12 the JAR applies to the present collection suit.
Q168. Does Section 5 of the JAR apply to hostile or adverse witness?
A168. No. The JAR primarily affects the manner by which evidence is presented in court. Section 2(a) of
the JAR provides that judicial affidavits are mandatorily filed by parties to a case except in small claims cases.
These judicial affidavits take the place of direct testimony in court.
Under Section 10, parties are to be penalized if they do not conform to the provisions of the JAR. Parties
are however allowed to resort to the application of a subpoena pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Court in
Section 5 of the JAR in certain situations. (Ng Meng Tam vs. China Banking Corporation, supra).
Q169. What does Section 5 of the JAR contemplate?
A169. Section 5 of the JAR contemplates a situation where there is a:
(a) government employee or official; or
(b) requested witness who is not the:
(1) adverse party‘s witness; nor
(2) a hostile witness.
If this person either:
(a) unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit; or
(b) refuses without just cause to make the relevant documents available to the other party and its
presentation to court, Section 5 allows the requesting party to avail of issuance of subpoena ad testificandum or
duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses being excluded they are not covered by Section
5. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius: the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies
the exclusion of all others.330
Q170. What is the proper procedure to be followed if the requested witness is the adverse party‘s
witness or a hostile witness? Explain.
A170. The JAR being silent on this point, we turned to the provisions governing the rules on evidence
covering hostile witnesses specially Section 13, Rule 132 of the RROE (effective 1 May 2020) provides:
SECTION 13. Party may not impeach his or her own witness. — Except with respect to witnesses
referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10 of this Rule, the party presenting the witness is not
allowed to impeach his or her credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate
showing of his or her adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his or her having misled the
party into calling him or her to the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be
impeached by the party presenting him or her in all respects as if he or she had been called by the adverse
party, except by evidence of his or her bad character. He or she may also be impeached and cross-
examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his or
her examination-in-chief. (12a) (See Ng Meng Tam vs. China Banking Corporation, supra).
Before a party may be qualified under Section 13, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the party presenting the
adverse party witness must comply with Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 6. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. — Unless thereafter allowed by the court for
good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with written interrogatories may not
be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal.
________________________
329
Resolution dated 8 January 2013, rollo (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), pp. 37-39.
330
Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS, INC.) vs. Power Sector Assets and
Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM), 682 SCRA 602 (9 October 2012).
64
Q171. In civil cases, can the adverse party be called to the witness stand?
A171. No. In civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not
allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. (Sps. Afulugencia vs. MBTC, 715 SCRA
399, 5 February 2014)(Second Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
Q172. What is the purpose of requiring written interrogatories to be first served before the adverse
party can be called to the witness stand? Explain.
A172. One of the purposes of the rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there
to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve
written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its
case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be
treated as a fishing expedition or an attempt at delaying the proceedings; it produces no significant result that
a prior written interrogatories might bring.
Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written interrogatories, the court may limit the
inquiry to what is relevant, and thus prevent the calling party from straying or harassing the adverse party
when it takes the latter to the stand.
Thus, the rule not only protects the adverse party from unwarranted surprises or harassment; it likewise
prevents the calling party from conducting a fishing expedition or bungling its own case. Using its own
judgment and discretion, the court can hold its own in resolving a dispute, and need not bear witness to the
parties perpetrating unfair court practices such as fishing for evidence, badgering, or altogether ruining their
own cases. Ultimately, such unnecessary processes can only constitute a waste of the court‘s precious time, if
not pointless entertainment.29 (Sps. Afulugencia vs. MBTC, supra).
Q173. Should the purpose or offer be stated in the judicial affidavit? Explain.
A173. No. The JAR does not require the inclusion of the offer or statement of the purpose of the
witness‘ testimony in the judicial affidavit and thus there is no basis for the termination of the proceedings
and the imposition of the fine. However, in Miranda vs. Oca (A.M. No. MTJ-17-1899, 7 March 2018)(Second
Division)[Caguioa, J.], Judge Oca denied outright the said oral motion, excused the witness, and adjourned
the proceedings. Atty. Miranda asserted that Judge Oca is grossly ignorant of the law since the JAR neither
requires the inclusion of the offer or statement of the purpose of the witness‘ testimony in the judicial affidavit
nor does it impose a fine on the party for failure to do the same.
Q174. Should the documentary or object evidence be attached to the JA?
A174. Yes. Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the attachment of documentary or object evidence to the
affidavits is required when there would be a pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing.
Where a defendant fails to file an answer, the court shall render judgment, either motu proprio or upon
plaintiff‘s motion, based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for. Thus,
where there is no answer, there is no need for a pre-trial, preliminary conference or hearing. Reference can be
made to Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. (Fairland Knitcraft Corporation vs. Arturo Loo Po, G.R. No. 217694, 27
January 2016)(Second Division)[Mendoza, J.].
Q175. Can grave abuse of discretion be ascribed to the Judge if he ordered the submission of
Judicial Affidavits of witnesses of the parties? Explain.
A175. No. In issuing the order, the Judge was actually enforcing the Judicial Affidavit Rule, promulgated
by the Court. Therefore, by no stretch of the imagination may a Judge who faithfully observe of the rules of
procedure, be regarded as a capricious, whimsical or arbitrary act. (Lagon vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 208424, 14
February 2018)(Second Division)[Reyes, Jr., J.].
Q176. In what courts does the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply?
A176. The Supreme Court en banc directed the application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule to all actions,
proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence 331 before the following tribunals, such as:
(i) the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari‘a Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims cases under
A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
(ii) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari‘a District Courts;
(iii) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the Shari‘a Appellate
Courts;
________________________
331
Except for cases before the Supreme Court and Small Claims cases.
65
(iv) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence,
including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
(v) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of
the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule.332
Thus, in all proceedings before the aforementioned tribunals, the parties are required to file the Judicial
Affidavits of their witnesses, in lieu of their direct testimonies. Specifically, Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit
Rule ordains the same.
Incidentally, the failure to comply with Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule shall result to a waiver of
the submission of the required judicial affidavits and exhibits. However, the court may, upon valid cause
shown, allow the late submission of the judicial affidavit, subject to specific penalties, constituting a fine of
not less than One Thousand Pesos (Php1,000.00), nor more than Five Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00), at the
discretion of the court.333 (Lagon vs. Velasco, supra).
Q177. Can the JA rule and the Demurrer to evidence co-exist?
A177. Yes. Both the Judicial Affidavit Rule and Demurrer to Evidence can co-exist harmoniously as
tools for a more efficient and speedy administration of trial procedures. On the one hand, the Judicial Affidavit
Rule simply dispenses with the direct testimony; thereby reducing the time at which a case stands for trial, in
the same way that the Demurrer to Evidence abbreviates proceedings by allowing the defendant to seek for
an early resolution of the case should the plaintiff be unable to sufficiently prove his complaint. These rules do
not conflict, and when used hand in hand will lead to an efficient administration of the trial.
Q178. Can the non-inclusion of judicial affidavit of witnesses in a petition for continuing mandamus
be a ground for dismissal of the petition? Explain.
A178. No. There is nothing in Rule 8 of the Rules Procedure for Environmental Cases that compels
the inclusion of judicial affidavits, albeit not prohibited. It is only if the evidence of the petitioner would
consist of testimony of witnesses that it would be the time that judicial affidavits (affidavits of witnesses in
the question and answer form) must be attached to the petition/complaint. 334 (Dolot, et al. vs. Paje, G.R. No.
199199, 27 August 2013)(En Banc)[Reyes, J.].
Q179. When is the party required to file and serve the Judicial Affidavit of his/her witness/es to the
court?
A179. Section 2(a) of the JAR mandates the parties to file and serve the Judicial Affidavits of their
witnesses, together with their documentary or object evidence, not later than five (5) days before pre-trial or
preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents.
Q180. What is the effect of failure to timely submit the Judicial Affidavits and documentary
evidence?
A180. It shall be deemed as a waiver of their submission pursuant to Section 10(a) of the JA Rule.
Thus:
Section 10. Effect of Non-Compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. — (a) A party who fails to
submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission.
The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid
reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less
than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
However, it bears to note that Section 10(a) does not contain a blanket prohibition on the submission
of a belatedly filed judicial affidavit. As also stated in the same provision, the submission of the required
judicial affidavits beyond the mandated period may be allowed once provided that the following conditions
were complied, namely: (a) that the delay was for a valid reason; (b) it would not unduly prejudice the
opposing party; and (c) the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00 at
the discretion of the court.
Q181. Can the court allow belated filing of Judicial Affidavits?
A181. Yes. Jurisprudence explains that ―when no substantial rights are affected and the intention to
delay is not manifest with the corresponding submission x x x, it is sound judicial discretion to allow the
same to the end that the merits of the case may be fully ventilated.‖335 In this relation, the Supreme Court
has held that ―courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most mandatory character,
________________________
332
Section 1, Judicial Affidavit Rule.
333
Section 10, Judicial Affidavit Rule.
334
Section 3, Rule 2, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
335
Sps. Sibay vs. Sps. Bermudez, 813 Phil. 807 (2017).
66
mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties‘ right to due
process. In numerous cases, the High Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules when to do so would
serve the demands of substantial justice and equity,‖ 336 as in this case. (Say vs. Dizon, G.R. No. 227457, 22 June
2020)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
RULE 131
BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS
(Sections 1-6)
SECTION 1. Burden of proof. SECTION 1. Burden of proof

— Burden of proof is the duty and burden of evidence. —
of a party to present evidence Burden of proof is the duty
on the facts in issue of a party to present
necessary to establish his evidence on the facts in
claim or defense by the issue necessary to establish
amount of evidence required his or her claim or defense
by law. (1a, 2a) by the amount of evidence
required by law. Burden of
proof never shifts.
Burden of evidence is the

duty of a party to present
evidence sufficient to estab-
lish or rebut a fact in issue to
establish a prima facie case.
Burden of evidence may
shift from one party to the
other in the course of the
proceedings, depending on
the exigencies of the case.
(1a)
Q1. Explain the concepts of burden of proof?
A1. Burden of Proof – (Onus probandi) In the law of evidence, the necessity or duty of affirmatively
proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause. The obligation of a party to
establish by evidence a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the court.
Q2. What are the two (2) concepts of burden of proof?
A2. The two concepts of burden of proof are:
First, the burden of persuasion, which under traditional view never shifts from one party to the other at
any stage of the proceeding; and
Second, the burden of going forward with the evidence, which may shift back and forth between the
parties as the trial progresses.337
Q3. What is the concept of burden of evidence?
A3. Burden of evidence is the obligation of a party to introduce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling
against him on the issue.338 Such burden is met when one with the burden of proof has introduced sufficient
evidence to make out a prima facie case, though the cogency of the evidence may fall short of convincing the
trier of fact to find for him. The burden of introducing some evidence on all the required elements of the crime
or tort or contract to avoid the direction of a verdict against the party with the burden of proof. 339
Q4. If a person alleges that his signature is not genuine in a notarized document, can forgery be
presumed? Explain.
________________________
336
Ong Lim Sing Jr. vs. FEB Leasing & Finance Corporation, 551 Phil. 768 (2007).
337
Ambrose vs. Wheatley, D.C.Del., 321 F.Supp. 1220, 1222
338
Calif.Evid.Code.
339
Stuart vs. D. N. Kelley & Son, 331 Mass. 76, 117 N.E.2d 160.
67
A4. No. Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that the burden of proof is the duty of a party
to prove the truth of his claim or defense, or any fact in issue by the amount of evidence required by
law.340
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed. An allegation of forgery must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. 341 One who alleges forgery has
the burden to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or
more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. The fact of forgery can only be established by
a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person
whose signature is theorized to have been forged. 342 (Coro vs. Nasayao, G.R. No. 235361, 16 October 2019)(Third
Division)[Inting, J.].
PRESUMPTIONS
Conclusive Presumptions
SECTION 2. Conclusive SECTION 2. Conclusive

presumptions. — The presumptions. — The
following are instances of following are instances of
conclusive presumptions: conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, (a) Whenever a party has,
by his own declaration, act, or by his or her own
omission, intentionally and declaration, act, or omission,
deliberately led to another to intentionally and deliberately
believe a particular thing true, led another to believe a
and act upon such belief, he particular thing true, and to
cannot, in any litigation act upon such belief, he or
arising out of such she cannot, in any litigation
declaration, act, or omission, arising out of such
be permitted to falsify it: declaration, act or omission,
be permitted to falsify it; and
(b) The tenant is not
permitted to deny the title of (b) The tenant is not
his landlord at the time of the permitted to deny the title of
commencement of the relation his or her landlord at the
of landlord and tenant time of the commencement
between them. (3a)
of the relation of landlord
and tenant between them.
(2a)
Q5. Distinguish conclusive presumptions from disputable presumptions.
A5. The two may be distinguished as follows:
i. Conclusive presumptions are presumptions that may not be overturned by evidence, however strong the
evidence is. (Mercado vs. Santos and Daza, 66 Phil. 215 (1938)(En Banc)[Laurel, J.], citing Brant vs. Morning Journal
Association, 80 N.Y.S. 1002, 1004; 81 App. Div. 183 and Joslyn vs. Puloer, 59 Hun. 129, 140; 13 N.Y.S. 311.
They are made conclusive not because there is an established uniformity in behavior whenever identified
circumstances arise. They are conclusive because they are declared as such under the law or the rules.
ii. Whereas, disputable, presumptions are presumptions that may be overcome by contrary
evidence.343 They are disputable in recognition of the variability of human behavior. Presumptions are not
always true. They may be wrong under certain circumstances, and courts are expected to apply them,
keeping in mind the nuances of every experience that may render the expectations wrong. (University of
Mindanao, Inc. vs. BSP (G.R. No. 194964-65, 11 January 2016)(Second Division) [Leonen, J.].344
Q6. What are the two conclusive presumptions under the RROE?
________________________
340
Vitarich Corporation vs. Losin, G.R. No. 181560 (15 November 2010)(Second Division)[Mendoza, J.].
341
Almeda, et al. vs. Santos, et al., G.R. No. 194189 (14 September 2017)(First Division)[Tijam, J.], citing Sps. Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian
Sambaan, 624 Phil. 88 (15 January 2010)(Second Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
342
Gepulle-Garbo vs. Sps. Garabato, 750 Phil. 846 (2015).
343
Sec. 3, Rule 131, Rules of Court.
344
See also Philippine Agila Satellite Inc. vs. Usec. Trinidad-Lichauco, 522 Phil. 565 (2006)(Third Division)[Tinga, J.].
68
A6. Rule 131, Section 2 of the RROE identifies two (2) conclusive presumptions as follows:
a) The first one is provided by Section 2(a), Rule 131, is the principle of equitable estoppels.
The principles of equitable estoppel, sometimes called estoppel in pais, are made part of our law by Art.
1432 of the Civil Code.
An estoppel may arise from silence as well as from words. ‗Estoppel by silence‘ arises where a person,
who by force of circumstances is under a duty to another to speak, refrains from doing so and thereby leads the
other to believe in the existence of a state of facts in reliance on which he acts to his prejudice. Silence may
support an estoppel whether the failure to speak is intentional or negligent.
Inaction or silence may under some circumstances amount to a misrepresentation and concealment of
facts, so as to raise an equitable estoppel. When the silence is of such a character and under such
circumstances that it would become a fraud on the other party to permit the party who has kept silent to deny
what his silence has induced the other to believe and act on, it will operate as an estoppel. This doctrine rests
on the principle that if one maintains silence, when in conscience he ought to speak, equity will debar him
from speaking when in conscience he ought to remain silent. He who remains silent when he ought to
speak cannot be heard to speak when he should be silent.‘
The rule on estoppel in pais is a well-settled rule of equity which has been adopted by the courts of law
that where for instance A has, by his acts or representations, or by his silence when he ought to speak out,
intentionally or through culpable negligence, induced B to believe certain facts to exist, and B has rightfully
acted on his belief, so that he will be prejudiced if A is permitted to deny the existence of such facts, A is
conclusively estopped to interpose a denial thereof.345
b) The second one is provided by Section 2(a), Rule 131 on prohibition against the tenant.
Thus, what a tenant is stopped from denying is the title of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the landlord-tenant relation.346 If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have been
acquired subsequent to the commence ment of that relation, the presumption will not apply.33 Hence, the
tenant may show that the landlord's title has expired or been conveyed to another or himself; and he is not
estopped to deny a claim for rent, if he has been ousted or evicted by title paramount.
Article 1436 of the Civil Code provides that a lessee or bailee is estopped from asserting title to the
thing leased or received, as against the lessor or bailor. In addition, the conclusive presumption found in
Section 2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court known as estoppels against tenants. (Sps. Trinidad vs. Imson,
G.R. No. 197728, 16 September 2015)[Peralta, J].
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS (SECTION 3)
Q7. What is the consequence if the element of ―intent‖ in fraud cases, like estafa, was not proven
during the trial?
A7. The accused must be acquitted. ―Intent‖ is a requisite of the crime of estafa under Art. 315(1)(b), of
the RPC. (Khitri, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 210192, 4 July 2016) (Third Division)[Reyes, J.].
The essence of estafa committed with abuse of confidence is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made. The words ―convert‖ and
―misappropriate‖ connote the act of using or disposing of another‘s property as if it were one‘s own, or of
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one‘s own use includes
not only conversion to one‘s personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another
without right.347
The maxim is actus nonfacit reum, nisi mens sit rea – a crime is not committed if the mind of the person
performing the act complained of is innocent.348 As is required of the other elements of a felony, the existence
of malicious intent must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 349
Q8. In administrative proceedings, what is the natural consequence in case of failure to present
the original copy of the document subject of the forgery?
A8. Generally, photocopied documents can be admitted in evidence and be given probative value
in administrative proceedings, allegations of forgery and fabrication should prompt the adverse party to
present the original documents for inspection.350
________________________
345
See R.J., Francisco, Evidence 403-404 (3rd ed., 1996), citing Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2nd Ed., 421, cited in Pasion vs. Melegrito, G.R.
No. 166558 (28 March 2007)(Second Division)[Tinga, J.].
346
Ermitaño vs. Paglas, 689 SCRA 158 (23 January 2013)(Third Division) [Peralta, J.], citing Santos vs. NSO, 662 Phil. 708 (6 April
2011)(First Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
347
Pamintuan vs. People, 635 Phil. 514 (2010).
348
Albert, The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) 23-25 (1946).
349
See United States vs. Barnes, 8 Phil. 59 (1907).
350
Nicario vs. NLRC, 356 Phil. 936 (1998).
69
Failure on the part of the respondent to present the originals raises the presumption that evidence
wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. 351 (Loon, et al. vs. Power Master, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 189404,
11 December 2013)(Second Division)[Brion, J.].
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
Q9. In case of payment by mistake by the debtor, can reimbursement be ordered by the court
without the application of Section 3(f), Rule 131 of the RROE?
A9. No. In that case the burden of establishing its legal right to reimbursement becomes even more
crucial in the light of the general presumption contained in Section 3(f), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
that ―money paid by one to another was due to the latter.‖
There is a further requirement that the payment by the debtor was made either through mistake or under
a cloud of doubt. In short, for the provisions on solutio indebiti to apply, there has to be evidence establishing
the frame of mind of the payor at the time the payment was made.
Thus, to claim a refund of payments made under the principle of solutio indebiti, the debtor must be able
to establish that these payments were made through mistake. This is however, a factual matter which cannot
be raised to the Supreme Court, it being not a trier of facts. (Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corporation vs.
Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 126619, 20 December 2006)(Third Division)[Tinga,
J.].
Q10. Can the provision of Section 3(j) be applied in illegal possession of prohibited drugs under
Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165?
A10. Yes. A disputable presumption arises that if a person is in possession of the plastic bag
containing prohibited drugs without the requisite authority, she is the owner of the bag and its contents. It
may be rebutted by contrary proof that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in
question, and did not intend to do so. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence
of animus possidendi.352 (People vs. Hong Yeng E and Tsien Tsien Chua, G.R. No. 181826, 9 January 2013)(Third
Division)[Abad, J.].
DOCTRINE OF PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY HOW REBUTTED
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
Q11. Can the presumption of regularity be rebutted?
A11. Yes. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of
irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no
less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it
becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of
doubt as to an officer‘s act being lawful or unlawful; construction should be in favor of its lawfulness. 353
Absent any showing of bad faith and malice, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties. However, this presumption must fail in the presence of an explicit rule that was violated.(See
Reyna vs. COA, 642 SCRA 210 (8 February 2011); Casal vs. COA, 538 Phil. 634 (2006); Consular Area
Residents Association, Inc. vs. Casanova, 789 SCRA 209 (12 April 2016)(First Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
Q12. What is the time-honored presumption of factual findings of the administrative agencies of the
government?
A12. Factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are
afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings were
made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of
stability of the governmental structure. [Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) vs. Tormon, 686 SCRA 854, 4
December 2012](En Banc)[Peralta, J.].
Q13. When is the presumption of regularity of official acts not applicable?
A13. The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is a disputable presumption
under Rule 131, Section 3(m) of the RROE. Thus, the presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by
affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.354
The presumption of regularity in the performance of the CIR‘s official duties cannot stand in the face of
________________________
351
Section 3(e), Rule 131, Rules of Court.
352
Cupcupin vs. People, 440 Phil. 712 (2002).
353
Bustillo vs. People, 620 SCRA 483 (12 May 2010).
354
Sevilla vs. Cardenas, 529 Phil 419 (2006)(First Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.]; BPI vs. Evangelista, 441 Phil 445 (2002)(Third
Division)[Panganiban, J.].
70
positive evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. [CIR vs. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc. (G.R. Nos.
201398-99) and Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc. vs. CIR, (G.R. Nos. 201418-19), 3 October 2018](Third Division)
[Leonen, J.].355
Q14. What is the probative value of a public document, such as the Certificate of Live Birth?
A14. In the case of People vs. Entrampas, G.R. No. 212161, 29 March 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.],356 the
High Court ruled: A public document such as certificate of live birth generally enjoys the presumption of
regularity.357 Accused-appellant failed to present any evidence to overturn this legal presumption.
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
Q15. What is the presumption when a Judge rendered a judgment?
A15. It is presumed, in the absence of any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, that the trial court
had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, and to have rendered a judgment valid in every respect.
(Pilapil, et al. vs. Heirs of Maximo Briones, et al., G.R. No. 150175, 5 February 2007)(Third Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.].
LEGAL CONCEPT OF SUB SILENCIO
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and
passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute
submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
Q16. What is the legal concept of sub silencio?
A16. The legal concept of sub silencio provides that even if the ruling of the court is silent as to a
particular matter, for as long as said matter is within an issue raised in the case, it can be presumed,
subject to evidence to the contrary, that the matter in question was already laid before the court and
passed upon by it. (HGL Development Corporation vs. Penuela, et al., G.R. No. 181353, 6 June 2016)(First
Division)[Leonardo-De Castro, J.].
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
Q17. What is the essence of the disputable presumption under Section 3(p), Rule 131 of the RROE?
A17. Section 3(p) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court provides a disputable presumption that
private transactions have been fair and regular. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the ordinary course of
business is not overturned in the absence of the evidence challenging the regularity of the transaction
between the parties. (Ong vs. People, G.R. No. 190475, 10 April 2013)(First Division)[Sereno, CJ.].
However, for the crime Fencing, which is malum prohibitum under P.D. No. 1612, creates a prima facie
presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or
anything of value, which has been the subject of robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on
the value of the property.358
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
Q18. Can the provision of Section 3(q), Rule 131 of the RROE be invoked as justification for not
producing the original and only presenting the photocopy of the Deed of Sale of Shares of Stock? Explain.
A18. No. A photocopy of a document has no probative value and is inadmissible in evidence without
any explanation as to why359 the original Deed of Sale of Shares of Stock could not be produced. The provision
of Section 3(q), Rule 131 of the RROE on the disputable presumption that the ordinary course of business has
been followed' cannot be used as justification. The burden is on the presenter of the Deed of Sale to justify the
non-production of the original. [Tee Ling Kiat vs. Ayala Corporation (Substituted Herein by Its Assignee and
Successor-in-Interest, Bienvenido B.M. Amora, Jr.), G.R. No. 192530, 7 March 2018](Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].
(r) That there was sufficient consideration for the contract;
Q19. How can the presumption that sufficient consideration for a contract be overcome?
A19. To overcome the presumption, the alleged lack of consideration must be shown by preponderance
________________________
355
CIR vs. Metro Star Superama, Inc., 652 Phil. 172 (2010)(Second Division) [Mendoza, J.]; CIR vs. Reyes, 516 Phil. 176 (2006)(First
Division) [Panganiban, CJ.]; Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. CIR, 565 Phil. 613 (2007)(Second Division)[Velasco, Jr., J.]; CIR vs.
Algue, Inc., 241 Phil. 829 (1988)(First Division)[Cruz, J.].
356
Baldos vs. CA, id.
357
Baldos vs. CA, 638 Phil. 601 (2010)(Second Division)[Carpio, J.].
358
Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63 (11 July 1994).
359
Imani vs. MBTC, 649 Phil. 647 (2010), citing Concepcion vs. Atty. Fandino, Jr., 389 Phil. 474 (2000); and Intestate Estate of the Late Don
San Pedro vs. CA, 333 Phil. 597 (1996).
71
of evidence.360 The burden to prove lack of consideration rests upon whoever alleges it, which, in the present
case, is respondent.361 (Sepe vs. Heirs of Anastacia Kilang, G.R. No. 199766, 10 April 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa,
J.].
CONSISTENT RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT ON MAIL MATTER
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;
Q20. What is the consistent ruling of the Supreme Court on mail matters?
A20. On the basis of Section 3(v), Rule 131 of the RROE, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that
when a mail matter was sent by registered mail, there arises a disputable presumption that it was received in
the regular course of mail. The facts to be proved in order to raise this presumption are: (a) that the letter was
properly addressed with postage prepaid; and (b) that it was mailed. 362 [Allied Banking Corporation (Now
Philippine National Bank) vs. De Guzman, Sr., G.R. No. 225199, 9 July 2018](Second Division)[Peralta, J.]. 363
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee
still lives, he or she is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his or her succession
until after an absence of ten years. If he or she disappeared after the age of seventy-five years,
an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his or her succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate
among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing,
who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been
missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose
existence has not been known for four years; and
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present
may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a well-founded belief that the absent
spouse is already dead. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death, the
circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the
purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again,
the spouse present must institute summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in
the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse;
The provision of Section 3(w), Rule 131 of the RROE has its correlative equivalent in our substantive
law. Articles 390-391 of the Civil Code of the Philippines are enlightening in this respect.
Q21. What are the guidelines in the processing of claims of death benefits from the PVAO and the
AFP to avoid misconceptions in the application of Art. 41 364 of the Family Code and Arts. 390-391 of the
Civil Code?
A21. The Supreme Court issued the following guidelines-culled from relevant laws and jurisprudential
pronouncements to aid the public, PVAO and the AFP in making or dealing with claims of death benefits;
1. The PVAO and the AFP can decide claims or death benefits of a missing soldier without
requiring the claimant to first produce a court declaration of the presumptive death of such soldier. In such
claims, the PVAO and the AFP can make their own determination, on the basis of the evidence presented by
________________________
360
Sps. Saguid vs. Security Finance, Inc., 513 Phil. 369 (2005).
361
Mangahas vs. Brobio, 648 Phil. 560 (2010).
362
Barcelon, Roxas Securities, Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) vs. CIR, 529 Phil. 785 (2006).
363
See also CIR vs. Metro Star Superama, Inc., G.R. No. 185371 (8 December 2010)(Second Division)[Mendoza, J.], citing Barcelon, Roxas
Securities, Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) vs. CIR, 498 SCRA 126 (7 August 2006); Mangahas vs. CA, 588 Phil. 61 (2008).
364
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the cele-
bration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-
founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the
circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the spouse present must institute a
summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect
of reappearance of the absent spouse.
72
the claimant, whether the presumption of death under Articles 390-391365 of the Civil Code may be applied
or not.
It must be stressed that the presumption of death under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code arises by
operation of law, without need of a court declaration, once the factual conditions mentioned in the said
articles are established.366 Hence, requiring the claimant to further secure a court declaration in order to
establish the presumptive death of a missing soldier is not proper and contravenes established jurisprudence
on the matter.367
2. In order to avail of the presumption, therefore, the claimant need only to present before the PVAO
or the appropriate office of the AFP, as the case may be, any "evidence"368 which shows that the concerned
soldier had been missing for such number of years and or under the circumstances prescribed under Articles
390 and 391 of the Civil Code. Obviously, the "evidence" referred to here excludes a court declaration of
presumptive death.
3. The PVAO or the AFP, as the case may be, may then weigh the evidence submitted by the claimant
and determine their sufficiency to establish the requisite factual conditions specified under Article 390 or 391 of
the Civil Code in order for the presumption of death to arise. If the PVAO or the AFP determines that the
evidence submitted by the claimant is sufficient, they should not hesitate to apply the presumption of death
and pay the latter's claim.
4. If the PVAO or the AFP determines that the evidence submitted by the claimant is not sufficient to
invoke the presumption of death under the Civil Code and denies the latter's claim by reason thereof, the claimant
may file an appeal with the Office of the President (OP) pursuant to the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
If the OP denies the appeal, the claimant may next seek recourse via a petition for review with the CA
under Rule 43 of the Rules of the Court. And finally, should such recourse still fail, the claimant may file an
appeal by certiorari with the Supreme Court. (Tadeo-Matias vs. Republic, G.R. No. 230751, 25 April 2018)
(Third Division)[Velasco, Jr., J.].
ADHERENCE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to the law or fact;
Q22. What is the concept of adherence in good faith in this jurisdiction?
A22. The presumption of good faith means, that under the rules on evidence, it is disputably presumed
(i.e., satisfactory if uncontradicted and overcome by other evidence) that a person is innocent of crime or
wrong,369 that a person intends the ordinary consequence of his voluntary act,370 that a person takes ordinary
care of his concerns,371 that acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to the law and fact,372 that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage, 373 and that the law has been obeyed.374 It is whimsical to easily
attribute any illegal, irregular or immoral conduct on the part of a Filipino just because he or she opted to
marry a foreigner instead of a fellow Filipino. It is presumed that interracial unions are entered into out of
genuine love and affection, rather than prompted by pure lust or profit. (Republic vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, 24
April 2018)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
nature habits of life;
Q23. Should the fact that a person's kidneys were both in their proper anatomical location at the
time of operation be proved?
________________________
365
Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absence still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all
purposes except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of five years shall be
sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
Art. 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four
years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;
(2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years;
366
Manuel vs. People, G.R. No. 165842 (29 November 2005), citing Tolentino, The New Civil Code, Vol. I, 690. See also Valdez vs. Republic,
G.R. No. 180863 (8 September 2009).
367
In re: Petition for the Presumption of Death of Nicolai Szatraw, No. L-1780 (31 August 1948), in relation to Lukban vs. Republic, 89 Phil.
574 (1956), and Gue vs. Republic, 107 Phil. 381 (1960).
368
The "evidence" referred to include, but are not limited to the official service records of the missing soldier showing for how long he had
been missing and his last assignments and affidavits of persons who knew the circumstances of the missing soldiers' disappearance.
369
Section 3(a), Rule 131.
370
Section 3(c), Id.
371
Section 3(d), Id.
372
Section 3(x), Id.
373
Section 3(aa), Id.
374
Section 3(ff), Id.
73
A23. No. It need not be proved as it is covered by mandatory judicial notice. 375
The fact sought to be proved thereby, that the two kidneys of a person were in their proper
anatomical locations at the time he/she was operated on, is presumed under Section 3(y), Rule 131 of the
Rules of Court.
The rules of evidence are merely the means for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact. 376 Thus,
they likewise provide for some facts which are established and need not be proved, such as those covered by
judicial notice, both mandatory and discretionary.377 Laws of nature involving the physical sciences,
specifically biology,378 include the structural make-up and composition of living things such as human
beings.
The court can take judicial notice that a person‘s kidneys before, and at the time of, his/her
operation, as with most human beings, were in their proper anatomical locations. (Atienza vs. Board of
Medicine and Editha Sioson, G.R. No. 177407, 9 February 2011)(Second Division)[Nachura, J.].
Q24. The statistics, provided by the Philippine Statistics Authority (formerly NSO), show that 99%
percent of the population in the Philippines are Filipinos. Does this mean that things have happened
according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life?
A24. Yes. In Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC (786 SCRA 1, 8 March 2016)(En Banc)[Perez, J.], the
Supreme Court held:
There is a disputable presumption that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature
and the ordinary habits of life.379 All of the foregoing evidence, that a person with typical Filipino features is
abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly
Filipinos such that there would be more than a 99% chance that a child born in the province would be a
Filipino, would indicate more than ample probability if not statistical certainty, that petitioner‘s parents
are Filipinos. That probability and the evidence on which it is based are admissible under Rule 128, Section
4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of petitioner‘s parents are the fact that she was
abandoned as an infant in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo City. She also has typical Filipino features:
height, flat nasal bridge, straight black hair, almond shaped eyes and an oval face.
Q25. What is the presumption over a property acquired by a man and a woman during their
marriage?
A25. The presumption is that property acquired during the subsistence of a valid marriage — and in the
Civil Code, there can only be one validly existing marriage at any given time — is conjugal property of such
subsisting marriage.380 (Malang vs. Moson, et al., G.R. No. 119064, 22 August 2000)(En Banc)[Gonzaga-Reyes, J.].
Q26. What is the presumption if a child is born during the marriage and the exception thereto?
Explain.
A26. The presumption is that children born in wedlock are legitimate. This presumption indeed
becomes conclusive in the absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of access between the spouses
during the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately precedes the birth of the child due to (a) the
physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife; (b) the fact that the husband and
wife are living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the
husband, which absolutely prevents sexual intercourse. Quite remarkably, upon the expiration of the periods
set forth in Article 170, and in proper cases Article 171, of the Family Code (which took effect on 03 August
1988), the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child would no longer be legally feasible and the status
conferred by the presumption becomes fixed and unassailable. (Aguilar vs. Siasat, G.R. No. 200169, 28 January
2015)(Second Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
Q27. Is physical and scientific proof of blood relationship required to prove filiation?
A27. No. Physical or scientific proof of a blood relationship to a putative parent is not required by law to
establish filiation or any status arising therefrom such as citizenship. In fact, DNA evidence is not absolutely
________________________
375
Sec. 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court:
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the
admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, official acts of the
legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time,
and the geographical divisions. (1a)
376
377
Sec. 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court:
SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. – A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
378
Science of life, definition of Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary.
379
Section 3(y), Rule 131.
380
Art. 160, Civil Code; Adriano vs. CA, supra; Belcodero vs. CA, supra.
74
essential so long as paternity or filiation may be established by other proof.381 The same can be applied to a
foundling. Instead of requiring foundlings to produce evidence of their filiation — a nearly impossible
condition — administrative agencies, the courts and even Congress have instead proceeded on the
assumption that these children are citizens of the Philippines. (Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No.
221697 and G.R. Nos. 221698-700, 8 March 2016)(En Banc)[Perez, J.].
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that
nature;
Q28. Does the presumption of existence continue absent any evidence to prove otherwise?
A28. Yes. The presumption of ownership of a particular property continues absent any evidence
that he divested himself of the same. Under Sec. 3(ee), Rule 131 of the RROE, the ownership thereof is
rightly to be presumed because a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of
that nature. (Teves, et al. vs. The Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154182, 17 December 2004)(En Banc)[Davide, Jr., C.J.].
Whereas, the presumption against a member of the judiciary to be married as stated in his personal data
file remains, absent any showing that his first marriage was dissolved. Thus, if a complaint about immorality
was filed, and the said member of the judiciary failed to rebut the presumption, it is safe to conclude that he is
still married when he has an intimate relationship with another woman. (Imbing vs. Tiongson, 229 SCRA 690, 7
February 1994)(En Banc)[Per Curiam].
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
Q29. What is the presumption in implementing the writ of execution by the Sheriff?
A29. Sheriffs enjoy the disputable presumption that in implementing the writ of execution in ejectment
suit, it obeyed the applicable law and rules in doing so. (Santos-Yllana Realty Corporation vs. Sps. Deang, G.R.
No. 190043, 21 June 2017)(Third Division)[Velasco, Jr., J.].382
Q30. What is the presumption if the stolen property in a theft case was found in the possession of a
person?
A30. There is a disputable presumption that "a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing
of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that thing which a person
possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him." 383 Thus, when a person has possession of
a stolen property, he can be disputably presumed as the author of the theft. 384 (People vs. Chavez, G.R. No.
207950, 22 September2014)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS; AGAINST AN ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASES
SECTION 5. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. — In all civil actions and proceedings not
otherwise provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is
directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.
If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of
policy shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight, neither presumption applies. (n)
Section 5 is a new provision introduced in the Revised Rules of Evidence. However, its source can be
traced from the Federal Rules of Evidence of the United States, Rules 301-302, hereunder reproduced for easy
reference:
Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a
presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does
not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally.
________________________
381
In Lucas vs. Lucas, 665 Phil. 795 (2011), the Court explained:
Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a DNA testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The
court may, for example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If there is already preponderance of
evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test result would only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA
testing. This pronouncement was reiterated in Tecson vs. COMELEC, 468 Phil. 421 (2004), in which the Court stated: In case proof of
filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing which examines genetic
codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to.
382
See also Philippine Agila Satellite Inc. vs. Lichauco, 489 SCRA 22 (3 May 2006).
383
REV. RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 131, Sec. 2(j).
384
See Lozano vs. People, G.R. 165582 (9 July 2010)(Third Division) [Mendoza, J.].
75
Rule 302. Applying State Law to Presumptions in Civil Cases
In a civil case, state law governs the effect of a presumption regarding a claim or defense for which
state law supplies the rule of decision.
Conclusive or irrebuttable presumptions actually involve substantive rules of law and are therefore
beyond the scope of the Rules of Evidence.
Rebuttable presumptions. A presumption is not evidence.385 Rather, a presumption is a procedural rule

that defines the relationship between two facts — a basic fact and a presumed fact. If the basic fact is proved,
the presumed fact must be accepted as established unless and until rebutted. For example, if a letter is
properly addressed and mailed (basic facts), it must be accepted that the letter was received (presumed fact),
unless sufficient evidence has been introduced to rebut the presumed fact. 386 A presumption is mandatory.
The presumed fact must be accepted once the basic fact is established.387
Inferences. In contrast to a presumption, an inference, which also involves a relationship between two
facts, is permissive. For example, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor usually involves an inference of negligence.
Nevertheless, such a standardized inference does serve the purpose of satisfying a plaintiff‘s burden of
production on the issue of negligence.388
Prima facie. The term prima facie evidence, frequently encountered in this context, is often ambiguous,
and care must be taken to discern exactly how it is being used in a particular case. 389 Perhaps the term is most
often used to describe the burden of production; a party that has made out a prima facie case has satisfied its
burden of production and therefore should not suffer a directed verdict.390
Q31. What is the rationale of presumptions?
A31. Presumptions are created for a number of reasons: (1) policy; (2) fairness (possession of
evidence), and (3) probability. These are often called the three ―Ps.‖ Possession of the evidence refers to
one party‘s greater access to information. Probabilities, as used here, means a rough estimate of how the
world generally functions.
Different reasons underlie different presumptions, and in many instances several reasons may support a
particular presumption. The presumption of due delivery of properly posted mail (mailbox rule) is based on
probabilities (most letters are delivered) as well as the difficulty, on the part of the mailer, of proving receipt.
In contrast, the presumption of undue influence when a lawyer is named beneficiary under a will prepared by
that lawyer is based on policy. Lawyers are fiduciaries; they are supposed to assist their clients, not take
advantage of them.
Q32. What are the principal views on the effect of presumptions in civil cases? Explain.
A32. There are two (2) principal views on the effect of presumptions in civil cases, the Thayer Theory
and Morgan Theory, viz:
(a) Thayer Theory of Presumptions
Burden of production shifts. Under the Thayer view, sometimes known as the ―bursting bubble‖
theory, a presumption shifts only the burden of production or giving forward with the evidence; it does
not shift the burden of persuasion.391 Thus, proof of the basic fact (e.g. letter mailed) and shifts the burden of
producing evidence that will rebut the presumed fact to the other party. If the opposing party fails to rebut the
presumed fact, that party has failed to satisfy its burden of production and suffers a directed verdict on that
issue.392
Rebuttal Evidence Proferred. If, however, the opposing party offers sufficient evidence to rebut the
presumed fact, the presumption disappears — ―bursts.‖393 The presumption has performed its function of
shifting the burden of production, and since that burden has been satisfied by the introduction of rebuttal
evidence, no further function remains to be served. The burden of persuasion remains with the party to
whom it was originally allocated. 394
________________________
385
A.C. Aukerman Co. vs. R.L. Chaides Const. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
386
Rosenthal vs. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, 193 (1984).
387
388
Ibid.
389
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 417 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 2005).
390
391
Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law ch 8. (1898); 9 Wigmore, Evidence 2491(2)(3d ed. 1940).
392
393
Nunley vs. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 1995).
394
In re G-I Holdings, Inc., 385 F.3d 313, 318 (3d Cir. 2004).
76
Quantum of rebuttal proof. Courts and commentators are in general agreement that proferred evidence
is sufficient to rebut a presumption so long as the evidence could support a reasonable finding of the non-
existence of the presumed fact.395
Basic fact controverted. If the opposing party introduces evidence challenging the basic fact (e.g.,
evidence that the letter was not mailed), it must be decided whether the basic fact has been established. 396
(b) Morgan Theory of Presumption
A different view was expressed by Morgan.
Burden of production shifts. As with Thayer‘s theory, a Morgan presumption shifts the burden of
production, and if the opponent fails to offer rebuttal evidence, a directed verdict results. Thus, initially,
there is no difference between Thayer and Morgan.
Burden of persuasion shifts. The difference is that under the Morgan approach, a presumption shifts the
burden of persuasion as well as the burden of production. 397 Morgan argued that the Thayer theory failed to
support adequately the reasons underlying the creation of presumptions. According to Morgan, if a policy is
strong enough to call a presumption into existence, it is hard to imagine it so weak as to be satisfied by the
bare recital of words on the witness stand or the reception in evidence of a writing. 398 For example, the
presumption of undue influence when a lawyer becomes a beneficiary under a will prepared by that
lawyer is based on policy. This presumption should not simply disappear (―burst‖) based on the lawyer‘s
testimonial assertion that no undue influence was involved. The witness‘s testimony would satisfy the burden
of production, but the burden of persuasion would rest with the opposing party. In short, a presumption
under the Morgan theory has more ―teeth‖.
Nothing prevents a jurisdiction from having both Thayer and Morgan presumptions, depending on
the underlying policy for a presumption.399
SECTION 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases. — If a presumed fact that establishes
guilt, is an element of the offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable
doubt. (n)
Q33. What is the rationale of Sec. 6, Rule 131 on the presumption against an accused in criminal
cases?
A33. Section 6 is a new provision introduced in this Revised Rules of Evidence. It has no counterpart in
the old rules. It finds reference however, in some commentaries of learned authors in procedural laws in the
United States. The Supreme Court therein proposed Federal Rule 303 on Criminal Presumptions. However,
it was not enacted by Congress. The Uniform Rules of Evidence of the United States contain a provision
based on the Supreme Court proposal—Uniform Rules of Evidence 303 (rev. 1999).
Q34. Explain the presumption of innocence.
A34. Presumption of innocence. For example, the presumption of innocence is not a true presumption;
the accused is not required to prove any basic fact in order to trigger this presumption. Rather, the
presumption of innocence is the traditional way of stating that the burden of persuasion is on the prosecution.
Civil-criminal distinction. Although the term presumption is used in both criminal and civil cases, a
presumption operates differently in the criminal contest than in a civil one. The difference arises from
constitutional limitations. In a criminal case, an accused cannot constitutionally suffer a directed verdict.
Thus, although the term presumption is often used in criminal cases, such a presumption generally acts only
as an inference.400
CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
Q35. How should the rules of evidence be construed?

________________________
395
ITC Ltd. vs. Punchgini, Inc., 482 F.3d 135, 149 (2d Cir. 2007).
396
397
Morgan, Some Observations Concerning Presumptions, 44 Harv. L. Rev. 906 (1931); Morgan, Instructing the Jury Upon Presumptions
and Burden of Proof, 47 Harv. L. Rev. 59 (1933).
398
Ibid.
399
Wright vs. Ford Motor Co., 508 F.3d 263, 272 (5th Cir. 2007).
400
Giannelli, P.C. (2009). Understanding Evidence. Third Edition (pp. 68-69). U.S.A.: LexisNexis.
77
A35. The Rules of Procedure are liberally construed not to suit the convenience of a party, but "in order
to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding." To this end, it has been rightly written:
Procedural rules are not to be disregarded as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the
convenience of a party. x x x.
It cannot be overemphasized that procedural rules have their own wholesome rationale in the orderly
administration of justice. Justice has to be administered according to the rules in order to obviate
arbitrariness, caprice and whimsicality. (Momarco Import Company, Inc. vs. Villamena, G.R. No. 192477, 27
July 2016)(First Division)[Bersamin, J.].
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
Q36. What does quantum of evidence mean?
A36. The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable
such evidence should be considered. Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay,
authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules of physical
evidence. There are various standards of evidence, standards showing how strong the evidence must be to
meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the
evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt.401
RULE 132
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
(Sections 1-40)
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
PROBLEM:
Accused Anthony Tavern and Jose Dima were charged with the crime of rape. Tavern was first
apprehended, tried and convicted. Later, Dima was arrested. The trial court allowed the prosecution
witnesses to merely affirm on direct examination their previous testimonies taken during the trial of accused
Tavern.
Accused Dima contends that the proceedings violated his right to confront and cross-examine said
witnesses.
Is Dima correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. It was violative of the right of Dima to confrontation guaranteed by the Constitution. The main and
essential purpose of requiring a witness to appear and testify orally at a trial is to secure for the adverse party
the opportunity of cross-examination. ―The opponent,‖ according to an eminent authority, ―demands
confrontation, not for the idle purpose of gazing upon the witness, or of being gazed upon by him, but for the
purpose of cross-examination which cannot be had except by the direct and personal putting of questions and
obtaining immediate answers.‖ There is also the advantage to be obtained by the personal appearance of the
witness before the judge, and it is this—it enables the judge as the trier of facts ―to obtain the elusive and
incommunicable evidence of a witness‘ deportment while testifying, and a certain subjective moral effect is
produced upon the witness.‖ It is only when the witness testifies orally that the judge may have a true idea of
his countenance, manner and expression, which may confirm or detract from the weight of his testimony.
Certainly, the physical condition of the witness will reveal his capacity for accurate observation and memory,
and his deportment and physiognomy will reveal clues to his character. These can only be observed by the
judge if the witness testifies orally in court. Indeed, the great weight given the findings of fact of the trial
judge in the appellate court is based upon his having had just that opportunity and the assumption that he
took advantage of it to ascertain the credibility of the witnesses. [People vs. Go and De Los Reyes (G.R. Nos.
130714 and 139634 and G.R. Nos. 139331 and 140845-46), 27 December 2002](En Banc) [Carpio-Morales, J.].402
The procedure violated also the provision of Sections 1 and 2, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of
Evidence.
Q1. What is the probative value of the transcript of records of the proceedings in court?
________________________
401
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law).
402
Citing People vs. Estenzo, 72 SCRA 428 (1976).
78
A1. The transcript of records, being an official entry in the court‘s records, is admissible in evidence and
there is no necessity to produce the concerned stenographer as a witness. 403 (Fullero vs. People, G.R. No. 170583,
12 September 2007)(Special Third Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.].
Q2. How should the lower courts‘ assessment of the credibility of witnesses be treated by the
Supreme Court on appeal?
A2. The Supreme Court accords a high degree of respect to the assessment of the trial court which is in
the best position to observe the declarations and demeanor of the witnesses, and evaluate their credibility,
even more so when the same is affirmed by the CA. (See People vs. Subesa, 676 Phil. 403 (16 November
2011)(Third Division) [Mendoza, J.]; Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan, 844 SCRA 244 (7 November 2017)(En
Banc)[Reyes, J.], citing People vs. Yambot, 397 Phil. 23 (13 October 2000)(En Banc)[Per Curiam]; Fianza vs.
People, 834 SCRA 254 (2 August 2017)(First Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.](A case of child abuse under R.A. No.
7610); People vs. Dionaldo, 731 SCRA 68 (23 July 2014) (Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.](The conviction of
the accused was affirmed by the Supreme Court with modification. The accused was found GUILTY of the
special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and to pay, jointly and severally, the family of the kidnap
victim Edwin Navarro with damages.); People vs. Hallarte, 720 SCRA 582 (2 April 2014)(Second Division)
[Perlas-Bernabe, J.](Accused was convicted for Simple Rape and Rape by Sexual Assault).
Q3. What does credibility means under the rules of evidence?
A3. Credibility means the disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony given. It refers
to a person‘s integrity, and to the fact that he is worthy of belief.404
When the credibility of a witness is sought to be impeached by proof of his reputation, it is necessary
that the reputation shown should be that which existed before the occurrence of the circumstances out of
which the litigation arose405 or at the time of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period remote from
the commencement of the suit.406 This is because a person of derogatory character or reputation can still
change or reform himself. (CSC vs. Belagan, G.R. No. 132164 (19 October 2004)(En Banc)[Sandoval-
Gutierrez, J.][Two (2) separate complaints filed respectively by Magdalena Gapuz, founder/directress of the
Mother and Child Learning Center, and Ligaya Annawi, a public school teacher at Fort Del Pilar Elementary
School, against respondent Dr. Allyson Belagan, Superintendent of the Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (DECS), all from Baguio City. Magdalena charged respondent with sexual indignities and harassment,
while Ligaya accused him of sexual harassment and various malfeasances. Respondent was DISMISSED from
the service for Grave Misconduct.].
Q4. How can a witness be discredited?
A4. The witness can be discredited by evidence attacking his general reputation for truth, 407 honesty408
or integrity.409
Q5. Can the offended party be discredited in the witness stand? Explain.
A5. Yes. By testifying in her own behalf, opened herself to character or reputation attack pursuant to
the principle that a party who becomes a witness in his own behalf places himself in the same position as any
other witness, and may be impeached by an attack on his character or reputation. 410
Q6. Why can a witness not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts? Explain.
A6. Such evidence is rejected because of the confusion of issues and the waste of time that would be
involved, and because the witness may not be prepared to expose the falsity of such wrongful acts. 411 (CSC vs.
Belagan, G.R. No. 132164, 19 October 2004)(En Banc)[Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.].
________________________
403
Section 2, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
404
Francisco, Basic Evidence, Second Edition, 1999 at 502.
405
32 C.J.S. §434, citing In Re: Darrow, 92 N.E. 369, 175 Ind. 44.
406
81 Am Jur §897, citing Carter vs. State, 226 Ala 96, 145 So. 814; State vs. Potts, 78 Iowa 656, 43 NW 534; State vs. Crockett, 161 Wash
262, 296 P 1041.
407
Truth means conformity to fact or reality, exact accordance with that which is, or has been or shall be.
408
Honesty signifies the quality or state of being straight, forwardness of conduct, thought, speech etc.
409
Integrity has been defined as moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence or practice, especially strictness in the
fulfillment of contracts, the discharge of agencies, trusts, and the like; uprightness, rectitude. (Francisco, Basic Evidence, Second
Edition, 1999 at 471, citing Section 11, Rule 132, Rules of Court, as amended). [See new provision of Section 11, Rule 132, per A.M.
No. 19-08-15-SC (effective 1 May 2020)].
There is a distinction between evidence as to the character of a party to a litigation and evidence as to the character of a witness;
in the former case character is a fact in issue or an evidentiary fact affecting a fact in issue, while the character of the witness is
collateral matter which does not pertain to the fact in issue but merely to the weight of the evidence of such witness. (Francisco, Basic
Evidence, Second Edition, 1999 at 474, citing 70 C.J.S. 821).
410
98 C.J.S. § 494.
411
81 Am Jur 2d, § 901, citing Miller vs. Journal Co., 246 Mo 722, 152 SW 40; People vs. Brown, 72 NY 571.
79
BY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTION OF CRIME (SECTION 12)
SECTION 12. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime. — For the purpose of impeaching a
witness, evidence that he or she has been convicted by final judgment of a crime shall be admitted if (a)
the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one year; or (b) the crime involved moral turpitude,
regardless of the penalty.
However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the subject of an
amnesty or annulment of the conviction. (n)
Section 12, Rule 132 is a new provision introduced in this amended rules of evidence. There is no
equivalent provision under Rule 132 of the old rules. However, it finds reference from Rule 609 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence of the United States.
Q7. What are the requisites for a prior conviction to be admitted as evidence in impeaching a
witness?
i) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one year; or
ii) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty.
Q8. What is the exception to rule that a prior conviction may not be used against the witness?
A8. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty
or annulment of the conviction. [2nd par., Sec. 12, Rule 132 of the RROE].
Q9. What are the crimes embraced under Crimen Falsi?
A9. The crimes, such as perjury, subornation of perjury, false statement, criminal fraud, embezzlement,
false pretenses, or any other offense, are in the nature of crimen falsi.412 The commission of which involves
some element of deceit, untruthfulness, or falsification hearing on the accused‘s propensity to testify
truthfully.413
In addition to the above crimes, forgery, counterfeiting, and tampering convictions are admissible under
the rule,414 but assaults and drugs offenses are not.415
Q10. What is the concept of moral turpitude?
A10. The concept of ―moral turpitude‖ has been described as an ―act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general,
contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.‖
Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and prior to 1976, Canada, that refers to ―an act
or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community.‖416 This term
appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century.417
Q11. What is the significance of the period since the witness was convicted for purposes of
impeachment? Explain.
A11. A one-year-old conviction is more probative than an eight-year-old conviction.418 The witness‘
criminal history after the prior conviction is also relevant; the remoteness theory does not apply if the
defendant has been convicted in the interval between the prior conviction and the current trial.419
Q12. What is the relevance of the similarity of crimes committed for purposes of impeaching a
witness? Explain.
A12. The similarity between the prior offense and the charged offense is a relevant factor. 420 If a
________________________
412
Crimes of Dishonesty and False Statement.
413
Ibid.
414
United States vs. Murrow, 977 F.2d 222, 228 (6th Cir. 1992).
415
Menserve, 271 F.2d at 328.
416
Law Dictionary: ―moral turpitude‖. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved on 22 January 2017.
417
Chadwick vs. State Bar, 49 Cal. 3d 103, 110, 776 P. 2d 240, 260 Cal. Rptr. 538 (1989); Sosa-Martinez vs. United States AG, 420 F.3d 1338,
1341 (11th Cir. 2005).
418
United States vs. Sanders, 964 F.2d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 1992); Age of prior conviction (remoteness).
419
Giannelli‘s Understanding Evidence, Third Edition, supra, at p. 280.
420
United States vs. Brito, 427 F.3d, 53, 63 (1st Cir. 2005).
80
defendant is charged with a narcotics offense, evidence of a prior narcotics conviction is more unfairly
prejudicial than a prior rape conviction. 421
Q13. Explain the rationale of Motion in Limene.
A13. The term motion in limene means at the threshold.422 It is typically a pre-trial request for a
preliminary decision on an objection or offer of proof. Although the rules do not explicitly mention motions
in limine, their use is now common. 423 The trial court‘s authority to consider these motions is found in Rule
135(5)424 of the Rules of Court which recognizes the courts general authority to control the presentation of
evidence.
Defense counsel often file motions in limene to determine the admissibility of the accused‘s prior
conviction; the trial judge‘s decision frequently affect trial tactics – i.e., whether the accused will take the
stand and testify.425 In Luce vs. United States,426 the court held that a defendant waive the right to appeal
by introducing prior conviction evidence on direct examination (drawing and sting).427
OWN WITNESS (SECTION 13)
SECTION 12. Party may not SECTION 13. Party may not
impeach his own witness. — impeach his or her own
Except with respect to witness. — Except with
witnesses referred to in respect to witnesses referred
paragraphs (d)428 and (e)429 of to in paragraphs (d) and (e)
Section 10, the party of Section 10 of this Rule, the
producing a witness is not party presenting the witness
allowed to impeach his is not allowed to impeach his
credibility. or her credibility.
A witness may be considered A witness may be considered

as unwilling or hostile only if as unwilling or hostile only if
so declared by the court upon so declared by the court
adequate showing of his upon adequate showing of
adverse interest, unjustified his or her adverse interest,
reluctance to testify, or his unjustified reluctance to
having misled the party into testify, or his or her having
calling him to the witness misled the party into calling
stand. him or her to the witness
stand.
The unwilling or hostile
witness so declared, or the
The unwilling or hostile
witness who is an adverse
witness so declared, or the
party, may be impeached by
witness who is an adverse
the party presenting him in all
party, may be impeached by
respects as if he had been
the party presenting him or
called by the adverse party,
except by evidence of his bad her in all respects as if he or
character. He may also be she had been called by the
adverse party, except by
________________________
421
422
Luce vs. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984) (In limine has been defined as on or at the threshold; at the very beginning;
preliminarily. Black‘s Law Dictionary 708 (5th ed. 1979). We use the term in a broad sense to refer to any motion, whether made before
or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.).
423
Ohler vs. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 754 (2000); Luce vs. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984).
424
Section 5. Inherent powers of court. — Every court shall have power:
(a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
(b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its
authority;
(c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a case
pending therein;
(d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected
with a case before it, in every manner appertaining thereto;
(e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein;
(f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be necessary
in the exercise of its powers;
(g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice;
(h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be filed and used instead of the original, and to restore,
and supply deficiencies in its records and proceedings.
425
People vs. Patrick, 908.E. 2d 1, 7-8 (Ill. 2009).
426
469 U.S. 38 (1984).
427
Cited in Giannelli‘s Understanding Evidence, Third Edition, supra, at p. 287.
428
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness.
429
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a
partnership or association which is an adverse party.
81
impeached and cross- evidence of his or her bad

examined by the adverse character. He or she may
party, but such cross- also be impeached and cross-
examination must only be on examined by the adverse
the subject matter of his party, but such cross-
examination-in-chief. (6a, 7a) examination must only be on
the subject matter of his or
her examination-in-chief.
(12a)
Q14. What is the basis for not allowing a party to impeach his own witness?
A14. This rule is based on the theory that a person who produces a witness vouches for him as being
worthy of credit, and that a direct attack upon the veracity of the witness would enable the party to
destroy the witness, if he spoke against him, and to make him a good witness, if he spoke for him, with
the means in his hands of destroying his credit, if he spoke against him.
Q15. What are the exceptions to the rule that a party is not allowed to impeach his own witness?
A15. The exceptions are those with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
Section 10, Rule 132, which provides that:
i) Unwilling or hostile witness; or
ii) A witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation, or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
Be that as it may, even if declared by the court as an unwilling or hostile witness, the third paragraph of
Section 13, in relation to Section 11 430 of Rule 132 of RROE, only allows the party calling the witness to
impeach such witness by contradictory evidence or by prior inconsistent statements, and never by evidence of
his bad character.
Q16. Can convicted criminals be called to testify as witness in court? Explain.
A16. Yes. In People vs. Dominguez,431 which, in turn, cited Cordial vs. People,432 the High Court held
that:
Even convicted criminals are not excluded from testifying in court so long as, having organs of sense,
they can perceive and perceiving can make known their perceptions to others.
The fact of prior criminal conviction alone does not suffice to discredit a witness; the testimony of such a
witness must be assayed and scrutinized in exactly the same way the testimony of other witnesses must be
examined for its relevance and credibility. (Gomez vs. Gomez-Samson, et al., 514 SCRA 475, 6 February
2007)(Third Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.].
HOW THE WITNESS IS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS (SECTION 14)
PROBLEM:
In his Appellant‘s Brief, appellant contended that AAA‘s testimony cannot be relied upon because:
a) she made inconsistent statements by declaring during the preliminary examination that she was
raped by appellant in the room where she and her siblings were sleeping,433 but in her testimony in court she
stated that the rape occurred in the room of her mother and appellant;
b) she did not call for help when sexually assaulted; and
c) it took her about five (5) months from the time of rape before she revealed the incident to her
grandmother and the police.
Is the accused-appellant correct?

________________________
430
Section 11, Rule 132 per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC (effective 1 May 2020) reads:
SECTION 11. Impeachment of adverse party‘s witness. — A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he or she was
called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his or her general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence
that he or she has made at other times statements inconsistent with his or her present testimony, but not by evidence of particular
wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or record of the judgment, that he or she has been
convicted of an offense. (11a)
431
217 SCRA 170 (18 January 1993).
432
166 SCRA 17 (27 September 1988).
433
Her statement was taken before Judge Eddie P. Monserate, Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, RTC records, pp. 6-8.
82
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A rape victim‘s testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since, customarily, Filipino
children revere and respect their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families that it is
unthinkable for a daughter to concoct brazenly a story of rape against her father if such were not true. Indeed,
courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who fell victim to sexual assault, especially a
minor, particularly in incestuous rape as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public
trial and bear the concomitant shame, humiliation, and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not
for the purpose of condemning injustice and ensuring that the offender is punished. 434
In any event, the questioned inconsistency does not impinge on the essential elements of the offense
charged. What is important is that AAA‘s narration (both in the preliminary examination and during the trial)
of how she was forced and intimidated by appellant into submission to his bestial cravings was indisputably
consistent, direct, positive and unwavering. (People vs. Sambahon, G.R. No. 182789, 3 August 2010)(Third
Division)[Carpio-Morales, J.].
REFERRAL OF WITNESS TO MEMORANDUM (SECTION 16)
Q17. Can the court admit the memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness as a
corroborative evidence? Explain.
A17. No. Under the provision of Section 16, Rule 132 of the RROE the memorandum used to refresh
the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such, for the simple
reason that the witness has just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory.
In other words, where the witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been
refreshed by a memorandum of the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative
evidence. It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared
wholly by him. He cannot be more credible just because he supports his open-court declaration with
written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute, unless
the proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more, even where this requirement
has been satisfied, the express injunction of the rule itself is that such evidence must be received with
caution, if only because it is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly
true when the witness stands to gain materially or otherwise from the admission of such evidence. [Canque vs.
CA, G.R. No. 96202 (13 April 1999)(Second Division)[Mendoza, J.], citing Borromeo vs. CA, 70 SCRA 329 (7 April 1976)
(Second Division)[Barredo, J.].]
A.M. NO. 004-07-SC (RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS), EFFECTIVE 15 DECEMBER 2000
Q18. What is the effect of inconsistent testimonies of a child victim in a rape case?
A18. Inconsistencies ―are collateral and minor matters which do not at all touch upon the commission
of the crime nor affect the minor victim‘s credibility.‖ The inability of the rape victim to recall the precise date
and time of the rape is immaterial as these are not elements of the crime. Moreover, ―rape victims are not
expected to cherish in their memories an accurate account of the dates, number of times, and manner
they were violated.‖435
Youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity.436 ―Leeway should be given to witnesses
who are minors, especially when they are relating past incidents of abuse.‖437 (People vs. Entrampas, G.R. No.
212161, 29 March 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q19. How should the testimony of a child witness be evaluated on appeal?
A19. The trial court‘s evaluation of the testimony of a witness is accorded the highest respect because
of its direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and to determine if they are telling the truth or
not. This opportunity enables the trial judge to detect better that thin line between fact and prevarication that
will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of
the impersonal record by the reviewing court. Thus, the trial judge‘s evaluation of the competence and
credibility of a witness will not be disturbed on review, unless it is clear from the records that his judgment is
erroneous. (People vs. Golidan, et al., G.R. No. 205307, 11 January 2018)(First Division)[Leonardo-De Castro, J.].438
________________________
434
Campos vs. People, 546 SCRA 334 (19 February 2008)(Third Division) [Ynares-Santiago, J.]; People vs. Relucio, 86 SCRA 227 (9
November 1978), cited in People vs. Garte, 571 SCRA 570 (25 November 2008).
435
People vs. Lor, 413 Phil. 725 (19 July 2001)(En Banc)[Ynares-Santiago, J.], citing People vs. Zaballero, 340 Phil. 731 (30 June 1997)(Third
Division) [Panganiban, J.], citing People vs. Sabellina, G.R. Nos. 93514 (1 December 1994)(First Division)[Bellosillo, J.].
436
People vs. Dimanawa, 628 Phil. 678 (9 March 2010)(Third Division) [Nachura, J.].
437
People vs. Dominguez, 667 Phil. 105 (13 June 2011)(Third Division)[Sereno, J. (now Chief Justice)].
438
Citing People vs. Hermosa, 417 Phil. 132 (2001). See also People vs. Esugon, 761 Phil. 300 (2015); Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis, 621 Phil. 536
(2009); People vs. Santos, 532 Phil. 752 (2006), citing People vs. Gaudia, 467 Phil. 1025 (2004); People vs. Rama, 403 Phil. 155 (2001);
People vs. Gajo, 384 Phil. 347 (2000).
83
SECTION 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party on any relevant matter, with
sufficient fullness and freedom to test his or her accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or
bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (6a)
Q20. What is the importance of cross-examination?
A20. In an adversary judicial system such as ours, the right to cross-examine a witness is essential to
the principle of due process.439 Indeed, no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law.440 The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses is available in either
criminal or civil judicial litigation, or in administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers.441
PROBLEM:
The Republic represented by the PCGG filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to
the Supreme Court. It seeks to nullify the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan 2 nd Division in Civil Case No. 0181
which granted respondent Bank of Commerce‘s motion to strike out the testimonies of plaintiff‘s witnesses for
violating the bank‘s right to cross-examination.
The PCGG anchors its objection to the striking out of the testimonies of the witnesses on its allegation
that the Bank of Commerce and Traders Royal Bank are one corporate entity as a result of entering into a
fraudulent purchase agreement. Being one corporate entity, the PCGG posits that the cross-examination
conducted by Traders Royal Bank should be considered as cross-examination conducted by Bank of
Commerce. In other words, the PCGG claims that TRB and the Bank of Commerce have identity of interests, as
an exception to the right to cross-examination.
Is the PCGG correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The PCGG is incorrect. While principally adjudicating on the ri ght to cross-examination in relation to
a former testimony or deposition, is nevertheless instructive on when substantial identity or identity of
interest between parties satisfies the requirement for the opportunity to cross-examine.
The function of cross-examination is to test the truthfulness of the statements of a witness made on
direct examination. The opportunity for cross-examination has been regarded as an essential safeguard of
the accuracy and completeness of a testimony. In civil cases, the right of cross-examination is absolute,
and is not a mere privilege of the party against whom a witness may be called. This right is available, of
course, at the taking of depositions, as well as on the examination of witnesses at the trial. The principal
justification for the general exclusion of hearsay statements and for the admission, as an exception to the
hearsay rule, of reported testimony taken at a former hearing where the present adversary was afforded
the opportunity to cross-examine, is based on the premise that the opportunity of cross-examination is an
essential safeguard against falsehoods and frauds.
In resolving the question of whether the requirement of opportunity to cross-examine has been
satisfied, we have to consider first the required identity of parties and the present opponent.
To render the testimony of a witness admissible at a later trial or action, the parties to the first
proceeding must be the same as the parties to the later proceeding. Physical identity, however, is not
required; substantial identity or identity of interests suffices, as where the subsequent proceeding is
between persons who represent the parties to the prior proceeding by privity in law, in blood, or in estate.
The term ―privity‖ denotes mutual or successive relationships to the same rights of property.
Until such cross-examination has been finished, the testimony of the witness cannot be considered
as complete and may not, therefore, be allowed to form part of the evidence to be considered by the court
in deciding the case. [Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 2nd Division, G.R. No. 212436 (2 October 2019)(Second Division)
[Reyes, Jr., J.], citing Republic vs. Sandiganbayan].442
________________________
439
Dy Teban Trading, Inc. vs. Dy, 814 Phil. 564 (26 July 2017)(Third Division) [Jardeleza, J.].
440
CONSTITUTION, Article III, Sec. 1.
441
Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, 159 Phil. 310 (31 January 1975)[Munoz Palma, J.].
442
678 Phil. 358 (2011).
84
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF

OF DOCUMENTS
CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS (SECTION 19)
Q21. What are the classes of documents for purposes of presenting them in court?
A21. For purposes of presenting documents as evidence before the courts, they are classified as either
public or private. (Republic vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, 11 January 2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
Sections 19, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 30 of Rule 132 (per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, effective 1 May 2020) provide:
SECTION 19. Classes of documents. — For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents
are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and conventions which are in
force between the Philippines and the country of source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered
therein.
All other writings are private. (19a)
x-x-x
SECTION 23. Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of entries in public records
made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their
execution and of the date of the latter. (23)
SECTION 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a)
of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is a contracting party to a
treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or considered a public document under such
treaty or convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall
be in the form prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents
originating from the Philippines.
For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a contracting party to a treaty or
convention referred to in the next preceding sentence, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated
by the seal of his or her office.
A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented in evidence

without further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution and
genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall not be required when a treaty or convention
between a foreign country and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has exempted the
document itself from this formality. (24a)
SECTION 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct
copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the
official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a court having a seal,
under the seal of such court. (25a)
x-x-x-x
SECTION 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a private
document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the
record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (27)
x-x-x-x
85
SECTION 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (30)
Q22. What is the importance of classifying documents for the presentation of evidence?
A22. The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be
presented as evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because
it has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the
formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-
authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In
contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without
the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is
proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities
prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules
of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court.(Patula vs. People, 669 SCRA 135 (11 April 2012)(First
Division)[Bersamin, J.].
Q23. What is the importance of distinguishing the kinds of public document?
A23. The distinction as to the kind of public document under Rule 132, Section 19 of the RROE is
material with regard to the fact the evidence proves.
The reason for the distinction lies with the respective official duties attending the execution of the
different kinds of public instruments. Official duties are disputably presumed to have been regularly
performed. As regards affidavits, including Answers to Interrogatories which are required to be sworn to by
the person making them, the only portion thereof executed by the person authorized to take oaths is the jurat.
The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed therefore applies only to the latter portion,
wherein the notary public merely attests that the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him or her, on
the date mentioned thereon. Thus, even though affidavits are notarized documents, it was held that affidavits,
being self-serving, must be received with caution. (Philippine Trust Company vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 150318, 22
November 2010)(First Division)[Leonardo-De Castro, J.].
WHEN A PRIVATE WRITING REQUIRES AUTHENTICATION; PROOF OF A PRIVATE WRITING (SECTION

20)
SECTION 20. Proof of private SECTION 20. Proof of private

document. — Before any documents. — Before any
private document offered as private document offered as
authentic is received in authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution evidence, its due execution
and authenticity must be and authenticity must be
proved either: proved by any of the
following means:
(a) By anyone who saw the
document executed or writ- (a) By anyone who saw the
ten; or document executed or
written;
(b) By evidence of the
genuineness of the signature or (b) By evidence of the
handwriting of the maker. genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker; or
Any other private document
need only be identified as that (c) By other evidence
which it is claimed to be. showing its due execution
(21a) and authenticity.
Any other private document

need only be identified as
that which it is claimed to
be. (20)
86
Q24. What is a private document?
A24. A private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or
agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the
solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or
the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. (Patula vs. People, 669 SCRA 135, 11 April
2012)(First Division)[Bersamin, J.].
Q25. What is the probative value of the certification issued by the Ship Captain for purposes of
proving the illness of a seafarer? Explain.
A25. The said Certification lacks probative value. First, it was not authenticated by Philippine
consular officials. Second, the vessel‘s logbook, which is the official repository of the daily transactions and
occurrences on board the vessel, 443 is the best evidence of its contents.444 In Haverton Shipping Ltd. vs.
NLRC,445 the Supreme Court declared that entries made in the vessel‘s logbook, when ―made by a person in
the performance of a duty required by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it.‖ However,
the logbook itself or authenticated copies of pertinent pages of it must be presented and not merely
―typewritten excerpts from the ‗logbook‘ that have no probative value at all.‖ 446 [Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc.
and/or Mol Ship Management (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. vs. Atraje, G.R. No. 229192, 23 July 2018](Third Division) [Leonen,
J.].
WHEN EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT NOT NECESSARY (ANCIENT

DOCUMENT RULE)
SECTION 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a private
document is more than thirty (30) years old, is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be
found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence
of its authenticity need be given. (21)
Q26. What are the requisites of an ancient document?
A26. The requisites of an ancient document under Section 21, Rule 132 of the RROE are as follows:
1) The document is more than 30 years old;
2) It is produced from custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and
3) It is unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance of suspicion.
Q27. What are the instances when the authentication of a private document can be excused?
A27. It can be excused only in four (4) instances:447
(a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court;
(b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been specifically
denied under oath by the adverse party;448
________________________
443
Transglobal Maritime Agency, Inc. vs. Chua, Jr., G.R. No. 222430 (30 August 2017)(Second Division)[Peralta, J.].
444
See Centennial Transmarine, Inc. vs. Dela Cruz, 585 Phil. 206 (22 August 2008)(Third Division)[Ynares-Santiago, J.]; Wallem Maritime
Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 331 Phil. 476 (1996)(Second Division)[Romero, J.]; Abacast Shipping and Management Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC,
245 Phil. 487 (1988) (First Division)[Cruz, J.].
445
220 Phil. 356 (1985)(First Division)[Melencio-Herrera, J.].
446
Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 331 Phil. 476 (1996)(Second Division)[Romero, J.].
447
Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Philam Insurance Co., Inc. (Now Chartis Philippines Insurance, Inc.), G.R. No. 181163 (24 July 2013); Philam
Insurance Co., Inc. (Now Chartis Philippines Insurance, Inc.) vs. Westwind Shipping Corporation and Asian Terminals, Inc., G.R. No.
181262 (24 July 2013); Westwind Shipping Corporation vs. Philam Insurance Co., Inc. (Now Chartis Philippines Insurance, Inc.) and Asian
Terminals, Inc., G.R. No. 181319 (24 July 2013)(First Division)[Villarama, Jr., J.](Consolidated cases).
448
Section 8, Rule 8, Rules of Court, which states:
Section 8. How to contest such documents. — When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or
attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument
shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he or she claims to be
the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or
when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (8a)
87
(c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted;449 or
(d) when the document is not being offered as genuine.450
It is basic that any material presented as evidence will not be considered unless duly admitted by the
court before which it is presented. Just as basic is that a private document offered as authentic evidence
shall not be admitted unless its due execution and authenticity are established in the manner specified by
Rule 132, Section 20 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. [Lorenzo Shipping Corporation vs. NPC, 772 SCRA
113 (7 October 2015)].
GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING (SECTION 22)
Q28. How can the genuineness of a handwriting be proven?
A28. The genuineness of handwriting may be proved by the following:
(1) A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument;
(2) A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion
being an exception to the opinion rule;
(3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimen thereof;
and
(4) Expert witness. (Heirs of Corazon Afable Salud vs. Rural Bank of Salinas, Inc., 788 SCRA 494, 6
April 2016)[Del Castillo, J.].
Q29. What is the duty of the court if the authenticity of the signature is at issue? Explain.
A29. The judge is duty bound to conduct an independent examination of the signature itself in
order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. As such, Section 22 of Rule 132 of the RROE
explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting with writings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine. 451
(Cambe vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 812 SCRA 537, 6 December 2016)(En Banc)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE; PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD (SECTION 23-24, RULE 132)
Q30. Are the certifications issued by the CENRO and the Regional Technical Director of FMS-DENR,
which classify the land as alienable and disposable, considered public documents under Section 23, Rule
132 of the RROE?
A30. No. The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not fall within
the class of public documents contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The
certifications do not reflect entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer,
such as entries made by the Civil Registrar in the books of registries, or by a ship captain in the ship‘s
logbook. The certifications are not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official
records in the legal custody of a government office. The certifications are not even records of public
documents. [Republic vs. Dedida, G.R. No. 195097 (13 August 2012) (Second Division)[Reyes, J.]; Republic vs. Galeno,
G.R. No. 215009 (23 January 2017)(First Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.], citing Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 555
SCRA 477 (26 June 2008).]
Q31. Can the certification issued by the USAID be considered as public document? Explain.
A31. Yes. It is considered as a public document which does not require authentication pursuant to
the provision of Section 19(a) in relation to Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence.
Paragraph (a) of Section 19, Rule 132 of the RROE classifies the written official acts, or records of the
official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country, as public documents. USAID is the principal United States agency that
extends assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in
democratic reforms and that it is an independent federal government agency that receives over-all foreign
policy guidance from the Secretary of State of the United States. 452
Thus, the chief of USAID‘s Human Resources Division in the Philippines, who issued a certification is
actually a public officer. The certification was made in the performance of his official functions, he having
________________________
449
Per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC (effective 1 May 2020), Section 4, Rule 129, Rules of Court, now reads: SECTION 4. Judicial admissions.—An
admission, oral or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was
not, in fact, made. (4a)
450
451
Shu vs. Dee, 734 Phil. 204 (23 April 2014)(Second Division)[Brion, J.].
452
Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa vs. G.S. Transport Corp., 645 SCRA 115 (9 March 2011)(First Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
88
charge of all employee files and information as such officer. In view of these, it is clear that the USAID
Certification is a public document pursuant to paragraph (a), Sec. 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Hence, the authenticity and due execution of said Certification are already presumed. (Heirs of Ochoa vs. G
& S Transport Corporation (G.R. No. 170071) and G & S Transport Corporation vs. Heirs Ochoa (G.R. No.
170125)(16 July 2012) (Special First Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
ATTESTATION OF A COPY (SECTION 25)
Q32. What is required for the admission as evidence of record kept in a foreign country?
A32. Under Rule 132, Section 24 of the RROE, the admissibility of official records that are kept in a
foreign country requires that it must be accompanied by a certificate from a secretary of an embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, consular agent or any officer of the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in that foreign country. (Racho vs. Tanaka, G.R. No. 199515, 25 June 2018)(Third
In the case of Racho vs. Tanaka, supra, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was
accompanied by an Authentication issued by the Consul of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, certifying that
Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular Service Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan was an official in and for Japan.
The Authentication further certified that he was authorized to sign the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report
of Divorce and that his signature in it was genuine. Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the Certificate of
Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce between petitioner
and respondent.
Q33. What kind of document is an Ordinance? Explain.
A33. An Ordinance is classified as a public document. Under Rule 132, Section 19(a) of the Rules of
Court, written official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers of the
Philippines are public documents.
Public documents are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Pursuant to Rule 132, Section 23 of
the Revised Rules of Evidence.453 (William G. Kwong Management, Inc. vs. Diamond Homeowners & Residents
Association, G.R. No. 211353, 10 June 2019)(Third Division) [Leonen, J.].
Q34. What should be proven in this jurisdiction to recognize foreign divorce? Explain.
A34. In actions involving the recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, it is indispensable that the
petitioner prove not only the foreign judgment granting the divorce, but also the alien spouse‘s national
law. This rule is rooted in the fundamental theory that Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of
foreign judgments and laws. (Arreza vs. Toyo, G.R. No. 213198, 1 July 2019)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
Both the foreign divorce decree and the foreign spouse‘s national law, purported to be official acts of a
sovereign authority, can be established by complying with the mandate of Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the
Rules of Court.
Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a
public or official record of a foreign country by either:
(1) an official publication; or
(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not
kept in the Philippines, such copy must be:
(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in

the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept; and
(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.454 (Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas, 628 SCRA 266, 11
August 2010)(Third Division) [Brion, J.].
In Arreza vs. Toyo, supra, the documents petitioner submitted to prove the divorce decree have
complied with the demands of Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25. However, it found the copy of the Japan Civil
Code and its English translation insufficient to prove Japan‘s law on divorce. It noted that these documents
were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan, the Japanese Consul in Manila, or the
Department of Foreign Affairs. Hence, the case was referred to the CA for appropriate action, including the
reception of evidence, to determine and resolve the pertinent factual issues.
Q35. Explain the rationale of Sections 24-25, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence.
A35. Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal
________________________
453
See Miralles vs. Go, 402 Phil. 638 (2001)(Third Division)[Panganiban, J.].
454
Garcia vs. Recio, 418 Phil. 723 (2001)(Third Division)[Panganiban, J.].
89
may be proved by:
(1) an official publication thereof; or
(2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof.
Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the
authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a
correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be under the official seal of
the attesting officer.
Section 25 of the same Rule states that whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the
purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original,
or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
Worthy to remind in this regard is that the power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the courts of
the Philippines with caution, and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in the negative. 455 (Government of
Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Muñoz, G.R. No. 207342, 7 November 2017)(En Banc)[Bersamin, J.].
PUBLIC RECORD OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT (SECTION 27)
Q36. What is the importance of the attestation by the legal custodian of the public record of a
private document? Explain.
A36. In Republic vs. Cuenca, et al. (G.R. No. 198393, 4 April 2018)(First Division)[Tijam, J.], the
Supreme Court sustained the dismissal of the case filed by the Republic in view of its failure to comply with
the provision of Section 24 in relation to Section 27, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence. The High Court
ruled that:
In this case, the Sandiganbayan observed that the Republic failed to introduce either the original or the
certified true copies of the documents during its examination-in-chief for purposes of identification, marking,
authentication and comparison with the copies furnished the Sandiganbayan and the adverse parties. When
the Sandiganbayan inquired as to whether the Republic will present the original or certified true copies of its
documentary exhibits, the Republic answered that it will do so, if necessary, as the originals are kept in the
Central Bank vault. Despite knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of the documents‘ originals, the
Republic still failed to present the same and contented itself with the presentation of mere photocopies.
Neither was there any showing that the Republic exerted diligent efforts to produce the original.
Further, despite the Republic‘s claim that the excluded documentary exhibits are public documents, the
Sandiganbayan is correct in observing that the Republic failed to show, in case of a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, an official publication thereof or a copy attested by
the officer having the legal custody of the record or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept
in the Philippines, with a certification that such officer has the custody, or in the case of a public record of a
private document, the original record, or a copy thereof attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.456
PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD (SECTION 28)
PROBLEM:
Jose Dima contracted a second marriage with Salome without his first marriage with Amalia being
annulled. When a case for bigamy was filed against him by Amalia, Dima presented a Certification from the
Civil Registrar of the City of Iraga written in this way:
After a diligent search on the files of Registry Book on Application for Marriage License and License
Issuance available in this office, no record could be found on the alleged issuance of this office of Marriage
License No. 8683519 in favor of Mr. Jose D. Dima and Ms. Amalia M. Gana dated July 17, 1987.
Is this Certification admissible in compliance with Section 28, Rule 132 of the RROE? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The Certification does not prove that Dima‘s first marriage was solemnized without a marriage
license. It does not categorically state that Marriage License No. 8683519 does not exist. 457
________________________
455
See Garcia vs. Recio, 366 SCRA 437 (2 October 2001)(Third Division) [Panganiban, J.].
456
Citing Sections 24 and 27 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
457
See Sevilla vs. Cardenas, 529 Phil. 419 (2006)(First Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.].
90
The certification issued by the local civil registrar must categorically state that the document does not
exist in his office or the particular entry could not be found in the register despite a diligent search. The
certification to that effect complies with the provision of Section 28, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence.
(Vitangcol vs. People, G.R. No. 207406, 13 January 2016) (Second Division)[Leonen, J.].458
HOW A JUDICIAL RECORD IS IMPEACHED (SECTION 29)
Q37. What are the grounds for impeachment of a judicial record?
A37. Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
(b) collusion between the parties; or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
Thus, in the case of Añuran vs. Aquino (38 Phil. 29, 2 April 1918)(En Banc)[Carson, J.], the High Court
held that: Any person adversely affected by a judgment to maintain an action to enjoin its enforcement and to
have it declared a nullity on the ground of fraud and collusion practiced in the very matter of obtaining the
judgment when such fraud is extrinsic or collateral to the matters involved in the issues raised at the trial
which resulted in such judgment; and fraudulent collusion between an administrator and a third person
resulting in an order or judgment whereby an interested person is unjustly deprived of his rights in or to the
estate under administration, has always been recognized as a sufficient ground for the grant of relief from the
order or judgment thus fraudulently procured. 459
PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS (SECTION 30, RULE 132)
Q38. What is the effect of notarizing a Deed of Sale with the thumb mark of the seller?
A38. Notarization enables a notary public to ascertain the voluntariness of the party‘s act and to
verify the genuineness of his or her signature.460 Through notarization, the public and the courts may rely on
the face of the instrument, without need of further examining its authenticity and due execution. It is an act
that is imbued with public interest. (Tortona, et al. vs. Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 202612, 17 January 2018)(Third
Q39. What is the presumption under the rules of evidence on the allegation of forgery of a notarized
document?
A39. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity. Settled is the rule that a duly
notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. It is presumed
valid, regular, and genuine with the end view of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of notarized
documents.461 (Coro vs. Nasayao, G.R. No. 235361, 16 October 2019)(Third Division)[Inting, J.].
NOTARIAL WILL
Q40. What is the applicability of Section 19 in relation to Section 30 of the RROE on a notarial will?
Explain.
A40. Under the Rules on Evidence, notarized documents are clothed with the presumption of regularity;
that is, that the notary public had the authority to certify the documents as duly executed. A last will and
testament, however, is specifically excluded from the application of Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of
Court. This implies that when the document being presented as evidence is a last will and testament,
further evidence is necessary to prove its due execution, whether notarized or not.
The formalities required by law to prove a notarial will‘s authenticity do not pertain to the
notarization, but to the attestation and subscription of the testator and the attesting witnesses.
Hence, an authentic attestation clause must not only contain the names of the instrumental witnesses.
Mere mention of their names in the attestation clause will not accurately represent the fact of their attestation
and subscription. Instead, the instrumental witnesses must also sign the instrument before it is notarized by
the notary public. (Constantino vs. People, G.R. No. 225696, 8 April 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
________________________
458
See also Republic vs. CA and Castro, 236 SCRA 257 (2 September 1994) (Second Division)[Puno, J.]; Nicdao Cariño vs. Yee Cariño, 403
Phil. 861 (2001)(First Division)[Ynares-Santiago, J.].
459
23 Cyc., 1022, 1025, 1027, and numerous case there cited.
460
Aquino vs. Manese, 448 Phil. 555 (2003)(Third Division)[Carpio Morales, J.].
461
Libres, et al. vs. Sps. Delos Santos and Olba, 577 Phil. 509 (2008).
91
ALTERATIONS IN A DOCUMENT (SECTION 31)
PROBLEM:
Amalia Dima, married to Jess Dima, mortgaged their 350 sq.m. house and lot in San Pedro, Laguna on 15
January 2018, to Sps. Antonio and Magdalena Cabañez, who are engaged in a lending business, in the
amount of P2 Million, payable in one (1) year with 12% interest per annum. When Amalia failed to redeem the
property, it was extra-judicially foreclosed by Sps. Cabañez. Later, it was sold to Reggie Oliver.
Amalia received a demand letter to vacate the property from the new owner, Reggie. However, Amalia
did not heed to the demand. Instead, they filed a case for Annulment of Mortgage and Deed of Sale against
Sps. Cabañez and Reggie Oliver. She alleged that what she signed was only a blank paper which was
supposedly a Promissory Note but turned out to be a Real Estate Mortgage. She further alleged that the blank
paper has no signature of her husband. Hence, the REM is null and void.
During the trial, Sps. Cabañez and Reggie presented Atty. Laurence Buelo, the Notary Public who
notarized the REM, and attested that although the title of the property was in the name of Sps. Amalia and
Jess Dima, there was an attached Special Power of Attorney (SPA) signed by Jess, empowering Amalia to
mortgage, sell or sign a Deed of Absolute Sale. In fact, the SPA was annotated at the back of the title of the
subject property.
Did Sps. Cabañez and Reggie comply with the requirements of Section 31, Rule 132 of the RROE?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Sps. Cabañez and Reggie were able to show that there was already an annotation on the title anent
the SPA executed by Jess Dima in favor of his wife Amalia. Amalia was empowered to sell as well as to
mortgage, as inscribed at the back of the title before the transaction with Sps. Cabanez. Thus, Sps. Cabanez
and Reggie were able to comply with the requirements of Rule 132, Section 31 of the RROE and were able
to show, by convincing evidence that the insertions in the SPA were already existing when it was given to
them by Amalia. (Sps. Cirelos vs. Sps. Hernandez, G.R. No. 146522, 15 June 2005)(First Division)[Austria-Martinez,
J.].
PROBLEM:
Augusto, Ariel, and Ferdi Ebron own two (2) parcels of land all located at Barangay Sampaga,
Municipality of Iraga. The lands consisting of 5,000 square meters and 10,000 square meters are covered by
two (2) Transfer Certificates of Title. They sold one parcel of land consisting of 5,000 square meters to Roco
Bato, married to Sharon Bato, in the amount of P500,000.00 on 15 April 2003. The Deed of Absolute Sale was
notarized by Judge William Halili, the MTC Judge of the Municipality.
As Judge Halili was in a hurry, he made instructions to his Clerk of Court to fill up the Deed of Sale
according to the parties‘ agreement. However, problem ensued from the statement in the Deed of Sale that the
two (2) parcels of land were sold by the Ebron brothers to Bato in the amount of P2 Million but in reality, there
was no consideration made as to the second parcel of land.
A case for Annulment of Deed of Sale was filed with the RTC of Iraga only on January 2013. To prove that
there was intercalation of the Deed of Sale without their consent, the Ebron brothers presented Judge Halili
and his Clerk of Court as their witnesses. Judge Halili testified that when he left his Office in a hurry, the
document was already filled up and signed by the parties. However, the Clerk of Court passed away before
the case was heard.
Did the Ebron brothers comply with the requirements of Section 31, Rule 132 of the ROC? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. It was clear that the real intention of Ebron brothers was to sell only one parcel out of their two (2)
parcels of land to Sps. Bato. However, without their knowledge, Sps. Bato caused alterations in the assailed
copy of the Deed of Sale, which they later signed. It appeared that the two (2) parcels of land were sold to Sps.
Bato with a payment made intended for only one parcel.
While it is true that a notarized deed of sale is a public document and has in its favor the presumption of
regularity and that to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear and convincing. One of the
essential requirements of a valid contract, including a contract of sale, is the consent of the owner of the
property.462 Absent such consent, the contract is null and void ab initio.463 A void contract is absolutely
wanting in civil effects; it is equivalent to nothing. It produces no effects whatsoever either against or in favor
________________________
462
Salonga vs. Farrales, 105 SCRA 359 (10 July 1981)(First Division) [Fernandez, J.].
463
Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Volume IV, 1991 ed., p. 629.
92
of anyone; hence, it does not create, modify, or extinguish the judicial relation to which it refers. (Cabotaje, et al.
vs. Sps. Sotero Pudunan and Maria Rivera, G.R. No. 134712, 13 August 2004)(Second Division)[Callejo, Sr., J.].
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE (SECTION 33)
PROBLEM:
Jess Dima applied for work in Saudi Arabia as truck driver through ANA MARIE EMPLOYMENT
AGENCY in Ermita, Manila. Dima was then referred to BATANG BATO MEDICAL CENTER, an accredited
medical and dental service provider in Saudi Arabia, for his medical examination.
After his medical examination, Dima was issued a Medical Certificate which states that he is ―fit for
work‖. Thus, he was deployed to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia as truck driver. After three (3) months, the company
subjected Dima to medical examination. He was purportedly found to be positive for HCV or the hepatitis- C
virus. Another examination was conducted and the result was the same. Thus, he was repatriated back to
Manila.
ANA MARIE EMPLOYMENT AGENCY filed a case for damages in the MTC of Manila against BATANG
BATO MEDICAL CENTER for allegedly issuing a false medical certificate. The agency attached to the
Complaint the result of Dima‘s medical examination issued by the Saudi government, which was partly
written in English and partly in Arabic.
Is the Medical Certificate issued by the Saudi Government admissible as evidence? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. While there was a medical certificate issued, it was partly written in English and partly in Arabic.
Sans any translation in English or Filipino, the same is inadmissible as evidence. Thus, the contents thereof
could not be given probative value and deemed to constitute proof of the facts stated therein.
The said medical certificate, partly written in English and Arabic languages, is considered an unofficial
language, proscribed by Section 33, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. (St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. vs. LMW
Construction, G.R. No. 217426, 4 December 2017)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
Q41. What is the effect if the document offered as evidence bears a title in Spanish language and no
timely objection was made by the opposing party?
A41. Where such document, not so accompanied with a translation in English or Filipino, is offered in
evidence and not objected to, either by the parties or the court, it must be presumed that the language in
which the document is written is understood by all, and the document is admissible in evidence. The
requirement that documents written in an unofficial language must be accompanied with a translation in
English or Filipino as a prerequisite for its admission in evidence must be insisted upon by the parties at
the trial to enable the court, where a translation has been impugned as incorrect, to decide the issue. (The
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Heirs of Fortunato Doronio, G.R. No. 169454, 27 December 2007)(Third Division)[Reyes,
R.T., J.].
Q42. What is the rule on exhibits written in a language other than English or Filipino?
A42. The rule is that when there is presented in evidence an exhibit written in any language other than the
official language (Filipino or English), if there is an appeal, that exhibit should be translated by the official
interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and
translation sent to the court. (People vs. Siojo, 61 Phil. 307 (27 March 1935)(En Banc)[Vickers, J], citing Ahag
vs. Cabiling, 18 Phil. 415 (21 February 1911)(En Banc)[Moreland, J.].
If there is no objection thereto, and the parties and the judicial authorities or personnel concerned
appeared to be familiar with or knowledgeable of Cebuano in which the document was written, 464 such
extrajudicial confession can be appropriately considered by the trial court as evidence for the prosecution.
(People vs. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133188, 23 July 2004)(Second Division)[Austria-Martinez, J.].
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION
SECTION 34. Offer of evidence; SECTION 35. When to make offer.
Q43. What does formal offer of evidence mean?
________________________
464
People vs. Salison, Jr., 253 SCRA 758 (20 February 1996)(Second Division) [Regalado, J.].
93
A43. Formal offer means that the offeror shall inform the court of the purpose of introducing its exhibits
into evidence. Without a formal offer of evidence, courts cannot take notice of this evidence even if this has
been previously marked and identified. (Gumabon vs. PNB, G.R. No. 202514 (25 July 2016)(Second
Division)[Brion, J.] and Westmont Investment Corporation vs. Francia, Jr., G.R. No. 194128 (7 December
2011)(Third Division)[Mendoza, J.]; Star Two (SPV-AMC), Inc. vs. Ko, 646 SCRA 371 (23 March 2011).
Q44. What is the importance of a formal offer of evidence?
A44. The importance of a formal offer of evidence is that courts are mandated to rest their factual
findings and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. The
formal offer enables the judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the
evidence. It also affords the opposing parties the chance to examine the evidence and to object to its
admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents
not previously scrutinized by the trial court. (Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Parocha, 522 SCRA 410 (27 April
2007).
Q45. What are the exceptions from the requirement of a formal offer of evidence?
A45. The exceptions from the requirement of a formal offer of evidence are as follows:
(a) the evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and
(b) the evidence must have been incorporated in the records of the case.465
Q46. What is the proper procedure for the formal offer of evidence?
A46. The RROE lays down the procedure for the formal offer of evidence as follows:
1. Testimonial evidence is offered at the time a witness is called to testify.466
2. Documentary and object evidence, on the other hand, are offered after the presentation of a party‘s
testimonial evidence.467 Offer of documentary or object evidence is generally done orally unless permission is
given by the trial court for a written offer of evidence.468
More importantly, the Rules specifically provides that evidence must be formally offered to be considered
by the court. Evidence not offered is excluded in the determination of the case.469 Failure to make a formal offer
within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it. 470 (Republic vs. Gimenez, 778 SCRA
261, 11 January 2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].471
Q47. What is the effect if documentary exhibits marked during the pre-trial were not formally
offered in evidence?472
A47. It cannot in any manner be treated as evidence. Neither can such unrecognized proof be assigned
any evidentiary weight and value. 473
Q48. Will the rule on formal offer apply in tax cases filed with the CTA? Explain.
A48. Yes. Under Section 8 of R.A. No. 1125, the CTA is categorically described as a court of record. As
cases filed before it are litigated de novo, party-litigants shall prove every minute aspect of their cases.
Indubitably, no evidentiary value can be given the pieces of evidence submitted by the BIR, as the
rules on documentary evidence require that these documents must be formally offered before the CTA.
The presentation of the BIR‘s evidence is not a mere procedural technicality which may be disregarded
considering that it is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the truth of BIR‘s claims
against the Estate.
________________________
465
People vs. Napat-a, 179 SCRA 403 (14 November 1989); People vs. Mate, 103 SCRA 484 (27 March 1981); Heirs of Romana Saves, et al.
vs. Escolastico Saves, et al., 632 SCRA 236 (6 October 2010); Mato vs. CA, 250 SCRA 283 (1995); Ramos vs. Dizon, 498 SCRA 17 (7
August 2006).
466
467
468
469
See Sec. 3, Rule 128, Rules of Court, per A.M. No. 1908-15-SC, Section 3, Rule 128, which now reads:
SEC. 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the
Constitution, the law or these rules.
470
Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Sps. Parocha, supra. See Constantino vs. CA, 332 Phil. 68 (1996)[Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].
471
Citing Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Parocha, 550 Phil. 571 (2007)[Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division]; and Constantino vs. CA, supra.
472
2018 Bar Question.
473
People vs. Villanueva, 629 SCRA 720 (1 September 2010).
94
The BIR‘s failure to formally offer these pieces of evidence, despite CTA‘s directives, is fatal to its cause.
Such failure is aggravated by the fact that not even a single reason was advanced by the BIR to justify such
fatal omission.474 (Dizon vs. CTA, 553 SCRA 111 (30 April 2008).
OBJECTION (SECTION 36)
WHEN TO OFFER WITNESS‘ TESTIMONY
Q49. Can testimonial evidence be considered by the court even if there was no formal offer made?
Explain.
A49. Yes. Testimonial evidence not formally offered but not timely objected to by an opposing party
may still be considered by the court. The purpose of offering a witness‘ testimony is for the court to expertly
assess whether questions propounded are relevant and material, and if the witness is competent to answer. It
is to aid the court in ruling over objections made by opposing counsel. 475
The rules on examination of witnesses and objecting to them are not separate for civil and criminal
cases. A witness, whether in a criminal or civil case, is presented to support and prove the allegations
made by the party presenting him or her. The witness must be competent, and his or her testimony must
be relevant and material. Whether the case is civil or criminal, objection or failure to offer the testimony
of a witness must be made immediately. 476
Q50. What is the established doctrine when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to an
evidence offered?
A50. The established doctrine is that when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at
the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived.477
Q51. Can the objection to the admissibility of evidence be raised for the first time on appeal?
A51. No. Objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. When a
party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such
objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.478
REPETITION OF AN OBJECTION (SECTION 37)
SECTION 37. When repetition of SECTION 37. When

objection unnecessary. — repetition of objection
When it becomes reasonably unnecessary. — When it
apparent in the course of the becomes reasonably
examination of a witness that apparent in the course of the
the questions being examination of a witness
propounded are of the same that the questions being
class as those to which propounded are of the same
objection has been made, class as those to which
whether such objection was objection has been made,
sustained or overruled, it shall whether such objection was
not be necessary to repeat the sustained or overruled, it
objection, it being sufficient shall not be necessary to
for the adverse party to record repeat the objection, it being
his continuing objection to sufficient for the adverse
such class of questions. (37a) party to record his or her
continuing objection to such
class of questions. (37a)
Sections 37, 38, 39 and 40 find its source from Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence of the United
States.
________________________
474
Ibid.
475
Catuira vs. CA, 306 Phil. 424 (1994)(First Division)[Bellosillo, J.].
476
477
See Tison vs. CA, G.R. No. 121027 (31 July 1997)(Second Division) [Regalado, J.]; and Abrenica vs. Gonda, et al., 34 Phil. 745 (1916).
478
People vs. Diaz, 752 SCRA 17 (25 February 2015). See also People vs. Gabuya, 750 SCRA 560 (16 February 2015); People vs. Domado, 635
Phil. 73 (2010), citing People vs. Hernandez, 607 Phil. 617 (2009).
95
Q52. What is a continuing or running objection?
A52. Section 37, Rule 132 is otherwise known as Continuing or Running Objection. It means a single
objection to all the questions in a given line of questioning. A Judge may allow a lawyer to make a continuing
objection when the judge has overruled an objection applicable to many questions and the lawyer wants to
preserve the objection for the appellate record.479
Q53. When should objections be made? Explain.
A53. The rules requires for timely objections. If a question is improper, an objection should be made with
reasonable promptness—perhaps, the term ―immediately‖ is a more accurate description of this requirement. 480
With documentary evidence, the objection should be made when the document is proferred as an exhibit. 481
The rationale for this rule is that counsel should not be permitted to wait and see whether the answer is
favorable before raising an objection. 482
Q54. When is it proper to file a motion to suppress?
A54. For some purposes, timeliness requires that an objection be made prior to trial. For example,
objections in criminal cases based on violations of constitutional rights must often be made in the form of
pretrial motions to suppress. Confessions allegedly obtained in violation of Miranda are an example. 483
Identification made at lineups, show-ups (one-on-one confrontations), or photographic displays, if challenged
on right to counsel484 and due process485 grounds, are another illustration, as are the fruits of an
unconstitutional search or seizure. 486 Section 14,487 Rule 126 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure require
that motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence be made before trial.
RULING (SECTION 38)
Q55. When should the court make a ruling on the objection raised by counsel?
A55. Courts are required to immediately issue a ruling to resolve the objection to the admissibility
of evidence offered or within a reasonable time. It must be made during the trial and at such time as will
give the other party an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. Courts are further mandated
to state the reason or reasons for their ruling if there are two or more objections by the other party. 488 Due
process requires no less.489
Parties who offer objections to questions on whatever ground are entitled to a ruling at the time the
objection is made unless they present a question with regard to which the court desires to inform itself before
making its ruling.490
Q56. Why is it necessary to give a prompt ruling on the objections?
A56. If the court had given a prompt ruling on the objections, counsel would have had an opportunity to
meet the situation presented. If his objection had been overruled, he could have taken his exception and
offered evidence to rebut that adduced by the objectionable questions.
Q57. Where is the origin of the technical rules of evidence in this jurisdiction?
A57. It originated from England and United States. It should be remembered that many of the
technical rules of evidence which are often invoked in our courts were originally worked out in England and
the United States, where the jury system prevails. These rules were adopted for the purpose of keeping matter
from juries which—it was supposed—might unduly influence them in deciding on the facts.
They have little pertinence to a system of procedure, like ours, in which the court is judge both of law
and facts, and in which accordingly it is necessary for the court to know what the proof is before it rules upon
the propriety of receiving it. Apart from these considerations is the circumstance mentioned above that the
time consumed in the trial on such collateral points is generally many times greater than would be consumed
________________________
479
Black‘s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition, p. 1241, 2014, Thompson Reuters, St. Paul, MN.
480
Jones vs. Lincoln Elec. Co. 188 F.3d 709, 727 (7th Cir. 1999).
481
United States vs. Benavente Gomez, 921 F.2d 378, 385 (1st Cir. 2005).
482
Jerden vs. Amstuts, 430 F.3d 1231, 1237 (9th Cir. 2005).
483
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Other constitutional grounds for challenging the admissibility of confessions include due
process and the right to counsel. See Brewer vs. Williams 430 U.S. 387 (1977)(right to counsel violated).
484
Moore vs. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 (1977); Kirby vs. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972).
485
Manson vs. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977); Neil vs. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (972).
486
Mapp vs. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
487
SECTION 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to file.— A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to
suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. If no
criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if
such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the
latter court.(n). [See Moya II, S.N. (2017). The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Notes and Cases. (pp. 949-959). Quezon City,
Philippines: Central Book Supply, Inc.].
488
489
Deutsche Bank Manila vs. Sps. Chua Yok See, G.R. No. 165606 (6 February 2006)(First Division)[Callejo, Sr., J.].
490
Lopez vs. Valdez, 32 Phil. 644 (24 December 1915)[Moreland, J.].
96
if the questionable testimony should be admitted for what it is worth. What has been said above finds special
relevancy in this case in view of the action of the trial court in refusing to consider the proof referred to in the
opinion showing that the plaintiff, while engaged in assembling its stock, procured maritime insurance upon a
fictitious importation of silk. We earnestly commend the maintenance of liberal practice in the admission of
proof. (Yu vs. CA, G.R. No. 154115, 29 November 2005)(Second Division)[Tinga, J.], citing Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix
Insurance Co., 52 Phil. 807, 21 February 1929)[Street, J.].
STRIKING OUT OF AN ANSWER (SECTION 39)
Q58. What is the concept of motion to strike? Explain.
A58. In some instances, a witness may answer before counsel can object, or a question‘s tendency to
elicit objectionable response will not become apparent until the response is given. For example, if the
prosecutor asks a witness in a homicide prosecution whether the witness knows the accused (a typical
preliminary question) and the witness replies: Sure, I know the killer, a motion to strike should be made. If
that motion is granted, the court should disregard the evidence. 491 It is better to ask the judge to strike the
response because the ruling precludes the opposing counsel from referring to the stricken material. If the
objectionable material is so prejudicial (as in the above example), counsel may also ask for a mistrial. 492
Q59. What does connecting up mean? Explain.
A59. Sometimes evidence is admitted conditionally, typically when several witnesses are needed to lay
a proper foundation for admissibility. Obviously, only one witness can testify at a time. 493 If a trial court
conditionally admits evidence subject to its being ―connected up‖ later in the trial, a motion to strike is
required to remove the evidence from consideration in the event the ―connecting up‖ evidence is never
introduced.
In Huddleston vs. United States,494 the Supreme Court observed: Often the trial court may decide to
allow the proponent to introduce evidence concerning a similar act, and at a later point in the trial assess
whether sufficient evidence has been offered to make the requisite finding. If the proponent has failed to meet
this minimal standard of proof, the trial court must disregard the evidence. 495 Here again, the burden is on the
opponent to raise the objection at the close of the other side‘s case. 496
Q60. What is the effect if the testimony of the witness is ordered stricken off from the record by the
court?
A60. A fact elicited from a witness cannot be considered in the disposition of the case if it has been
ordered stricken out, unless it is established by any other evidence on record.497 (Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company vs. Custodio, G.R. No. 173780, 21 March 2011)(Third Division)[Sereno, J.].
TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
SECTION 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things offered in evidence are
excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the
evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances
of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. (40)
Q61. What is the purpose of the rule on tender offer of excluded evidence?
A61. If a party‘s offered documentary or object evidence is excluded, he may move or request that it be
attached to form part of the records of the case.
If the excluded evidence is oral, he may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances
of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. These procedures are known as offer of proof or
tender of excluded evidence and are made for purposes of appeal. If an adverse judgment is eventually
rendered against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign as error the rejection of the excluded evidence.
________________________
491
United States vs. Achiekwelu, 112 F.3d 747, 754 (4th Cir. 1997) (Even when a district court admits evidence without objection, the
district court has the discretion to grant a subsequent motion made after the close of the evidence to exclude the evidence.).
492
Dressler & Michaels, Understanding Criminal Procedure 32[C] (4th ed. 2006); Giannelli‘s Understanding Evidence, Third Edition, supra,
at p. 75.
493
Ibid. For example, three police officers who sequentially handled a murder weapon from the crime scene may be needed to establish a
chain of custody. The foundation for admissibility would not be complete until the third officer testified. Thus, although the weapon
should be marked for identification and identified by the first two officers, it would not be admitted as an exhibit until the final officer
testified testified. Or, the court could conditionally admit it during the testimony of the first officer, subject to later ―connecting up‖.
494
485 U.S. 681 (1988).
495
Id., at 690.
496
497
Sec. 39, Rule 132, ROC.
97
It has been repeatedly ruled that where documentary evidence was rejected by the lower court and the
offeror did not move that the same be attached to the record, the same cannot be considered by the appellate
court,498 as documents forming no part of proofs before the appellate court cannot be considered in disposing
the case.499 For the appellate court to consider as evidence, which was not offered by one party at all during
the proceedings below, would infringe the constitutional right of the adverse party—in this case, the CIR, to
due process of law. (Fortune Tobacco Corporation vs. CIR, G.R. No. 192024, 1 July 2015)(Second Division)[Mendoza,
J.].
Q62. What are the forms of offer of proof? Explain.
A62. An offer of proof may take several forms:
First, an offer of testimonial evidence often takes the form of a statement by counsel as to the expected
content of the excluded testimony. There is, however, a real danger that such an offer will be inadequate. 500
Second, the trial court may require or be asked to take the offer by an examination of the witness,
including cross-examination. For example, some of the early DNA evidence cases involve several weeks of
expert testimony before a decision on admissibility was made.501
Third, an affidavit (which the witness‘s expected testimony and signed by the witness is another way to
make an offer of proof.502
Finally, excluded documentary evidence should be marked for identification and appended to the record
of trial.
Q63. What are the exceptions to the offer-of-proof requirement?
A63. There are several exceptions to the offer of proof requirement:
First, an offer is not necessary when the substance of the excluded evidence is apparent from the
context within which questions were asked.503 However, trial counsel can never assume that an appellate
court will later find that the substance of the offer is obvious from the context; counsel must make a record.
Second, although not explicitly stated, more leeway is typically given to the cross-examiner. Frequently,
a cross-examiner, conducting a proper but exploratory examination, will be unable to state what the witness
would have said if permitted to answer.504 In such cases, to require an offer of proof would be impracticable
and unfair.
Third, the offer of proof requirement is subject to the plain error doctrine.505
Q64. Distinguish harmless error from plain error.
A64. The two were distinguish by Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as follows:
(a) HARMLESS ERROR. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights
must be disregarded.
(b) PLAIN ERROR. A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not
brought to the court‘s attention.
Q65. What does tender of a witness mean?
A65. The tender of a witness is for an attorney to yield to another attorney the right to examine the
witness then under oath.506
Q66. What is the remedy of a party if the trial court erroneously rejected the introduction of a certain
document as evidence?
A66. There are two (2) school of thoughts in this respect:
First, if an exhibit sought to be presented in evidence is rejected, the party producing it should ask the
court‘s permission to have the exhibit attached to the record. The party can avail the remedy provided for in
Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. (Catacutan vs. People, 656 SCRA 524, 31 August 2011).
________________________
498
Banez vs. CA, 158 Phil. 16 (1974).
499
De Castro vs. CA, 75 Phil. 824 (1945); People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 127573 (12 May 1999)(Third Division)[Gonzaga-Reyes, J.].
500
Adams, 271 F.3d at 1241-42.
501
United States vs. Yee, 134 F.R.D. 161, 168 (N.D. Ohio 1991); People vs. Castro, 545 N.Y.S.2d 985, 986 (Sup. Ct. 1989).
502
See Adams, 271 F.3d at 1242.
503
Beech Aircraft vs. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 174 &n. 22 (1988).
504
Alford vs. United State, 282 U.S. 687, 692 (1931) (Counsel often cannot know in advance what pertinent facts may be elicited on cross-
examination. For that reason it is necessarily exploratory; and the rule that the examiner must indicate the purpose of his inquiry does
not, in general, apply.).
505
506
The Wolters Kluwer Bouvier Law Dictionary Compact Edition, 2011, p. 1090.
98
Second, the trial court cannot consider the excluded evidence to resolve the issues, such evidence may still
be admitted on appeal provided there has been tender of the excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court. (Gumabon vs. PNB, G.R. No. 202514, 25 July 2016)(Second Division)[Brion, J.].
Q67. Does the court‘s denial of further presentation of evidence constitute denial of due process?
Explain.
A67. No. Due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard. (PDIC vs. COA, 546 SCRA 473 (22
February 2008)(En Banc)[Tinga, J.]. Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. ( People vs. Dela Cruz, 555 SCRA
329 (25 June 2008)(En Banc)[Corona, J.].
Where an opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there
is no denial of procedural due process. (Equitable PCI Banking Corporation vs. RCBC Capital Corporation,
574 SCRA 858 (18 December 2008)(Second Division)[Velasco, Jr., J.].
As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to
have been denied due process of law for the opportunity to be heard is the better accepted norm of procedural
due process.
RULE 133
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY
OF EVIDENCE
(Sections 1-8)
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE; SECTION 1. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW DETERMINED
Q1. What is the required quantum of proof in civil cases? Explain.
A1. In civil cases, like in a complaint for a sum of money, the burden of proof lies on the party who
asserts the affirmative of the issue. In such a case, the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, must establish his
case by preponderance of evidence. (Sps. Garcia vs. Northern Islands, Co., Inc., G.R. No. 226495, 5 February 2020)
[Inting, J.].
Q2. What does preponderance of evidence mean?
A2. Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either
side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term ―greater weight of evidence‖ or ―greater
weight of the credible evidence.‖507 Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means
probability of truth. It is that evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto.
Further, preponderance of evidence is determined by considering all the facts and circumstances of the
case, culled from the evidence, regardless of who actually presented it. 508
Q3. What should be considered by the court in determining whether there is preponderance of
evidence?
A3. Under Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, in determining whether or not there is
preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following:
(a) all the facts and circumstances of the case;
(b) the witnesses‘ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability
of their testimony;
(c) the witnesses‘ interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same
may ultimately appear in the trial; and
(d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the
greater number. (Heirs of Montevilla vs. Sps. Vallena, G.R. No. 234419, 5 December 2019)(First
Division)[Reyes, J., Jr., J.].
Q4. What is the constant truism in civil litigations?
________________________
507
Evangelista vs. Sps. Andolong, et al., 800 Phil. 189 (2016), citing Sps. Ramos vs. Obispo, 705 Phil. 221 (2013).
508
Supreme Transliner Inc. vs. CA, 421 Phil. 692 (2001).
99
A4. The general proposition in all civil litigations is that the burden of proof lies in the party who
asserts, not in the party who denies because the latter, by the nature of things, cannot produce any proof
of the assertion denied. Equally true is the dictum that mere allegations cannot take the place of evidence.
The party making an allegation in a civil case has the burden of proving the allegation by preponderance of
evidence. [Esguerra vs. Sps. Japson, et al., G.R. No. 216597 (26 August 2020)(Third Division)[Gesmundo, J.], citing
Sps. Pamplona vs. Sps. Cueto, 856 SCRA 33 (19 February 2018).]
SECTION 2. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Q5. What is the task of the prosecution in a criminal case?
A5. In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold:
(1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged; and
(2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person or persons responsible
therefor, because, even if the commission of the crime is a given, there can be no conviction without the
identity of the malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained.509
The greatest care should be taken in considering the identification of the accused, especially when this
identification is made by a sole witness and the judgment in the case totally depends on the reliability of the
identification. This level of care and circumspection applies with greater vigor when, as in the present case,
the issue goes beyond pure credibility into constitutional dimensions arising from the due process rights of
the accused.510 (People vs. Lumikid, G.R. No. 242695, 23 June 2020) (First Division)[Peralta, C.J.].
Q6. What is the importance of positive identification of the accused in criminal proceedings?
A6. To convict an accused, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to present a positive identification
by a witness during trial due to the frailty of human memory. It must also show that the identified person
matches the original description made by that witness when initially reporting the crime. The unbiased
character of the process of identification by witnesses must likewise be shown. [People vs. Nuñez, G.R. No.
209342 (4 October 2017)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]; People vs. San Jose, et al., G.R. No. 206916 (3 July 2017)(Second
Division)[Leonen, J.].]
Q7. What is the required quantum of proof in criminal cases, such as for violations of R.A. No.
10591, otherwise known as the ―Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act‖?
A7. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is imperative to sustain a conviction in criminal cases. This is
procedurally provided by Section 2, Rule 133 of the RROE.
This requisite quantum of proof is borne by the constitutional imperative of due process. It is also in
keeping with the presumption of innocence of an accused until the contrary is proved. (People vs. Que, 853
SCRA 487 (31 January 2018)[Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing Macayan, Jr. vs. People, 756 Phil. 202
(2015)[Per J. Leonen, Second Division]; CONST, Art. III, Sec. 1; CONST, Art. III, Sec. 14(2); People vs. Solayao,
330 Phil. 811 (1996)[Per J. Romero, Second Division]; and Boac vs. People, 591 Phil. 508 (2008)[Per J. Velasco,
Jr., Second Division].
While proof beyond reasonable doubt does not demand absolute, impeccable, and infallible certainty, it
still requires moral certainty.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt imposes upon the prosecution the burden of proving an accused‘s guilt
through the strength of its own evidence. The prosecution cannot merely capitalize on the defense‘s supposed
weaknesses. Unless it discharges its burden, the accused need not even offer evidence in his or her behalf,
and he or she] would be entitled to an acquittal.511 [De Guzman vs. People, G.R. No. 24047 (24 July 2019)(Third
Division)[Leonen, J.]; People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 229053 (17 July 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]. See also People
vs. Sumilip, G.R. No. 223712 (11 September 2019)(Special First Division)[Leonen, J.]; People vs. Limpangog].512
Q8. How should the prosecution overcome the presumption of innocence in criminal cases? Explain.
A8. The prosecution must overcome this presumption by presenting evidence of the accused‘s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. This quantum is provided by Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules
of Court.
________________________
509
People vs. Vargas, et al., 784 Phil. 144 (2016).
510
People vs. Rodrigo, 586 Phil. 515 (2008).
511
People vs. Ganguso, 320 Phil. 324 (1995)[Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division].
512
444 Phil. 691 (2003)[Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
100
A guilty verdict relies on the strength of the prosecution‘s evidence, not on the weakness of the
defense:513
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is ultimately a matter of conscience. Though it does not demand absolutely
impervious certainty, it still charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of establishing moral
certainty. Much as it ensues from benevolence, it is not merely engendered by abstruse ethics or esoteric values;
it arises from a constitutional imperative. (J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in People vs. Lim, G.R. No. 231989 (4 September
2018)[Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Failure to discharge this burden warrants an accused‘s
acquittal. [People vs. Comoso, G.R. No. 227497 (10 April 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]; Constantino vs. People,
G.R. No. 225696 (8 April 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]; Pingol vs. People, G.R. No. 225710 (19 June 2019)(Third
Division)[Leonen, J.]; People vs. Que, G.R. No. 212994 (31 January 2018)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]; Macayan, Jr. vs.
People, G.R. No. 175842 (18 March 2015)(Second Division) [Leonen, J.].]
PROBLEM:
The determination of the guilt of an accused hinges on how a court appreciates evidentiary matters in
relation to the requisites of an offense. Determination of guilt is, thus, a fundamentally factual issue.
The Supreme Court however, is not a trier of facts. Consistent with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as a
rule, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45.‖ More specifically, ―in a criminal case, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great
weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on
record.‖
Are there exceptions in order for the Supreme Court to overturn the factual findings of the trial
court?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, the Supreme Court will re-
calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the lower courts.
Some of the recognized exceptions are as follows:
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, and conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based;
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners‘ main and reply briefs are
not disputed by the respondents; and
(10) When the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record.514 (Macayan, Jr. vs. People, supra).
SECTION 4. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN SUFFICIENT.
Q9. What are the guidelines when the court is faced with circumstantial evidence in deciding
criminal cases?
________________________
513
See People vs. Macasinag, 255 Phil. 279 (1989)[Per J. Cruz, First Division].
514
Cirtek Employees Labor Union vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 650 SCRA 656 (6 June 2011)[Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].
101
A9. The following guidelines must be observed by the courts when faced with circumstantial evidence
in deciding criminal cases:
a. Circumstantial evidence should be acted upon with caution;
b. All the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt;
c. The facts must exclude every other theory but that of the guilt of the accused; and
d. The facts must establish with certainty the guilt of the accused so as to convince beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator of the offense. The peculiarity of circumstantial
evidence is that the series of events pointing to the commission of a felony is appreciated not singly but
collectively. The guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one (1) particular piece of
evidence. (People vs. Bacares, G.R. No. 243024, 23 June 2020)(First Division)[Peralta, C.J.].515
They are like puzzle pieces which when put together reveal a convincing picture pointing to the
conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime.
Thus, the determination of whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt
is a qualitative test and not a quantitative one. The proven circumstances must be consistent with each
other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the
hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. In this wise, the
Court has held that circumstantial evidence is like a ‗tapestry made up of strands which create a pattern
when interwoven.‘ Each strand cannot be plucked out and scrutinized individually because it only forms
part of the entire picture.516
Q10. Can the corpus delicti be proven by circumstantial evidence? Explain.
A10. Yes. Corpus delicti is the body, foundation or substance of a crime. It refers to the fact of the
commission of the crime, not to the physical body of the deceased. Because corpus delicti may be proven by
circumstantial evidence, it is not necessary for the prosecution to present direct evidence to prove the
corpus delicti. Nevertheless, the prosecution must present the following elements:
(a) that a certain result or fact has been established, i.e., that a man has died; and
(b) that some person is criminally responsible for it.517
Q11. Can motive be considered as circumstantial evidence against the accused?
A11. Yes. Although motive is not an element of a crime, it is a ―prospectant518 circumstantial

evidence‖519 that may help establish intent. In Napoles vs. De Lima (G.R. No. 213529, 13 July 2016)(Second
Division)[Leonen, J.], the High Court explained: In this case, the Review Resolution sufficiently explained
why it was ―contrary to human nature‖ for Benhur Luy to go on a three (3)-month spiritual retreat with priests
that have close ties with Napoles; and, instead, Benhur Luy had been detained at Bahay ni San Jose,
transferred from place to place until he was rescued in Pacific Plaza because he knew first-hand of Napoles‘
involvement in the pork barrel scam.
Q12. In the prosecution of rape with homicide, is circumstantial evidence weaker than direct
evidence?
A12. No. Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker in persuasive quality than direct
evidence.
The Rules of Court makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of
circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred; hence, no greater degree of certainty is
required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, the trier of fact must be
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Nor has the quantity of circumstances
sufficient to convict an accused been fixed as to be reduced into some definite standard to be followed in
________________________
515
Citing Almojuela vs. People, 734 Phil. 636 (2014).
516
People vs. Elever Jaen, G.R. No. 241946 (29 July 2019).
517
People vs. Peñaflor, 766 Phil. 484 (2015).
518
Prospectant evidence refers to evidence suggesting that a person might or might not do a particular act even before someone does an
act. Prospectant evidence typically falls into any of the five categories:
1. Moral character or disposition;
2. Physical and mental capacity;
3. Habit or custom;
4. Emotion or motive; and
5. Plan, design or intention.
Prospectant evidence is also known as circumstantial evidence whereby past event from which a fact in issue can be inferred in
order to establish motive or plan. (https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prospectant-evidence/).
519
See People vs. Madrigal-Gonzales, 117 Phil. 956 (1963)[Per J. Paredes, En Banc].
102
every instance. (People vs. Magbitang, G.R. No. 175592, 14 June 2016)(En Banc) [Bersamin, J.].520
Q13. What are the requisites for circumstantial evidence to support a conviction?
A13. For circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict an accused, the following requisites must concur:
(1) there is more than one circumstance;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. (People vs. Baron, G.R. No. 213215 (11 January 2016)(Second Division) [Leonen, J.], a case for rape with homicide, where the
conviction was affirmed by the High Court.)
Circumstantial evidence may support a conviction if they afford as basis for a reasonable inference of the
existence of the fact thereby sought to be proved. 521 To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence,
it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain, which leads one
to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person.
The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the crime. 522
(People vs. Oandasan, Jr., G.R. No. 194605, 14 June 2016)(En Banc) [Bersamin, J.].523
SECTION 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined. — In any case where the
opinion of an expert witness is received in evidence, the court has a wide latitude of discretion in
determining the weight to be given to such opinion, and for that purpose may consider the following:
(a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case;
and
(d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such determination. (n)
Section 5 is a new provision with no equivalent under Rule 133 of the old Rules of Evidence. However, its
source is Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It pertinently provides:
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may
testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert‘s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.524
USE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY
The use of expert testimony raises two thresholds issues. First, is the proffered testimony a proper
subject matter for expert testimony? If the answer is yes, the next question follows: Is this witness qualified in
this subject matter?
There is typically no requirement that an expert be called as a witness on a particular issue, except for
malpractice cases, which frequently require expert testimony to establish the standard of care.525
________________________
520
See also People vs. Villaflores, 669 SCRA 365 (11 April 2012), citing People vs. Ramos, 240 SCRA 191 (18 January 1995); citing Robinson
vs. State, 18 Md. App. 678, 308 A2d 734 (1973); People vs. Modesto, 25 SCRA 36 (21 September 1968); and People vs. Ludday, 61 Phil.
216 (1935).
521
Zabala vs. People, 752 Phil. 59.
522
Lozano vs. People, 638 Phil. 582 (2010).
523
See also People vs. Manansala, G.R. No. 233104 (3 September 2020)(Second Division)[Hernando, J.]; People vs. Soria, G.R. No. 248372
(27 August 2020) (First Division)[Peralta, C.J.]; People vs. Dongail, et al., G.R. No. 217972 (17 February 2020)(Third
Division)[Carandang, J.].
524
Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1937; Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.
525
103
SECTION 6. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Q14. What is the concept of substantial evidence?
A14. Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. The standard of
substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that a person is responsible for
the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.
[Saligumba vs. COA XIII, G.R. No. 238643 (8 September 2020) (First Division)[Peralta, C.J.], citing Office of the
Ombudsman-Visayas, et al. vs. Castro, 759 Phil. 68 (2015).]
Q15. Is an administrative tribunal duty bound to provide the person under investigation with
counsel?
A15. No. There is nothing in the 1987 Constitution stating that a party in a non-litigation proceeding
is entitled to be represented by counsel. The assistance of a lawyer, while desirable, is not indispensable.
Further, in Remolona vs. CSC,526 the Supreme Court held that a party in an administrative inquiry may or may
not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent‘s capacity to
represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel.
Hence, the administrative body is under no duty to provide the person with counsel because assistance of
counsel is not an absolute requirement. (Cudia vs. The Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy, 751
SCRA 469, 24 February 2015)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].527
The right to counsel under Section 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution applies in criminal
proceedings, but not in administrative proceedings. It is a right given to persons accused of an offense
during criminal investigation.528 Any proceeding conducted by an administrative body is not part of the
criminal investigation or prosecution.529 (Gutierrez vs. COA, G.R. No. 200628, 13 January 2015)(En Banc)[Leonen,
J.].
Q16. What is the weight of evidence required in labor cases?
A16. The evidence required in labor dispute in substantial evidence. Grave abuse of discretion may
be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not
supported by substantial evidence.530 This requirement is clearly expressed in Section 5, Rule 133 of the
Rules of Court. [Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc vs. Avestruz, 751 SCRA 161 (18 February 2015)(First Division)[Perlas-
Bernabe, J.]; Ayungo vs. Beamko Shipmanangement Corporation, 717 SCRA 538 (26 February 2014)(Second
Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.]; INC Shipmanagement, Inc. vs. Moradas, 713 SCRA 475 (15 January 2014)(Second
Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].]
Q17. What is the required quantum of proof in administrative proceedings?
A17. The Supreme Court, citing the landmark case Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations,531 held
that: All that is needed to support an administrative finding of fact is substantial evidence, which is
defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
This where the findings of fact of a quasi-judicial body are supported by substantial evidence, these
findings are conclusive and binding on the appellate court. 532
In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required. The standard of substantial
evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the
misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.533
[Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ruiz, 782 SCRA 630 (2 February 2016)(En Banc)[Per Curiam]; In Re: Allegations
Made Under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate
Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan, 736 SCRA 12 (23 September 2014)(En Banc)[Per Curiam]; Sison-Brias vs.
Rubia, 726 SCRA 94 (10 June 2014)(En Banc)[Per Curiam]; Barcelona vs. Lim, 724 SCRA 433 (3 June 2014)(En
Banc)[Sereno, C.J.]; INC Shipmanagement, Inc. vs. Moradas, 713 SCRA 475 (15 January 2014)(Second Division)[Perlas-
Bernabe, J.].]
________________________
526
414 Phil. 590 (2001). See also Philcomsat Holdings Corporation vs. Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, 673 SCRA 611 (19 June
2012).
527
Citing Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 346 Phil. 807 (1997); Nera vs. The Auditor General, 247 Phil. 1 (1988); Wasson vs. Trowbridge, 382 F.2d
807 (1967).
528
Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 346 Phil. 807 (1997)[Per J. Romero, En Banc].
529
Remolona vs. CSC, 414 Phil. 590 (2001)[Per J. Puno, En Banc].
530
Ramos vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 203186 (4 December 2013).
531
69 Phil. 635 (1940).
532
Bagsican vs. CA, 225 Phil. 185 (1986); Heirs of E.B. Roxas, Inc. vs. Tolentino, 249 Phil. 334 (1988).
533
Jallorina vs. Taneo-Regner, 670 SCRA 301 (23 April 2012), citing Banaag vs. Espeleta, 661 SCRA 513 (29 November 2011).
104
Q18. In an administrative case, who has the burden of proof?
A18. The complainants have the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial
evidence. While the Court will never tolerate or condone any conduct, act, or omission that would violate the norm of
public accountability or diminish the people‘s faith in the judiciary,534 the quantum of proof necessary for a finding
of guilt in administrative cases is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.535 [In Re: Verified Complaint dated July 13, 2015 of Alfonso V. Umali, Jr.
vs. Hernandez, 784 SCRA 483 (23 February 2016)(En Banc)[Brion, J.]; Tuldague vs. Pardo, 707 SCRA 622 (17 October
2013)(En Banc)[Carpio, J.].]
Q19. How should the findings of quasi-judicial agencies, like the COA, be treated by the highest
court?
A19. It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities,
especially one which is constitutionally-created, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of
powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. 536 Findings of
quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined
to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are
supported by substantial evidence,537 and the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or
arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion.538 [Versoza, Jr. vs. Carague, 665 SCRA 124 (7
February 2012)(En Banc)[Villarama, Jr.]; Delos Santos vs. COA, 703 SCRA 501 (13 August 2013)(En Banc)[Perlas-
Bernabe, J.].]
Q20. Can text messages be considered as substantial evidence for extortion against an erring court
officer?
A20. Yes. Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule. Otherwise stated, a
finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by
substantial evidence that the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint. Substantial evidence is
such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The
standard of substantial evidence is justified when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is
responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant.
In previous administrative cases involving other court personnel, text messages were admitted as evidence
and given probative value by this court.539 In those cases, the court considered the content of the text
messages and the identification of the person sending them as substantial evidence to prove the commission
of administrative offenses. [Astorga and Repol Law Offices vs. Villanueva, 751 SCRA 410 (24 February 2015)(En
Banc)[Per Curiam], citing Menor vs. Guillermo]. 540
Q21. What is the required quantum of proof in administrative cases filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman?
A21. It is substantial evidence. In administrative proceedings, complainants carry the burden of

proving their allegations with substantial evidence or ―such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.‖ 50 (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Fetalvero, Jr., G.R. No. 211450, 23
July 2018)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q22. What is the concept of good faith in administrative cases?
A22. Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention and
freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest
intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law,
together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction
unconscientious. In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal,
we can ascertain a person‘s intention not from his own protestation of good faith, which is self-serving, but
from evidence of his conduct and outward acts. (CSC vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 248255, 27 August 2020)(First
Division)[Lazaro-Javier, J.].541
Q23. When can a person be considered in good faith?
________________________
534
Dr. Cruz vs. Judge Iturralde, 450 Phil. 77 (2003), citing Sarmiento vs. Salamat, 364 SCRA 301 (4 September 2001).
535
See Ocampo vs. Arcaya-Chua, 619 SCRA 59 (23 April 2010), citing Espanol vs. Mupas, 442 SCRA 13 (11 November 2004).
536
Sanchez vs. COA, 552 SCRA 471 (23 April 2008), citing Cuerdo vs. COA, 166 SCRA 657 (27 October 1988), further citing Tagum Doctors
Enterprises vs. Apsay, 165 SCRA 154 (30 August 1988).
537
Laysa vs. COA, 343 SCRA 520 (18 October 2000).
538
Sanchez vs. COA, supra.
539
Sison-Barias vs. Rubia, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2388 (10 June 2014)[Per Curiam, En Banc]; Villahermosa, Sr. vs. Sarcia, 715 SCRA 639 (11
February 2014)[Per Curiam, En Banc].
540
595 Phil. 10 (2008)[Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc].
541
Citing Bacsasar vs. CSC, 596 Phil. 858 (2009).
105
A23. A person is considered in good faith not only when he or she has shown an honest intention. A
person who acted in good faith must also be free from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put him
or her on inquiry.
SECTION 7. POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER EVIDENCE
SECTION 8. EVIDENCE ON MOTION.
Q24. Explain Evidence on Motion.
A24. Evidence on Motion has been explained by Justice Teehankee in his concurring opinion in the
case of Baguio vs. Vda de Jalagat (42 SCRA 337, 29 November 1971)(En Banc)[Fernando, J.], in this wise:
I concur in the main opinion of Mr. Justice Fernando affirming the lower court‘s order of dismissal of the
case below, on motion of defendants-appellees, on the ground of its being barred by a prior judgment.
The lower court properly took judicial notice of the case resolved by it wherein admittedly the same
lower court dismissed an identical complaint filed over the same property by the same plaintiff against the
same defendants (who are the legal or forced heirs of the now deceased Melecio Jalagat, defendant in the
prior case).
Such judicial notice taken by the lower court is sanctioned under Rule 129, Section 1. It, in effect,
supplants the evidence on motion that Rule 133, Section 7 authorizes a trial court to receive ―when a
motion is based on not appearing on record.‖
The appeal‘s sole assignment of error, viz, that a bar by prior judgment cannot be raised in a motion to
dismiss when such ground does not appear on the face of the complaint, is clearly bereft of basis or merit. Such
limitation of the dismissal motion to what appears on the face of the complaint applies only when it is based
on ground that the complaint fails to state a valid cause of action.542 Rule 16, section 3 precisely provides for a
hearing of the motion to dismiss, wherein its ground (other than lack of cause of action) may be proved or
disproved in accordance with the rules of evidence and specifically Rule 133, Section 7, which provides that
―When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or
depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly
or partly on oral testimony or depositions.‖
When the ground of the dismissal motion is, a prior judgment rendered by the same court — a fact
known to the court and to the parties as well, as in the case at bar — the taking of judicial notice of said prior
judgment by the same court constitutes the very evidence needed to dispose of the dismissal motion.
________________________
542
See Martin's Rules of Court, 2d Ed., p. 499.

MLS Material 2

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

MLS Material 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRE-WEEK NOTES AND CASES

FOR MOYA LECTURE SERIES

DEAN SALVADOR N. MOYA II, LL.M.

Q1. What is Evidence?

Q2. Can legal relationship be established aside from documentary evidence?

Q3. What is prima facie evidence? Explain.

SCOPE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE (SECTION 2)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

DISTINGUISH: PROOF AND EVIDENCE

trier of fact or the court. [Calif. Evidence Code].

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE (SECTION 3)

OLD PROVISION NEW PROVISION

SECTION 3. Admissibility of SECTION 3. Admissibility of

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE; EXCLUSIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS,

Evidence is admissible when:

1. it is relevant to the issue; and

2. it is not excluded by:

ii. the law; or

iii. the rules of court.

RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AND COLLATERAL MATTERS

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

Q5. Explain the concept of relevancy.

Q6. What does collateral matter mean in the rules of evidence?

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

A8. The difference are as follows:

The determination of whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt is a

COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

Q10. Distinguish competent from credible evidence.

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

RELEVANCY VS. COLLATERAL MATTERS

COLLATERAL MATTERS, EXCEPTION

EVIDENCE MUST BE OF PROBATIVE VALUE

DUAL PURPOSE OF RELEVANCY

scope and to prevent the issues from becoming beclouded;

JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

Q1. What is Judicial Notice? Explain.

Q2. When is judicial notice mandatory?

a. The existence and territorial extent of states;

b. their political history;

c. forms of government and symbols of nationality;

d. the law of nations;

f. the political constitution and history of the Philippines;

h. the laws of nature;

i. the measure of time; and

j. the geographical divisions.

Q3. When is judicial notice discretionary?

A4. Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites:

(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS (SECTION 4)

OLD PROVISION NEW PROVISION

SECTION 4. Judicial SECTION 4. Judicial admissions.

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

Q7. Explain the concept of judicial admission.

EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

Q9. What is the effect of judicial admissions?

HOW JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS MAY BE CONTRADICTED

Q10. How can judicial admission be contradicted?

2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made.54

Q11. What is the effect of admissions during the pre-trial? Explain.

In Bayas vs. Sandiganbayan,55 the Supreme Court emphasized that:

A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE (SECTION 1)