Lecture On Rules of Evidence

LECTURE
ON THE
2019 RULES ON EVIDENCE
JUDGE GENER M. GITO, LL.M., D.C.L.

Presiding Judge, RTC-206, Muntinlupa City
Professor I, PhilJA
Professor of Law, Bar Reviewer
RULE 128: General Provisions
SECTION 1:
Evidence defined.
OLD RULE 2019 AMENDMENT
Section 1. Evidence defined. Section 1. Evidence defined.
Evidence is the means, Evidence is the means,
sanctioned by these rules, sanctioned by these rules,
of ascertaining in a judicial of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact. respecting a matter of fact.
SECTION 2:
Scope.
Section 2. Scope. The rules Section 2. Scope. The rules
of evidence shall be the of evidence shall be the
same in all courts and in all same in all courts and in all
trials and hearings, except trials and hearings, except
as otherwise provided by as otherwise provided by
law or these rules. law or these rules.
Scope and Applicability
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. (Sec. 2, Rule 128)
The rule does not apply to election cases, land
registration and cadastral cases, naturalization and
insolvency proceedings, except by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient (Sec. 4, Rule 1)
Please take note:
Sec. 2. Cases covered. – These Rules shall apply to all civil actions
and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative case.
Is the rule on electronic evidence applicable to criminal cases?
Yes. The SC in People vs. Enojas, March 10, 2014 ruled: As to the
admissibility of the text messages, the RTC admitted them in
conformity with the Court's earlier Resolution applying the Rules
on Electronic Evidence to criminal actions (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC,
Re: Expansion of the Coverage of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, September 24, 2002, which now covers criminal
cases).
.
Illustration
Ong Chia vs. Republic, 328 SCRA 749
The RTC granted the petitioner’s petition for naturalization. The CA

reversed the decision on the ground that the RTC admitted evidence
which were not formally offered in evidence in violation of Sec. 34,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
According to SC, the rule on formal offer of evidence is not
applicable to petition for naturalization unless applied by analogy or
in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Illustration
Sugar Regulatory Administration vs. Tormon, G.R. No.
195640, December 4, 2012
The general rule is that administrative agencies are not bound

by the technical rules on evidence. It can accept documents
which cannot be admitted in a judicial proceeding where the
Rules of Court are strictly observed. It can choose to give
weight or disregard such evidence, depending on its
trustworthiness.
Illustration
The technical rules of evidence are not binding on labor
tribunals (Manalo vs. TNS Phil. G.R. No. 208567,
November 26, 2014). Thus, written statements of certain
employees can be admitted even if they were not cross-
examined. The rules of evidence are not strictly observed
in proceedings before the NLRC which are summary in
nature and decisions may be made on the basis of
position papers (Castillo vs. Prudentialife Plans, Inc., GR
No. 196142, March 26, 2014).
Illustration
In Sasan, Sr., vs. NLRC, 569 SCRA 670, the respondent
submitted documents before the NLRC which was not
presented before the Labor Arbiter. It was considered by
the NLRC. The SC ruled that in that situation, the NLRC
may consider evidence even for the first time on appeal
since technical rules of evidence are not bonding in
labor cases.
In the same case, the SC ruled that even photocopies
can be admitted as evidence
Illustration
Parol evidence rule, like other rules of evidence,
should not be strictly applied in labor cases.
Hence, a Labor Arbiter is not precluded from
accepting and evaluating evidence other than,
and even contrary to, what is stated in the CBA
(Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of
Free Workers vs. Cirtek Electronics, 650 SCRA
656-663).
When is evidence necessary?
Issue of Fact
Instances where evidence is no longer required:
When the pleadings in the a civil case fail to tender an issue. judgment
on the pleading will ensue in accordance with Rule 34.
When parties stipulated on certain facts.
When a fact is subject to judicial notice.
When the fact is judicially admitted
When the law or rule presumes the truth of a fact.

Proof vs. Evidence
Proof is the product of evidence.
Evidence is the medium of

proof.
Factum probandum vs.
factum probans
Factum probandum is the fact or proposition to be
established, while factum probans is the fact or material
evidencing the fact or proposition to be established.
The factum probandum is the fact to be proved; it is the fact

which is in issue in a case and to which the evidence is
directed. On the other hand, factum probans is the probative
or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue.
Illustration
In a suit involving damage to property caused
by the negligence of the defendant, the factum
probandum is the negligence of the defendant
that caused damage to the property of the
plaintiff. The factum probans are the evidences,
whether it be object, testimonial, documentary,
to prove the negligence of the defendant.
Illustration
In civil cases, the factum probandum is the elements of the
cause of action which are denied by the defendant.
In criminal cases the factum probandum refers to matters which
the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order
to justify the conviction.
RA 10591 – Illegal possession of firearm
RA 9165 – Dangerous Drugs Act
Section 3:
Admissibility of Evidence
Section 3. Admissibility of Section 3. Admissibility of
Evidence. Evidence is Evidence. Evidence is
admissible when it is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is relevant to the issue and is
not excluded by the law or not excluded by the
these rules. Constitution, the law of
these rules.
Rule 128, Section 3
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the

issue and is not excluded by the Constitution,
the law of these rules
Section 3, Rule 128
The new rule clarifies that the competency of the evidence is
not only determined by the Rules of Court and the law, but also
by the constitution.
There are exclusionary rule in the Constitution. For instance,
Section 3, in relation to Section 2 of Article III of the
Constitution. Section 12(3) in relation to Section 17 of Article III.
Thus, the new Rule deemed it to include the Constitution in
Section 3, because it also provide rules for excluding evidence in
the court of justice.
Admissibility involves two questions:
Relevancy
Competency
Relevancy
It is the relationship of evidence to the fact in issue. If
the evidence will tend to prove the fact in issue, then
the evidence is relevant. If there is no connection at
all, then the evidence is not relevant.
How do you determine the connection of evidence

with the fact in issue?
It is not matter of law, rather it is a matter of logic.

SECTION 4:
Relevancy; collateral matters.
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters.
Evidence must have such a relation to Evidence must have such a relation to
the fact in issue as to induce belief in its the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. Evidence on existence or non-existence. Evidence on
collateral matters shall not be allowed, collateral matters shall not be allowed,
except when it tends in any reasonable except when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue. improbability of the fact in issue.
Relevancy
To be relevant, evidence must relate to an

issue of fact. If not, then it is irrelevant.
If you introduce evidence for a fact not

alleged in the pleading, then the
introduction of such evidence may be
objected for being irrelevant.
Problem
A was charged for killing B. The information was
captioned as Murder. However, the Information
failed to allege circumstances which would qualify
the killing to murder. During trial, the prosecution
introduced evidence of treachery.
If you are the counsel for the defense, what
procedural action will you do to protect the interest
of your client?
Answer
I will object to the presentation of evidence of
treachery on the ground of relevancy. The
qualifying circumstance was not put as an issue
for failure to allege the same in the Information.
Under Section 8, Rule 110, it is required that the
qualifying and aggravating circumstance must be
specified in the Information.
Section 8, Rule 110
Designation of the Offense - The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense
given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying
and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
People vs. Feliciano, May 5, 2014
In Anti-Hazing Law, disguise is an aggravating circumstances. The
information was not able to allege that the participants in the hazing
were wearing mask. But, they were able to prove the same during trial.
Is it proper for the Court to appreciate the fact of wearing mask as an
aggravating circumstance?
No. The failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven
during the trial, will not be appreciated as such. It will violate the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him.
Collateral Matters
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. (Sec. 4, Rule 128)
Collateral matters are not direct evidence. It is just
additional or auxiliary evidence to the fact in issue.
It could not directly prove the fact in issue.
Competency
It is one that is not excluded by the law or rules.
If the test of relevancy is logic and common

sense, the test of competency is the,
constitution, law or rules.
Is admissibility of evidence the same as weight of
evidence?
No. the admissibility of evidence should not be
equated with the weight of the evidence. The
admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and
competence while the weight of evidence pertains to
its tendency to convince and persuade. A particular
item of evidence may be admissible but its evidentiary
weight depends on judicial evaluation with the
guidelines provided by the rules on evidence (Tating
vs. Marcella, 519 SCRA 79).
Kinds of Admissibility
Multiple Admissibility – Evidence which is admissible for two or
more purposes.
Res gestae
Dying
Example: Declaration of dying person declaration
Declaration
against interest
Conditional admissibility – Sometimes the
relevance of an evidence is not readily
apparent at the time it is offered, but the
relevance of which may be seen when
connected to other pieces of evidence not
yet offered. In which case, such evidence
may be admitted conditionally.
Illustration
The plaintiff filed a complaint for recovery of
possession of real property against the defendant. The
plaintiff presented evidence that the property is titled
in the name of X. The defendant object on the ground
of immateriality. The plaintiff manifested that the
relevancy of this piece of evidence will be shown later
on when the plaintiff presents evidence that X sold the
land to B from which the plaintiff derives his title of
the subject real property.
Illustration
The prosecution witness testified that he saw the
person who stabbed the victim to be sporting a color
red hair but the witness was not able to identify the
accused in open court. The counsel for the defense
moved for the striking out of his testimony for being
immaterial. The prosecution countered that it will
present evidence that the person whom the witness
identified to be sporting a color red hair is the
accused.
The doctrine of curative admissibility allows a party to
introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer
the opposing party’s previous introduction of
inadmissible evidence. Thus, a party who first
introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence
into the trial cannot complain of the subsequent
admission of similar evidence from the adverse party
relating to the same subject matter
Example
In a collection suit filed by A against B, A
introduced evidence that B borrowed money from
C, D and E, but did not pay. B objects on the
ground that it is immaterial and constitute
character assassination. Nevertheless, the Court
allowed.
B, can introduce evidence that he already paid his
debt to C, D and E.
Classification of Evidence
Direct Circumstantial
It proves a fact without It is that evidence which

the need to make an indirectly proves a fact in
inference from another issue through an inference
fact. which the fact finder
draws from the evidence
established .
Conviction by circumstantial Evidence, Requisites:
There is more than one

circumstance
The facts from which the inference

are derived are proven
The combination of all the

circumstances is such as to produce
conviction beyond reasonable doubt
Cumulative Corroborative
It refers to evidence of the same It is one which is supplementary to

kind and character as that already that already given tending to
given which tend to prove the same strengthen or confirm it. It is
proposition. additional evidence of different
character.
Positive Negative
Evidence is said to be positive It is negative when the witness

when a witness affirms that a states that an event did not
certain state of facts does exist occur or that state of facts
or a certain event happened. alleged to exist did not exist.
Weight of positive and negative evidence
The defense of denial is viewed with disfavor for being

inherently weak. It cannot prevail over the positive
and credible testimony of prosecution witnesses
(People vs. Reyes, GR No. 194606, Feb. 18, 2015)
Greater weight is given to positive identification of the
accused by the prosecution witnesses than the
accused’s denial (People vs. Solina, January 13, 2016)
BURDEN OF PROOF
RULE 131
Burder of Proof and Burden of Evidence
Sec. 1. Burden of proof. – Burden of proof is SEC. 1. Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence.
the duty of a party to present evidence on — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to
the facts in issue necessary to establish his present evidence on the facts in issue necessary
to establish his or her claim or defense by the
claim or defense by the amount of evidence
amount of evidence required by law. Burden of
required by law. proof never shifts.
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to
present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut
a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.
Burden of evidence may shift from one party to
the other in the course of the proceedings,
depending on the exigencies of the case.
What is burden of proof?
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to

present evidence on the facts in issue necessary
to establish his or her claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law. Burden of
proof never shifts (Section 1, Rule 131).
Relevant Concepts on Burden of Proof
In civil cases, it is a basic rule that the party making allegations has the
burden of proving them by preponderance of evidence. By
preponderance of evidence is meant that evidence adduced by one side
is, as a whole, superior to that of the other side (NFF Industrial
Corporation vs. G& L Brokerage, January 12, 2015).
In administrative cases, the complainant bears the burden in proving the

averments of his complaint by substantial evidence. However,
conjectures and suppositions are not sufficient to prove accusations
(Lorenzana vs. Austria, April 2, 2014).
Relevant concepts on burden of proof
The burden of proof that a debt was contracted

lies with the creditor-plaintiff. He who asserts,
not who denies, must prove (Homeowners
Savings & Loan Bank vs. Dailo, 453 SCRA 283).
However, he who pleads payment has the
burden of proving it. (Bognot vs. RRI Lending,
September 24, 2014)
What is the test for determining where the burden of
proof lies?
Ask: Which party to an action or suit will fail if he

offers no evidence competent to show the facts
averred as basis for the relief he seeks to obtain.
If the defendant has affirmative defenses, he has
the burden of proving them (Aznar Brothers
Realty vs. Aying, 458 SCRA 496).
What is burden of evidence
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to

present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut
a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.
Burden of evidence may shift from one party to
the other in the course of the proceedings,
depending on the exigencies of the case
(Section 1, Rule 131).
Burden of evidence?
It is the duty of a party to go forward with
evidence to overthrow the prima facie evidence
against him (People vs. CA, February 25, 2015)
If the accused admits the killing, the burden of
evidence is shifted to the accused to prove his
defenses (Flores vs. People, February 27, 2013)
PRESUMPTION
Presumption
• It is an assumption of fact resulting from the
rule of law which require such fact to be
assumed from another fact or group of facts
found or otherwise established in an action
Concep (Black Law Dictionary)
t • It is an inference of the existence or non-

existence of a fact which courts are permitted to
draw from proof of other facts (In the matter of
the Intestate of Delgado and Rustia, 480 SCRA
334)
Examples
Prior rents or installments had been paid when a
receipt for the later installment is produced (Sec. 3(i),
Rule 131; Art. 1177).
Common Carrier is presumed to be liable (1756).
Money paid by one to another was due to the latter
(Sec. 3(f), Rule 131).
Official duty has been regularly performed (Sec. 3(m),
Rule 131).
What is the effect of presumption?
A party in whose favor the legal presumption
exists may rely on and invoke such legal
presumption to establish a fact in issue. One
need not introduced evidence to prove the fact
for a presumption is prima facie proof of the
fact presumed (Diesel Construction vs. UPSI
Property, 549 SCRA 12)
Kinds of Presumption
Conclusive – when the presumption becomes

irrebuttable upon the presentation of evidence and any
evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not
admissible
Disputable – if it may be contradicted by other evidence.

RULE 131
Section 2: Conclusive Presumptions
Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions. – The following Sec. 2. Conclusive Presumptions. — The following are
are instances of conclusive presumptions: instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, (a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own
act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
another to believe a particular thing is true, and to deliberately led another to believe a particular thing
act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation true, and to act upon such belief, he or she cannot,
arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or
permitted to falsify it. omission, be permitted to falsify it; and
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of
his or her landlord at the time of the
his landlord at the time of the commencement of commencement of the relation of landlord and
the relation of landlord and tenant between them. tenant between them.
Example of estoppel
Persons who assume to be a corporation

without legal authority to act as such shall
be considered a corporation by estoppel
and shall be liable as general partners
(Sec. 21, CCP)
RULE 131
Section 3: Disputable Presumptions
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but
may be contradicted and overcome by other may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence: evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful
unlawful intent; intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary (c) That a person intends the ordinary
consequences of his voluntary act; consequences of his or her voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his or her
concerns; concerns;
RULE 131
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced; adverse if produced;
(f) That money paid by one to another was due (f) That money paid by one to another was due
to the latter; to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another (g) That a thing delivered by one to another
belonged to the latter; belonged to the latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor (h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor
has been paid; has been paid;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid
when a receipt for the latter ones is produced; when a receipt for the latter ones is produced;
RULE 131
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing (j) That a person found in possession of a thing
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the
taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise,
that things which a person possesses, or exercises that things which a person possesses, or exercises
acts of ownership over, are owned by him; acts of ownership over, are owned by him or her;
(k) That a person in possession of an order on (k) That a person in possession of an order on
himself for the payment of the money, or the himself or herself for the payment of the money,
delivery of anything, has paid the money or or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or
delivered the things accordingly; delivered the things accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was (l) That a person acting in a public office was
regularly appointed or elected to it; regularly appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed; (m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
RULE 131
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether (n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in
in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the
lawful exercise of jurisdiction; lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a (o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a
case were laid before the court and passed upon by case were laid before the court and passed upon by it;
it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue and in like manner that all matters within an issue
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid
before the arbitrators and passed upon by them; before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
(p) That private transactions have been fair and (p) That private transactions have been fair and
regular; regular;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been (q) That the ordinary course of business has been
followed; followed;
RULE 131
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a (r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a
contract; contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or (s) That a negotiable instrument was given or
indorsed for a sufficient consideration; indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t) That an indorsement of a negotiable (t) That an indorsement of a negotiable
instrument was made before the instrument was instrument was made before the instrument was
overdue and at the place where the instrument is overdue and at the place where the instrument is
dated; dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated; (u) That a writing is truly dated;
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was
received in the regular course of the mail; received in the regular course of the mail;
RULE 131
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being (w) That after an absence of seven years, it being
unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he or
considered dead for all purposes, except for those of she is considered dead for all purposes, except for those
succession. of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he opening his or her succession until after an absence of ten
disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of years. If he or she disappeared after the age of seventy-five
five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that
be opened. his or her succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes The following shall be considered dead for all purposes
including the division of the estate among the heirs: including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an
aircraft with is missing, who has not been heard of for four aircraft with is missing, who has not been heard of for four
years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft; years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
RULE 131
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed (2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed
hostilities, and has been missing for four years; hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four
years; years; and
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, (4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years,
the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or
she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already
death. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death death. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death
the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two
years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying
again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings
as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect
of reappearance of the absent spouse. of reappearance of the absent spouse.
RULE 131
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that (x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that
the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the
law or fact; law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the (y) That things have happened according to the
ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature
habits of life; habits of life;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have (z) That persons acting as co-partners have
entered into a contract of copartneship; entered into a contract of co-partneship;
RULE 131
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as (aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage; marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who (bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other and who live are capacitated to marry each other and who live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife without exclusively with each other as husband and wife without
the benefit of marriage or under void marriage, has been the benefit of marriage or under void marriage, has been
obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry. obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman (cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman
who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have
acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry, such contributions and their money, property or industry, such contributions and their
corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and
evidences of credit are equal. evidences of credit are equal.
RULE 131
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother (dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother
contracted another marriage within three hundred days contracted another marriage within three hundred days
after such termination of the former marriage, these rules after such termination of the former marriage, these rules
shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the (1) A child born before one hundred eighty (180) days after
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is
have been conceived during such marriage, even though it considered to have been conceived during such marriage,
be born within the three hundred days after the even though it be born within the three hundred days after
termination of the former marriage. the termination of the former marriage; and
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the (2) A child born after one hundred eighty (180) days
celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is
have been conceived during such marriage, even though it considered to have been conceived during such marriage,
be born within the three hundred days after the even though it be born within the three hundred days after
termination of the former marriage. the termination of the former marriage.
RULE 131
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist (ee) That a thing once proved to exist
continues as long as is usual with things continues as long as is usual with things
of the nature; of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed; (ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, (gg) That a printed or published book,
purporting to be printed or published purporting to be printed or published
by public authority, was so printed or by public authority, was so printed or
published; published;
RULE 131
(hh) That a printed or published book, (hh) That a printed or published book,
purporting contain reports of cases adjudged purporting contain reports of cases adjudged
in tribunals of the country where the book is in tribunals of the country where the book is
published, contains correct reports of such published, contains correct reports of such
cases; cases;
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty (ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty
it was to convey real property to a particular it was to convey real property to a particular
person has actually conveyed it to him when person has actually conveyed it to him or her
such presumption is necessary to perfect the when such presumption is necessary to
title of such person or his successor in perfect the title of such person or his or her
interest; successor in interest;
RULE 131
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in (jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in
the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not
shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from
which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the
probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes,
according to the following rules: according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have 1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have
survived; survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have 2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have
survived; survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed
to have survived; to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the
male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the older; male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the older; and
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, 5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages,
the latter is deemed to have survived. the latter is deemed to have survived.
RULE 131
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between (kk) That if there is a doubt, as between
two or more persons who are called to two or more persons who are called to
succeed each other, as to which of succeed each other, as to which of
them died first, whoever alleges the them died first, whoever alleges the
death of one prior to the other, shall death of one prior to the other, shall
prove the same; in the absence of prove the same; in the absence of
proof, they shall be considered to have proof, they shall be considered to have
died at the same time. (5a) died at the same time. (5a)
Effect of Disputable Presumption
The effect of a presumption upon a burden of
proof is to create the need of presenting
evidence to overcome the prima facie case
created by the presumption. If no contrary
proof is offered, the presumption will prevail
(Diaz vs. People, GR No. 2018113, December 2,
2013)
Disputable Presumption Under the Rules
Sec. 3(m), Rule 131
That official duty has been regularly performed.
“To begin with, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties should not
even be relied upon because there was concrete and undeniable evidence of lapses
committed by the arresting officers in their compliance with the affirmative safeguards. The
presumption has been erected only for convenience, to excuse the State from the duty to
adduce proof that official duties have been regularly performed by its agents, because of the
physically impossible or time-consuming task of detailing all the steps establishing the regular
performance of official duties. Moreover, it would be unconstitutional to place a higher value
in the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties — a mere tool of
evidence — than in the more substantial presumption of innocence favoring the petitioner as
an accused — a right enshrined no less than in the Bill of Rights. (Casona vs. People, G.R. No.
179757, September 13, 2017).
Disputable Presumption Under the Rules
Sec. 3(m), Rule 131
That official duty has been regularly performed.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions is applicable only when there is no deviation from the
regular performance of duty (People vs. Casabuena, November
19, 2014). It is rebuttable by affirmative evidence of irregularity
or of failure to perform a duty (People vs. Alejandro, April 7,
2014).
Disputable Presumption Based on Jurisprudence
In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found

in possession of and used a forged document is the
forger and therefore guilty of falsification. If a person
had in his possession a falsified document and made
use of it, taking advantage of it and profiting from it,
the clear presumption is that he is the material author
of the falsification (Maliwat vs. CA, 256 SCRA 718)
What is the evidentiary obligation of party against
whom the presumption is directed?
The party against whom it is directed has the

burden of going forward with evidence to rebut
the presumption (Section 5, Rule 131).
What is the effect of presumption?
A party in whose favor the legal presumption
exists may rely on and invoke such legal
presumption to establish a fact in issue. One
need not introduced evidence to prove the fact
for a presumption is prima facie proof of the
fact presumed (Diesel Construction vs. UPSI
Property, 549 SCRA 12).
In criminal cases, what is the obligation of the
prosecution in case the presumed fact is an element
of the offense?
It is the obligation of the prosecution to prove

beyond reasonable doubt the fact from which
the presumption is derived. (Section 6, Rule
131).
RULE 131: Burden of Proof, Burden of
Evidence and Presumptions
Section 6; Presumption agaisnt an Accused in Criminal Cases
Section 6. Presumption against an
Accused in Criminal Cases. — If a
presumed fact that establishes guilt, is
an element of the offense charged, or
No comparable provision under the old rule
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.
RULE 131: Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence
and Presumptions
The provision simply means that if the presumed fact is an element of crime, the fact from
which the presumed fact was derived and the intimate connection between the two must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Example: BP 22. on of the elements is: The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the
time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
of such check in full upon its presentment.
What is evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds? The making, drawing and issuance of a
check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with
such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima
facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer
pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by
the drawee of such check within (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not
been paid by the drawee.
and Presumptions
Therefore, under Section 6, Rule 130, the prosecution must
prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the accused made,
drew and issued of a check payment of which is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such
bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of
the check and the accused did not pay the same or make
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check
within (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check
has not been paid by the drawee.
and Presumptions
Another example: Estafa, through misappropriation under Article
315 par. 1(b).
The failure to return upon demand the properties which one has
the duty to return is tantamount to appropriating the same for
his own personal use.
The fact that accused failed to return the property upon demand
must be proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt because it is
the basis fact from which the fact presumed is derived.
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY
OF EVIDENCE
RULE 133: Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
Section 1: Preponderance of evidence
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. —
In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In establish his or her case by a preponderance of evidence.
determining where the preponderance or superior weight In determining where the preponderance or superior
of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court
consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case,
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence,
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to
there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, they testify, the probability or improbability of their
their interest or want of interest, and also their personal testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the
witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not
with the greater number. necessarily with the greater number.
The quantum of evidence required in
civil cases is preponderance of
evidence.
“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 the evidence or
greater weight of the credible evidence. Preponderance of
evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability
of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court
as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto
(Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., 485 Phil. 683, 695 (2004),
cited in Republic vs. Cuenca, GR No. 198393, april 4, 2018).
RULE 133
SECTION 2; Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. —
In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to
an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond an acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, reasonable doubt does not mean such a
excluding possibility of error, produces degree of proof, excluding possibility of error,
absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly
required, or that degree of proof which only is required, or that degree of proof
produces conviction in an unprejudiced which produces conviction in an
mind. unprejudiced mind.
The quantum of evidence in criminal
cases is proof beyond reasonable
doubt
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not connote
absolute certainty. It means the degree of proof which
produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of
the culpability of the accused. Such proof should
convince and satisfy the reason and conscience of
those who are to act upon it that the accused is in fact
guilty (Ng vs. People, GR No. 173905, April 23, 2010).
RULE 133
Section 6: Substantial evidence
Section 5. Substantial Evidence. — In Section 6. Substantial Evidence. — In
cases filed before administrative or quasi- cases filed before administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by established if it is supported by
substantial evidence, or that amount of substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify mind might accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion. a conclusion.
The quantum of proof in administrative
cases is substantial evidence
Substantial evidence means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion (Ombudsman v. Torres, 567
Phil. 46, 57 [2008]).
Substantial Evidence
Rule 133, Section 6 – Substantial evidence
In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact
may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
It refers to such relevant evidence which reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion (Montinola vs. PAL,
Sept. 14, 2014)
Will the acquittal in an administrative result
in the dismissal of the criminal case?
No. It will not follow. Administrative and criminal
proceedings are two different proceedings. They
involve different procedure.
Thus, the prosecution is not precluded from
adducing evidence to discharge the burden of
proof required in criminal cases. (Paredes vs. CA,
528 SCRA 577).
What is clear and convincing evidence?
It is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind
of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to
the allegation sought to be established. It is
intermediate, being more than preponderance of
evidence, but not to the extent of such certainty
as is required beyond reasonable doubt in criminal
cases. (Black Law Dictionary).
Instances where clear and convincing evidence
is required
1. To prove justifying circumstance (People vs. Abina, GR No. 220146, April 18, 2018).
2. To prove bad faith and fraud (Aliling v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012,
671 SCRA 186, 217).
3. To pierce the veil of corporate fiction (Manila Hotel vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 120077, October
10, 2000).
4. For the successful invocation of the defense of alibi (People vs. Bation, GR No. 123160,
March 24, 1999).
5. To prove jurisdictional requirements in the reconstitution of a destroyed or lost title (De La
Paz vs. Republic, GR No. 195726, November 20, 2017).
6. In proving consented search (Villanueva vs. People, November 17, 2014).
7. In granting bail in extradition proceedings (Government of Hongkong vs. Munoz, GR No.
207342, August 17, 2016)
JUDICIAL NOTICE
RULE 129: What Need Not Be Proved
Section 1:
Judicial Notice; when mandatory
Section 1. Judicial Notice; when mandatory. A Section 1. Judicial Notice; when mandatory. A
court shall take judicial notice, without the court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history , territorial extent of states, their political history ,
forms of government and symbols of nationality, forms of government and symbols of nationality,
the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the constitution and history of the Philippines, official
official acts of legislative, executive and judicial acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of departments of the National Government of the
nature, the measure of time, and the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of
geographical divisions. time, and the geographical divisions.
What may be subject to judicial notice
of the court?
1. Existence and territorial extent of 6. Political constitution and history of
states the Philippines
2. Their political history 7. Official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of
3. Forms of government the National Government of the
4. Symbols of nationality Philippines,
5. Law of nations the admiralty and 8. Laws of nature,

maritime courts of the world and 9. Measure of time,
their seals
10. geographical divisions
Social Justice Society vs. Atienza,
GR No. 156052, Feb. 13 2008
While courts are required to take judicial notice of the laws enacted by
Congress, the rule with respect to local ordinances is different. Ordinances
are not included in the enumeration of matters covered by mandatory
judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
Even where there is a statute that requires a court to take judicial notice of
municipal ordinances, a court is not required to take judicial notice of
ordinances that are not before it and to which it does not have access. The
party asking the court to take judicial notice is obligated to supply the court
with the full text of the rules the party desires it to have notice of. Counsel
should take the initiative in requesting that a trial court take judicial notice of
an ordinance even where a statute requires courts to take judicial notice of
local ordinances.
What may be subject to discretionary
judicial notice?
A court may take judicial notice of matters
which are of 1) public knowledge, or 2)
are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or 3) ought to be known
to judges because of their judicial
functions. (Sec. 2, Rule 129)
Section 2:
Judicial Notice; when discretionary
Section 2. Judicial Notice; when Section 2. Judicial Notice; when
discretionary. A court may take discretionary. A court may take
judicial notice of matters which judicial notice of matters which
are of public knowledge, or are are of public knowledge, or are
capable to unquestionable capable to unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be demonstration, or ought to be
known to judges because of their known to judges because of their
judicial functions. judicial functions.
Problem
There are two (2) civil cases pending between the same parties.
One is being heard by Branch 92. The other one is being heard
by Branch 93.
Can Branch 92 take judicial notice of the case pending in
Branch 93?
Suppose the two cases are pending in the same branch, which
is Branch 92, can the Judge take judicial notice of the other
case between the same parties?
Answer
A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and
records in the same case (Republic vs. CA, 277 SCRA
633).
Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the
contents of the records of other cases, even such
cases have been tried or pending in the same court
(LBP vs. Yatco Agricultural Enerprises, Jan. 15, 2014).
How can the judge take judicial notice of the
case pending in the same Court?
When in the absence of any objection and with
the knowledge of the opposing party, the contents
of said other case are clearly referred to by title
and number in a pending action and adopted and
read into the records of the other case;
When they are requested to form part of the
record of the other case (Tabuena vs. CA, 196
SCRA 650).
SECTION 3:
Judicial Notice; when hearing necessary
Section 3. Judicial Notice; when hearing Section 3. Judicial Notice; when hearing
necessary. During the trial, the court, on its necessary. During the pre-trial and the trial,
own initiative, or on request of a party, may the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall
announce its intention to take judicial notice of hear the parties on the propriety of taking
any matter and allow the parties to be heard judicial notice of any matter.
thereon.
Before judgment or on appeal, the court,
After the trial, and before judgment or on motu proprio or upon motion, may take
appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the
or on request of a party, may take judicial parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a
notice of any matter and allow the parties to be material issue in the case.
heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a
material issue in the case.
JUDICIAL ADMISSION
SECTION 4:
Judicial Admissions
Section 4. Judicial admission. An Section 4. Judicial admission. An
admission, verbal or written, made by admission, oral or written, made by the
the party in the course of the party in the course of the proceedings
proceedings in the same case, does not in the same case, does not require
require proof. The admission may be proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it contradicted only by showing that it
was made through palpable mistake or was made through palpable mistake or
that no such admission was made. that the imputed admission was not, in
fact, made.
Judicial Admission
D. Judicial Admissions
Sec. 4, Rules 129
An admission, verbal or written, made by a 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 no such admission was made.
Requisites of Judicial Admission
It must be made by a party to a case
It must be made in the course of the

proceedings in the same case
It does not require a particular form.

In the course of the proceedings:
Judicial admission are admission in the following:
1. In the pleadings
2. During trial, either verbal or written manifestation
3. During pre-trial
4. In other stages of the judicial proceedings
(Manzanila vs. Waterfields Industries, July 18, 2014)
Other judicial admissions
Admission in the pre-trial of civil cases (Sec. 2(d), Rule 18).
Admission during pre-trial in criminal case does not result to
judicial admission. It must comply with Section 2, Rule 118.
◦ Section 2, Rule 118, Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or
admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference
shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and
counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.
The agreements covering the matters referred to in Section 1
of this Rule shall be approved by the court.
Other judicial admission
How about the stipulations of facts during trial?
It is not required that it be signed the lawyer and the
accused. The stipulation of facts are already contained
in the TSN. The lawyer is presumed to have prima facie
authority to make relevant admission by pleadings, by
oral or written stipulation which unless withdrawn are
conclusive. (People vs. Hernandez, 206 SCRA 25; Silot
vs. Dela Rosa, 543 SCRA 533)
Admission
How about admission in an amended pleading?
Section 8, Rule 10, provides that when a pleading is
amended, the amended pleading supersedes the pleading
that it amends and the admission in the superseded
pleading may be offerred in evidence against the pleader.
But the admission will be treated as extra-judicial
admission (Torres vs. CA, 131 SCRA 24; Ching vs. CA, 331
SCRA 16)
Implied admission
How about admission in a dismissed pleading?
It is merely extra-judicial judicial admission
(Servicewide Specialist Inc., vs. CA, 257 SCRA
643)
Judicial admission
How about admission of a proposed state
witness?
If the motion to discharge an accused as a state
witness is denied, his sworn statement,
submitted to support the motion, shall be
inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 17, Rule 119)
What is the effect of judicial admission?
Judicial admission are legally binding on the party
making the admission. It is an established principle
that judicial admission cannot be contradicted by the
admitter who is the party himself and binds the person
who makes the same, absent any showing that this
was made through palpable mistake, no amount of
rationalization can offset it (PCIC vs. Central Colleges
of the Phil. 666 SCRA 540).
How judicial admissions may be contradicted?
◦By showing that the admission was made

through palpable mistake
◦The imputed admission was not, in fact,

made
Implied admission
Rule 8, 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
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.
Allegations, not specifically denied are admissions
Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied

deemed admitted. — Material averment in the
complaint, other than those as to the amount of
unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted
when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury
in a complaint to recover usurious interest are
deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
Rule 130
Rules on Admissibility
OBJECT AS EVIDENCE
RULE 130: Rules of Admissibility
A. Object (Real) Evidence
SECTION 1: Object as evidence
Section 1. Object as evidence. Section 1. Object as evidence.
Objects as evidence are those Objects as evidence are those
addressed to the senses of the addressed to the senses of the
court. When an object is relevant court. When an object is relevant
to the fact in issue, it may be to the fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to, examined or viewed exhibited to, examined or viewed
by the court. by the court.
Requisite for Admissibility of Object Evidence
The evidence must be relevant
The evidence must be competent
The evidence must be authenticated by a witness
The object evidence must be formally offered in evidence

Right against self-incrimination
vis-à-vis object evidence
Rule
The right against self-

incrimination cannot
be invoked against
object evidence
Agustin vs CA, GR No. 162571, June 15, 2005
Significantly, we upheld the constitutionality of compulsory
DNA testing and the admissibility of the results thereof as
evidence. In that case, DNA samples from semen recovered
from a rape victim's vagina were used to positively identify the
accused Joel "Kawit" Yatar as the rapist. Yatar claimed that the
compulsory extraction of his blood sample for DNA testing, as
well as the testing itself, violated his right against self-
incrimination, as embodied in both Sections 12 and 17 of Article
III of the Constitution. We addressed this as follows:
Agustin vs CA, GR No. 162571, June 15, 2005
“The contention is untenable. The kernel of the right
is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial
compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is
simply against the legal process of extracting from
the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does
not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded
is not an incrimination but as part of object
evidence.”
Right against self-incrimination
vis-à-vis object evidence
[The right against self-incrimination], as put by Mr. Justice
Holmes in Holt vs. United States, "x x x is a prohibition of the
use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications
from him x x x" It is simply a prohibition against legal process
to extract from the [accused]'s own lips, against his will,
admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case
where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an
incriminating statement but an object evidence (G.R. No.
109775, November 14, 1996, 264 SCRA 167, cited in OCA vs.
Yu, 2017).
Beltran vs. Samson, 53 Phil. 570
"Writing is something more than moving
the body, or the hand, or the fingers;
writing is not a purely mechanical act
because it requires the application of
intelligence and attention."
Categories of Object Evidence
Objects that have readily identifiable marks

(unique object)
Object that are made identifiable (object
made unique)
Object with no identifying mark
Links in the Chain of Custody
First, the seizure and marking of the confiscated drugs recovered from
the accused
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the
forensic chemist to the court (People vs. Kamad, 610 SCRA 295)
DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE
B. Documentary Evidence
SECTION 2: Documentary Evidence
Section 2. Documentary Evidence. Section 2. Documentary Evidence.
Documents as evidence consist of Documents as evidence consist of
writing or any material containing writings, recordings, photographs or
letters, words, numbers, figures, any material containing letters, words,
symbols or other modes of written sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or
expression offered as proof of their their equivalent, or other modes of
contents. written expression offered as proof of
their contents. Photographs include still
pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray
films, motion pictures or videos.
B. Documentary Evidence
SECTION 2: Documentary Evidence
The new Rules changed the concept of documentary evidence. Under the
old Rules, there are evidence which are considered object evidence because
they are addressed to the senses of the court; like recordings, photographs
or sound. Under the new rule, they are classified as documentary evidence.
Thus, under the new formulation, “documentary as evidence consist of of
writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing letters, words,
sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of
written expression offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include
still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
videos.”
Documentary evidence under the New
Rules now includes:
Recordings
• Photographs include still pictures,
Photographs drawings, stored images, x-ray
films, motion pictures or videos.
Sounds
Original Document Rule
When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, writing,
recording, photograph or other record, no
evidence is admissible other than the
original document itself (Section 3, Rule
130).
RULE 130
Rules of Admisibility
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions
1. Best Evidence Rule 1. Original Document Rule
Section 3. Original document must be Sec. 3. Original document must be produced;

produced; exceptions. — When the subject of exceptions. - When the subject of inquiry is
inquiry is the contents of a document, no the contents of a document, writing,
evidence shall be admissible other than the recording, photograph or other record, no
original document itself, except in the evidence is admissible other than the original
following cases: document itself, except in the following
cases:
Please take NOTE:
Under the New Rules, the best evidence rule was
changed into ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE. But despite
the change in nomenclature, the principles governing
“best evidence rule” are still applicable under the
present formulation.
Thus, the jurisprudence and annotations on the former
“best evidence rule” will be applicable to “original
document rule”.
Problem
At the trial for violation of RA 9165, the prosecution
presented as evidence of selling drugs, the xerox copy
of the marked money used in buying shabu. The
defense objected to the presentation of the xerox
copy of the marked money for violation of the original
document rule.
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the
objection?
Answer
I will overrule the objection. Original document
rule applies when a document is offered to
prove the contents thereof. Here the marked
money is not offered as documentary evidence
but as an object evidence. It was offered to
prove that selling of drugs occurred. Thus,
original document rule does not apply.
Please take NOTE:
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 (5 Moran, op. cit.,
pp. 76-66; 4 Martin, op. cit., p. 78). Any other substitutionary
evidence is likewise admissible without need for accounting for
the original.(Hernaez, et al. vs. McGrath, etc., et al., 91 Phil[.]
565, cited in Republic vs. Spouses Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673,
January 11, 2016).
Please take NOTE:
When a document is presented to prove its
existence or condition, it is offered not as
documentary, but as real, evidence. Parol evidence
of the fact of execution of the documents is
allowed (Hernaez, et al. vs. McGrath, etc., et al.,
91 Phil[.] 565, cited in Republic vs. Spouses
Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016).
When do you apply the original document rule?
If the matter inquired into is the

contents of the document, then
original document rule applies
What is considered to be original
document?
Please take a look at the changes

under the New Rules
RULE 130
Section 4. Original of document
(a) An “original” of a document is the document itself or any
counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
(a) The original of the document is one the contents executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes
of which are the subject of inquiry. the negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a
computer or similar device, any printout or other output
readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
(b) When a document is in two or more copies accurately, is an “original.”
executed at or about the same time, with identical (b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by
means of photography, including enlargements and
originals. miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course which accurately reproduce the original.
of business, one being copied from another at or (c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original
near the time of the transaction, all the entries are unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity
of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or
likewise equally regarded as originals. inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
Original Document under the New Rules
Section 4, Rule 130
(a) An “original” of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the
same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes the
negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or
other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an
“original.”
(b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the
same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical 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.
Exceptions to Original Document Rule
Section 3, Rule 130
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
offeror;
(b)When the original is in the custody or under the control
of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the
original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or
procedures;
Exceptions to Original Document Rule
Section 3, Rule 130
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the
whole;
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office; and
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling
issue.
RULE 130
Rule of Admisibility
(a) When the original has been lost or (a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, cannot be produced in court, without bad
without bad faith on the part of the offeror; faith on the part of the offeror;
(b)When the original is in the custody or
(b) When the original is in the custody or
under the control of the party against whom
under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the
produce it after reasonable notice; original cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures;
RULE 130
(c) When the original consists of numerous
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole;
only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
(d) When the original is a public record in the public office; and
public office. (e) When the original is not closely-related to a
controlling issue.
What are the instances when the
original of the document may not be
presented?
RULE 130
Section 5. When original document is unavailable
Section 5. When original document is Section 5. When original document is
unavailable. When the original document unavailable. When the original document
has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof produced in court, the offeror, upon proof
of its execution or existence and the cause of its execution or existence and the cause
of its unavailability without bad faith on of its unavailability without bad faith on
his part, may prove its contents by a copy, his or her part, may prove its contents by
or by a recital of its contents in some a copy, or by recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the testimony authentic document, or by the testimony
of witnesses in the order stated. of witnesses in the order stated.
How do you present secondary
evidence when the original is
unavailable?
1. The offeror must prove its due existence and
execution
2. The offeror must prove its unavailability
3. The offeror must prove that its unavailability was

without bad faith on the part of the offeror.
What is the secondary evidence when
the original documents is unavailable?
1. By a copy.
2. By recital of its contents in some authentic

document.
3. By the testimony of witnesses in the order
stated.
RULE 130
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control.

Section 6. When original document is in Section 6. When original document is in
adverse party's custody or control. If the adverse party's custody or control. If the
document is in the custody or under the document is in the custody or under
control of adverse party, he must have the control of the adverse party, he or
reasonable notice to produce it. If after she must have reasonable notice to
such notice and after satisfactory proof produce it. If after such notice and after
of its existence, he fails to produce the satisfactory proof of its existence, he or
document, secondary evidence may be she fails to produce the document,
presented as in the case of its loss. secondary evidence may be presented
as in the case of its loss.
How do you present secondary evidence when the
original is in adverse party custody or control?
1. The offeror must prove its existence
2. Document is under the custody or control of the adverse party
3. Proponent has given the other party reasonable opportunity

to produce the document
4. The other party failed to produce the original document despite
the reasonable notice
What is the secondary evidence when the original documents is under the control or custody of the
adverse party?
1. By a copy.
2. By recital of its contents in some authentic

document.
3. By the testimony of witnesses in the order
stated.
RULE 130
Section 7. Summaries.

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)
How do you introduce evidence the documents
consist of numerous accounts and voluminous?
1. The offeror must show that the documents are
voluminous
2. That they cannot be examined in court without
great lost of time
3. The fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result.
What is the secondary evidence when the
original documents
are voluminous?
It will be in the form of a chart,

summary, or calculation.
Please take NOTE:
The originals shall be available for
examination or copying, or both, by the
adverse party at a reasonable time and
place. The court may order that they be
produced in court (Section 7, Rule 130).
RULE 130
Section 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a
public record.
Section 7. Evidence admissible when Section 8. Evidence admissible when
original document is a public record. — original document is a public record. —
When the original of document is in the When the original of a document is in
custody of public officer or is recorded the custody of a public officer or is
in a public office, its contents may be recorded in a public office, its contents
proved by a certified copy issued by the may be proved by a certified copy
public officer in custody thereof. issued by the public officer in custody
thereof.
How do you present secondary when the original is
in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office?
When the original of a document is in the

public office, its contents may be proved by
a certified copy issued by the public officer
in custody thereof (Section 8, Rule 130).
Dimaguila vs. Spouses Monteiro,
G.R. No. 201011, January 27, 2014
The petitioners argue that they timely objected to the cadastral map and the list
of claimants presented by the respondent spouses, on the ground that they
violated the rule on hearsay and the best evidence rule.
Anent the best evidence rule, Section 3 (d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except
when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office. Section 7 of the same Rule provides that when the
original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public
officer in custody thereof. Section 24 of Rule 132 provides that the record of
public documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer having the
legal custody or the record.
Dimaguila vs. Spouses Monteiro,
G.R. No. 201011, January 27, 2014
Anent the best evidence rule, Section 3 (d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself, except when the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. 22 Section 7
of the same Rule provides that when the original of a document is in
the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer
in custody thereof. 23 Section 24 of Rule 132 provides that the record
of public documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody or the record.
Best evidence under the Rules on Electronic
Evidence
An electronic document shall be regarded as

the equivalent of an original document under
the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or
output readable by sight or other means, shown
to reflect the data accurately (Sec. 1, Rule 4,
REE).
PAROLE EVIDENCE
RULE 130
Section 10: Evidence of written agreements
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an Section 10. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between
their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms
contents of the written agreement. other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to
terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: the terms of written agreement if he or she puts in issue in a verified
pleading:
(a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement; (a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement;
(b) the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
(b) the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) the validity of the written agreement; or (c) the validity of the written agreement; or
(d) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their (d) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
The term “agreement” includes wills. The term “agreement” includes wills.
What is parole evidence rule?
When the terms of an agreement have been

reduced to writing, it is considered as containing
all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as
between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than
the contents of the written agreement (Section
10, Rule 130).
Applicability
Applies only when there is a written
contract
Applies only to parties and their
successor-in-interest
It also applies to will
Instances where a party may modify, explain or add
to the terms of written agreement.
(a)An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
(b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the execution of the written
agreement.
Illustration of exception no. 1
Lito executed a will wherein he bequeathed the amount of
1 million pesos to Carla Rubio. Lito died. When his will was
probated and later on about to be executed, it turned out
that there were three (3) Carla Rubios’ who are all friends
of Lito.
Assuming that this fact was put as an issue, may parol
evidence be allowed to clarify the ambuguity? Yes.
Because there is intrinsic ambiguity in the will. Under the
rules, will is included in the word “agreement”
Lito sold the land to Carla for the amount of 200,000. The
value of the land is 20M pesos. But, what the parties
actually agreed was Lito would borrow from Carla the
amount of 200,000 and use the land as security.
In an action to recover the parcel of land, may Lito
introduce evidence of the true agreement of the parties.
YES. Because of the failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent of the parties thereto.
Lito sold the land to Carla for 1M. They executed a deed of sale.
They both signed the same. However, Carla has no cash of 1M.
So she told Lito that she would just go to the bank to withdraw.
Carla left Lito together with the DOS and the title to the land.
Unknown to Lito, Carla went to the RD to have the sale
registered.
In an action for cancellation of sale, can Lito introduce evidence
to prove that there is no consideration.
YES. Because the issue is the validity of the instrument.
Lito borrowed money from Carla evidenced by PN which is due and
demandable on Jan. 4, 2017. Come Jan. 4, 2017, Lito did not pay.
Carla sued Lito. Lito argued that that Carla extended the maturity
date of the loan to Jan. 4, 2019. So the loan has not yet matured. Lito
offered evidence to prove the extension. Carla objected on the
ground of parol evidence rule.
YES. Lito may introduced terms agreed upon by the parties or
successor in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
A party must put them as issue in a

verified pleading
Problem
A sells his house to B for 1M. They executed a DOS. A refused to
vacate thereafter. B filed a recovery of possession of real property. A
contended that B verbally agreed to lease out the same property to
A. B objects to the presentation of evidence to prove lease contract
on the ground of parol evidence rule?
Rule on the objection.
Objection overruled.
Parol evidence is not applicable. What is sought to prove here is the
oral contract of lease.
AUTHENTICATION AND
PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
Why is authentication important?
Authentication is very important in

the presentation of evidence.
Object and documentary evidence
must be authenticated. It is
preliminary step in showing the
admissibility of an evidence.
Kinds of Document
Section 19, Rule 132
Public Document
Private Document
Public Document
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and
conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country
of source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by
law to the entered therein.
RULE 132
Rules of Admissibility
B. Authentication and Proof of Documents
Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their
presentation evidence, documents are either public or private.
their presentation evidence, documents are either public
or private. Public documents are:
Public documents are: (a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a (b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
foreign country;
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except and conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the
last wills and testaments; and country of source; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private (d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents
documents required by law to the entered therein. required by law to the entered therein.
All other writings are private. All other writings are private.
RULE 132
Section 19(c)- “Documents that are
considered public documents under treaties
and conventions which are in force between
the Philippines and the country of source”
because of the effectivity of the Apostille
Convention of which the Philippines is a party.
With the Apostille, the document will no
longer require legalization by the Foreign
Embassy if the country of destination is
already a Member of the Apostille Convention
(or an "Apostille Country.") Once Apostillized,
the document can be validly used in any and
all Apostille Countries.
Private Document
All those which are not

public documents
How do you authenticate private document?
SECTION 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of
the maker.
(c) By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is
claimed to be (Rule 132).
When is authentication of private document not
required?
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 (Rule
132).
How is genuineness of handwriting proved?
SECTION 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. – The

handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
believesit to be the handwriting of such person because he or she
has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his or
hers upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
respecting the andwriting may also be given by a comparison, made
by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge (Rule 132).
What is the evidentiary significance of
public document?
SEC. 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. (Rule 132).
How do you prove an 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. (Section 24, Rule 132).
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. (Section 24, Rule 132).
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. (Section 24, Rule 132).
RULE 132: Presentation of Evidence
Section 24; Proof of official record.
The new formulation of Section 34 incorporates the efficacy of
the Apostille Convention. Thus, when the record is kept is in a
foreign country, which is a party to Apostille Convention, 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.
Thus, if a document is Apostillized, that is considered proof of
such document and prima facie proof of its authenticity and due
execution.
How do we prove documents originating in a country
outside the Philippines which is not a
party to the convention?
It is proved by a 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.
Orion Savings Bank vs. Suzuki, G.R. No.
205487, November 12, 2014
In this case, the petitioner is trying to prove the existence of
South Korean Law on conjugal ownership of property. In
doing so, he presented a “Certificate from Embassy of
Korea” as to the existence of that law.
SC said it is not enough. This certification, does not qualify
as sufficient proof of the conjugal nature of the property
for there is no showing that it was properly authenticated
by the seal of his office, as required under Section 24 of
Rule 132.
Please take NOTE:
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. (Section
24, Rule 132).
RULE 132
Section 24: Proof of official record.
SEC. 24. Proof of official record.—The record of public Sec. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public
documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when
admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having
an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the legal custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and
the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with
his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept a certificate that such officer has the custody.
in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer
has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept 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
is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a which the Philippines is also a party, or considered a public
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, document under such treaty or convention pursuant to
consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof the certificate or its
in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by such treaty or
foreign country in which the record is kept, and convention subject to reciprocity granted to public
authenticated by the seal of his office.(25a) documents originating from the Philippines.
RULE 132
SECTION 24: Proof of official record.
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)
How should attestation be made by a person who
has custody of the public document?
Sec. 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. (Rule 132).
How may a public record of private document
be proved?
Sec. 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. (Rule 132).
How do you prove lack of record of public
document?
Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record. - A written statement
signed by an officer having the custody of an official
record or by his or her deputy that, after diligent
search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found
to exist in the records of his or her office,
accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is
admissible as evidence that the records of his or her
office contain no such record or entry. (Rule 132).
How do you impeach judicial record?
Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached. - Any judicial
record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
officer;
(b) collusion between the parties; or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect
to the proceedings. (Rule 132).
What is the evidentiary value of notarized
document?
Sec. 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. (Rule 132).
How should the offeror address the alteration in
the document being offered?
The party producing a document as genuine which has been
altered and appears to have been altered after its execution,
in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for
the alteration. He or she may show that the alteration was
made by another, without his or her concurrence, or was
made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was
otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the alteration
did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.
Please take NOTE:
If he or she fails to do what is required in

Section 31, the document shall not be
admissible in evidence. (Section 31, Rule
132).
What should the offeror do if the document
is written in unofficial language?
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial

language. — Documents written in an unofficial
language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless
accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino.
To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
attorneys are directed to have such translation
prepared before trial. (Rule 132).
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. Qualification of a Witness
Who is qualified to become a witness?
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. (Section 21, Rule 130)
What should be testified to by a witness?
A witness can testify only to those facts
which he or she knows of his or her
personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his or her own perception.
(Section 22, Rule 130)
C. Testimonial evidence
1. Qualification of witness
Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental
incapacity or immaturity. — The following
persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of This section was deleted under the 2019
their production for examination, is such that Amendments
they are incapable of intelligently making known
their perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to
render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of
relating them truthfully.
Section 21 was deleted because of the implementation of the Rule on Examination of child witness.
It can be gleaned from the old rule that with respect to a child the presumption is that he or she is
disqualified to testify. The same is true with respect to those whose mental capacity is incapable of
intelligently making known their perception to others.
Under the RECW, every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct
a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that
substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court (Sec. 5, RECW).
A "child witness" is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen (18)
years. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as
unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition (Sec.4(a), RECW).
Disqualification by Reason of Marriage
Sec. 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage. –
During their marriage, the husband or the wife
cannot testify against the other without the consent
of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter’s
direct descendants or ascendants (Rule 130).
SECTION 23; Disqualification by reason of marriage
1. A spouse is cannot testify against his or her spouses without

the consent of the affected spouse. Under the old Rule, the
disqualification applies even if the spouse will be testifying in his
or her favor. Probably, the Revision Committee thought that
seldom do we find a situation where the affected spouse will
object to his or her spouse testifying in his or her favour.
2. Thus, under the present Rules, the disqualification is
applicable only when the spouses will testify against the
affected spouse.
Illustration
Before the marriage of H and W, W witnessed H killing Y. W
did not report the incident to the police. Later, H and W got
married. They had falling out. Consequently, W reported the
incident she witnessed when they were still sweethearts.
May the prosecution present W as a witness in a murder
case filed against H?
Supposed W was called to testify after their marriage had
been annulled, would your answer be the same?
Answer
1. Over the objection of H, the prosecution may not call W
to testify against H. To call W to testify against H while their
marriage is still would violate the marital disqualification
rule.
2. My answer would not be the same. Since the marriage is

not anymore existing, the marital disqualification rule would
not apply.
Exception
“Except in a civil case by one

against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants.
Problem
W filed a collection suit against the father of H. The
father of the H called H to testify against the W. W
objected.
Answer: The husband is barred to testify against wife if
the latter objects. It is not a case by one spouse against
the other but between a spouse and the parent of the
other.
Cases on Marital Disqualification Rule
Ordono vs. Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270
People vs. Quitado, 297 SCRA 1
Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72

May a spouse testify in a trial where the other
spouse is a co-accused?
Yes, except as against her husband.

People vs. Quitado, 297 SCRA 1.
May a spouse testify in a trial against her
estranged husband?
Yes.
Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA
72.
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or
insanity of adverse party. — Parties or assignor of
parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a
case is prosecuted, against an executor or This was deleted already
administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, or against a person of unsound The “DEAD MAN STATUTE” is dead.
mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such deceased person or against such person It is now allowed as an exception to the hearsay
of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter rule under Section 39, Rule 130.
of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became
of unsound mind.
Disqualification by Reason of Privilege Communication
1. Husband and Wife
The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage,

cannot be examined without the consent of the other
as to any communication received in confidence by
one from the other during the marriage except in a
civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against the other
or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
(Section 24(a), Rule 130).
Elements for Applicability
There must be a valid marriage between the

husband and wife
There is a communication received in
confidence by one from the other.
The confidential information was received
during marriage.
Illustration
H and W were sweethearts. H confided something to W and
told the latter not to tell the same to anyone. Later, they got
married. After several years, their Marriage got annulled. It
turned out that what was told by H to W was that he was the
one who bombed the hotel. In the prosecution for terrorism
against H, the prosecution called W to the witness stand. H
objection on the ground of “marital privilege communication.
Objection should be denied. The confidential information was
not received during marriage.
Illustration No. 2
Supposing the information was received by W from H
during their marriage, but W was called to testify after
their marriage was annulled. Will W be allowed to
testify over the objection of H?
No. W should not be allowed to testify against H, if the
latter objects. The wife who received the information
in confidence may not be called to testify thereon even
after marriage.
When is information considered confidential?
The general rule is that communications

between spouses is presumed confidential
unless shown otherwise.
Communications made in the presence of third
person are not confidential unless the third
person may be considered as agent of the
spouses.
Who is covered by the disqualification?
Only spouses are

covered. Third
persons are not
2. Attorney and Client
An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be
licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot, without the
consent of the client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given
thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional
employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or
clerk, or other persons assisting the attorney be examined
without the consent of the client and his or her employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired
in such capacity. (Section 24(b), Rule 130).
Who are covered by the privilege?
Person reasonably
believed by the client
Attorney’s secretary,
An attorney to be licensed to
stenographer, or clerk,
engage in the practice
of law
Other persons
assisting the attorney
What are matters covered by the privilege?
1.Any communication made by the client

2.Advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to,
3.Any fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity. (Section 24(b),
Rule 130).
What are exceptions to this privilege?
1. Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the

services or advice of the lawyer were sought or
obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit
or plan to commit what the client knew or
reasonably should have known to be a crime or
fraud. (Section 24(b), Rule 130).
2. Claimants through same deceased client.
As to a communication relevant to an issue
between parties who claim through the same
deceased client, regardless of whether the
claims are by testate or intestate or by inter
vivos transaction; (Section 24(b), Rule 130).
3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As
to a communication relevant to an
issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to
his or her client, or by the client to his
or her lawyer; (Section24 (b), Rule 130).
4. Document attested by the lawyer.
As to a communication relevant to an
issue concerning an attested document
to which the lawyer is an attesting
witness; (Section24 (b), Rule 130).
5. Joint clients. As to a communication relevant
to a matter of common interest between two
or more clients if the communication was made
by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted
in common, when offered in an action between
any of the clients, unless they have expressly
agreed otherwise. (Section24 (b), Rule 130).
RULE 130
SECTION 24 (b)
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications. – The
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in
communication. — The following persons cannot testify the following cases:
as to matters learned in confidence in the following xxx
cases: (b) An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be
licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot, without the consent
xxx of the client, be examined as to any communication made by the client
to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of, or
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney’s
client, be examined as to any communication made by secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons assisting the
the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the attorney be examined without the consent of the client and his or her
course of, or with a view to, professional employment, employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity, except in the following cases:
nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk
be examined, without the consent of the client and his (i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice of the
lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have
has been acquired in such capacity; known to be a crime or fraud;
RULE 130
Section 24 (b)
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications. – The following
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
communication. — The following persons cannot testify xxx
as to matters learned in confidence in the following (ii) Claimants through same deceased client. As to a communication relevant
cases: to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client,
regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos
transaction;
xxx
(iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a communication relevant to an
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his
or her lawyer;
client, be examined as to any communication made by
(iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to a communication relevant to an
the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting
course of, or with a view to, professional employment, witness; or
nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk (v) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common
be examined, without the consent of the client and his interest between two or more clients if the communication was made by any
of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which action between any of the clients, unless they have expressly agreed
has been acquired in such capacity; otherwise.
3. Doctor and Patient
A physician, psychotherapist 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 confidential communication made for the
purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental
or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction,
between the patient and his or her physician or psychotherapist.
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. (Section 24(c), Rule 130).
1. A physician,
2. Psychotherapist
3. Person reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to
practice medicine or psychotherapy
4. 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. (Section 24(c), Rule
130).
Who is a “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.
(Section 24(c), Rule 130).
What matters are considered privilege?
Any confidential communication made for the
purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the
patient’s physical, mental or emotional
condition, including alcohol or drug addiction,
between the patient and his or her physician or
psychotherapist. (Section 24(c), Rule 130).
Problem
In a Guardianship proceedings, the oppositor filed a motion to have the
subject of petition be examined by a psychiatrist to determine his mental
capacity. The motion was granted by the Court. The subject of petition was
examined. After the examination, the party examined requested for the
result of the examination. The requesting party also requested from the party
examined, the result of the report.
During the proceedings, the requesting party called to the witness stand the
psychiatrist to testify on the examination conducted. The party examined
objected on the ground of doctor-patient privilege?
Answer
Objection overruled.
By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so
ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party
examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or any
other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony
of every other person who has examined or may thereafter
examine him in respect of the same mental or physical
examination (Section 4, Rule 28).
Please take note:
In an action in which the mental or physical
condition of a party is in controversy, the court
in which the action is pending may in its
discretion order him to submit to a physical or
mental examination by a physician (Section 1,
Rule 28).
Problem
In the prosecution for adultery filed by the Husband against
the wife, the prosecution called to the witness stand the
OBGyne who examined the Wife to testify that she was the
one who attended the giving birth of the Wife. The husband
is impossible to sire a child with the Wife as he is impotent.
The wife objected on the ground of doctor-patient privilege.
Answer
Objection overrueld. It is only applicable

to civil cases.
(Section 24(c), Rule 130).
RULE 130
Section 24 (c)
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications. – The following
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
communication. — The following persons cannot testify xxx
as to matters learned in confidence in the following (c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the patient to
cases: be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any confidential
xxx communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s
physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction,
between the patient and his or her physician or psychotherapist. This privilege
c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or also applies to persons, including members of the patient’s family, who have
obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the direction of
the physician or psychotherapist.
the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment
A “psychotherapist” is:
given by him or any information which he may have
acquired in attending such patient in a professional (a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or
treatment of a mental or emotional condition, or
capacity, which information was necessary to enable
(b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the government while similarly
him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the engaged.
reputation of the patient;
4. Priest and Penitent
A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be
so cannot, without the consent of the affected
person, be examined as to any communication or
confession made to or any advice given by him or her,
in his or her professional character, in the course of
discipline enjoined by the church to which the
minister or priest belongs. (Section 24(d), Rule 130).
1. A minister
2. Priest
3. Person reasonably believed to be so
(Section 24(d), Rule 130).
What mattes are considered privilege?
Any communication or confession

made to or any advice given by him or
her (Section 24(d), Rule 130).
Under what circumstances should the
communication or advice be given to be considered
privilege?
It must be made in his or her professional

character, and in the course of the discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or
priest belongs. (Section 24(d), Rule 130).
RULE 130
SECTION 24 (d)
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication. — The following persons cannot communications. – The following persons cannot
testify as to matters learned in confidence in the testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
following cases: following cases:
xxx
xxx
(d) A minister, priest or person reasonably believed
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the to be so cannot, without the consent of the affected
consent of the person making the confession, be person, be examined as to any communication or
examined as to any confession made to or any confession made to or any advice given by him or
advice given by him in his professional character her, in his or her professional character, in the course
in the course of discipline enjoined by the church of discipline enjoined by the church to which the
to which the minister or priest belongs; minister or priest belongs.
5. Public Officer
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. (Section 24(e), Rule
130).
Who and what is covered by the privilege?
A public officer who received

communication in official confidence.
The communication received in official
confidence is privilege. (Section 24(e),
Rule 130).
Can a public officer be examined after his
tenure on such communication?
No. The Rules says: “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.” (Section 24(e), Rule 130).
Please take NOTE:
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. (Section 24(e), Rule 130).
RULE 130
SECTION 24 (e)
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communications. – The following persons cannot testify as
communication. — The following persons cannot to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
following cases: xxx
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after his
xxx or her tenure as to communications made to him or her in
official confidence, when the court finds that the public
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his interest would suffer by the disclosure.
term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official The communication shall remain privileged, even in the
confidence, when the court finds that the public hands of a third person who may have obtained the
information, provided that the original parties to the
interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a) communication took reasonable precaution to protect its
confidentiality. (24a)
2. Testimonial Privilege
RULE 130
Section 5; Parental and filial privilege
Section 25. Parental and filial Section 25. Parental and Filial Privilege.

— No person shall be compelled to
privilege. — No person may be testify against his or her parents, other
compelled to testify against his direct ascendants, children or other
parents, other direct ascendants, direct descendants, except when such
children or other direct testimony is indispensable in a crime
descendants against that person or by one parent
against the other.
Filial and Parental Privilege
Parental Filial
privilege privilege
A parent cannot be A child may not be
compelled to testify compelled to testify
against his child or against his parent or
direct descendants direct ascendants
Under the Amendment:
When such testimony is indispensable in a

crime against that person or by one parent
against the other, the privilege will not apply
RULE 130
Section 26; Privilege relating to trade
Section 26. (No comparable Section 26. Privilege Relating to Trade

Secrets. — A person cannot be
provision under the new rule) 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.
Testimonial Evidence
3. Admission and Confession
RULE 130
Section 27; Admission of a party
Section 26. Admission of a party Section 27. Admission of a Party.
- The act, declaration or omission — The act, declaration or
of a party as to a relevant fact omission of a party as to a
may be given in evidence against relevant fact may be given in
him evidence against him or her.
Admission
Section 27, Rule 130.
Admission of a party. —
The act, declaration or
omission of a party as to
a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against
him or her.
Please take NOTE:
The act, declaration or omission must be

presented as evidence against the party
making the act, declaration or omission. It
should not be in favor of a party making
the act, declaration or omission. In the
latter case, it is self-serving.
Self-serving evidence
Self-serving evidence is the statement of a

party intended to serve his own interest. It
is well-established rule of evidence that
declarations of a party favourable to
himself are not admissible (People vs.
Piring, 63 Phil. 546)
Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission
of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against
the offeror. Neither is evidence of conduct nor
statements made in compromise negotiations
admissible, except evidence otherwise discoverable or
offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or
prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of
undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal
investigation or prosecution (Section 28, Rule 130).
Offer of Compromise in Civil Cases
It is clear in civil cases, offer of

compromise is not an admission of liability
and is not admissible against the offeror.
Also evidence of conduct or statements
during the compromise negotiation are
inadmissible. (Section 28, Rule 130).
Can the statements or conduct made during
compromise negotiation be admissible in evidence?
In some instances, YES:
1. Evidence of conduct or statements discovered other
than during the negotiation.
2. If the offer is to prove bias or prejudice of a witness
3. To negate a contention of undue delay
4. To prove an effort to obstruct a criminal
investigation or prosecution (Section 28, Rule 130).
RULE 130
Rule of Admissibility
Section 28; Offer of compromise, not admissible
Section 27. Offer of compromise not Section 28. Offer of Compromise Not Admissible.
admissible. — In civil cases, an offer of — In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
compromise is not an admission of any admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. Neither is evidence
liability, and is not admissible in evidence
of conduct nor statements made in compromise
against the offeror. negotiations admissible, except evidence
In criminal cases, except those involving otherwise discoverable or offered for another
quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a
witness, negativing a contention of undue delay,
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal
of compromise by the accused may be investigation or prosecution.
received in evidence as an implied admission
of guilt.
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases
Except in criminal negligence, an offer of
compromise, by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
HOWEVER, 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. (Section 28, Rule
130).
Plea of Guilty During Plea Bargaining Negotiation
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted

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.(Section 28, Rule 130).
Admission during hearing for discharge of accused
to become state witness
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge

shall automatically form part of the trial. If the
court denies the motion for discharge of the
accused as state witness, his sworn statement
shall be inadmissible in evidence. (Section 17,
Rule 119).
RULE 130
Section 28; Offer of compromise, not admissible
Section 28. Offer of Compromise Not Admissible.

Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible.
xxxx
xxxx
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser admission of guilt.
offense, is not admissible in evidence against the A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of
accused who made the plea or offer An offer to guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in evidence against the
pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other accused who made the plea or offer. Neither is any statement made in
the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does not
expenses occasioned by an injury is not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal withdrawn, admissible.
liability for the injury. 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.
“Res inter alios acta”
Section 29. Admission by third party. — The

rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided. (Section 29, Rule 130).
Illustration
If Roberto makes a statement before the media
admitting his participation in the murder of
Carla, his statement is admissible against him
under Section 27, Rule 130. If he made a
statement implicating Lito and Carlos is not
admissible against Lito and Carlos applying the
principle of res inter alios acta.
Is this applicable to judicial admission?
No. because res inter alios acta is

applicable only to extra-judicial admission
but it does not cover judicial admission
because of the other accused has the
opportunity to cross-examine. (Yapyuco
vs. Sandiganbayan, 674 SCRA 420)
Exceptions to “res inter alios acta” rule
1.Admission by a co-partner or agent

2.Admission by co-conspirator (Sec. 31, Rule
130).
3. Admission by privies (Sec. 32, Rule 130).
4.Admission by silence (Sec. 33, Rule 130).
Admission by a co-partner or agent
The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by
the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or
within the scope of his or her authority, and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in
evidence against such party after the partnership or agency
is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint
owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with
the party. (Section 30, Rule 130).
Elements for Applicability
1. The declaration or act of the partner or agent must have
been made or done within the scope of his authority or when the
agent is authorized by the party to make a statement concerning
the subject;
2. The declaration or act must have been done during the
existence of the partnership or agency;
3. The existence of partnership or agency is proven by evidence
other than the declaration or act of the partner or agent.
Example 1
A, B, and C are partners. A, the managing partner sold the land
owned by the partnership to D, claiming that that B, and C
consented to the sale. A made such manifestation in front of B
and C which was witnessed by X.
Will the act of A, as testified to by X, admissible against B and
C?
Yes. Provided that the existence of the partnership is show by
evidence other than such declaration or act.
Example 2
A, B, and C are partners. Later, they dissolved their
partnership. While the BIR was investigating the
dissolved partnership for tax liabilities, A admitted that
they falsified receipts to evade tax liabilities.
Is the statement of A admissible against B, and C?
No. Because it was done outside the existence of the
partnership.
Problem
Quezon applied for loan with Navarro in the amount of 200K. To secure the loan,
N required Q to execute a PN and REM in favor of N. As proceeds of the loan, N
issued a check in favor of Q . Instead of handing it personally to Q, N gave the
check to Recto, N’s agent, with the instruction not to give the check to Q, unless
told by N. Recto did not give the check to Q, upon the instruction of N.
Meanwhile, Navarro foreclosed the REM on the ground that Quezon did not pay
his loan obligation.
Quezon filed an action for annulment of REM. He claimed that the REM is void
because there is no contract of loan as he did not receive the proceeds of the
loan. Among his evidence is the representation of Recto that he is instructed by
Navarro not to hand the check to him.
Is Quezon’s representation binding to Navarro?
Answer
YES.
The act or representation of Recto will bind Navarro,
the former being the agent of Navarro. This is on the
assumption that there are other evidence which will
prove the agency other than the act or representation
of Quezon.
Read: Naguiat vs. CA, G.R. No. 118375, October 3,
2003.
RULE 130
Section 30; Admission by Co-Partner or Agent
OLD RULE OF COURT 2019 AMENDMENT
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — Section 30. Admission by Co-Partner or Agent. —
The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the The act or declaration of a partner or agent
party within the scope of his authority and during authorized by the party to make a statement
the existence of the partnership or agency, may concerning the subject, or within the scope of his
be given in evidence against such party after the or her authority, and during the existence of the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other partnership or agency, may be given in evidence
than such act or declaration. The same rule against such party after the partnership or agency
applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, is shown by evidence other than such act or
joint debtor, or other person jointly interested declaration. The same rule applies to the act or
with the party. declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
person jointly interested with the party
Admission by a co-conspirator
The act or declaration of a conspirator in

furtherance of the conspiracy and during its
existence may be given in evidence against the
co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act of declaration.
Rationale
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it (Art. 8, RPC).
Once the conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the
act of all. Thus, the statement therefore of one may
be admitted against the other co-conspirators as an
exception to the rule of res inter alios acta.
Elements for the applicability of the exception
The declaration or act be made or done during the

existence of the conspiracy
The declaration or act must relate to or in furtherance

of the conspiracy
The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than

such declaration
Example 1
A was arrested as a direct participant in the crime.
During a television interview, he admitted his
participation in the robbery. He also implicated B and C
as his other companions in planning and executing the
robbery.
Is his statement admissible against B and C?
No, because the statement was done outside the
existence of conspiracy.
Example 2
A, who was staying the a room adjacent to the room of B,
overheard B, instructing C and D that they would serve as “look
outs” when B enter the house of E to commit robbery. A peaked
at the hole and saw B. But he was not able to see C and D. Later
the house of E was robbed.
Is the statement of B, as testified by A, admissible against C
and D?
Yes. Provided that conspiracy must be shown by evidence other
than such declaration or act.
Example 3
A, B and C was prosecuted for conspiring to kill D. The evidence for
the prosecution is the extra-judicial confession of A and B executed
in accordance with and the constitution. In the extra-judicial
confession, A and B implicated C as the mastermind.
Is the extra-judicial statement of A and B admissible against C?
No. the confession were made after the conspiracy had ended and
after the consummation of the crime. Hence, it cannot be said that
the execution of the affidavits were acts or declaration made during
the existence of conspiracy (People vs. Quidato, Jr., 297 SCRA 1).
People vs. V.da. de Ramos, G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003
The res inter alios acta rule provides that the rights of a party cannot
be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.
Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the
confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused. The reason
for the rule is that, on a principle of good faith and mutual
convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are
evidence against him. 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.
RULE 130
Section 31
Section 30. Admission by conspirator. Section 31. Admission by Conspirator.
— The act or declaration of a — The act or declaration of a
conspirator relating to the conspiracy conspirator in furtherance of the
and during its existence, may be given conspiracy and during its existence may
in evidence against the coconspirator be given in evidence against the co-
after the conspiracy is shown by conspirator after the conspiracy is
evidence other than such act of shown by evidence other than such act
declaration. of declaration.
Admission by privies
Where one derives title to property from

another, the latter's act, declaration, or
omission, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former if done while the
latter was holding the title. (Section 32, Rule
130).
Who are privies?
“Privies” are persons who are

partakers or have an interest in
any action or thing, or any
relation to another (Black Law
Dictionary)
Requisites for the exception to apply:
1. There must be an act, declaration or omission by a
predecessor-in-interest;
2. The act, declaration, or omission of the predecessor-in-
interest must have occurred while he was holding the title
to the property
3. The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to
the property (Sec. 32, Rule 130)
Example
Z inherited a house and lot from his father X. While X was alive he
mortgaged this land to B. He openly told to everyone that the
land was mortgage to B. In a suit for judicial foreclosure of
mortgaged property against Z, B presented someone who heard X
saying that the inherited property was mortgaged to B. Z objected
on the ground that such statement would not bind him.
Is the declaration X admissible against Z?
Yes. The requisites are complied with.
RULE 130
Section 32; Admission by privies
Section 31. Admission by privies. Section 32. Admission by Privies.
— Where one derives title to — Where one derives title to
property from another, the act, property from another, the
declaration, or omission of the latter's act, declaration, or
latter, while holding the title, in omission, in relation to the
relation to the property, is property, is evidence against the
evidence against the former. former if done while the latter
was holding the title.
Admission by silence
An act or declaration made in the presence and

within the hearing or observation of a party who
does or says nothing when the act or declaration
is such as naturally to call for action or comment
if not true, and when proper and possible for him
or her to do so, may be given in evidence against
him or her. (Section 33, Rule 130).
Requisites
(a) He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other
person;
(b) He must have had the opportunity to deny it;
(c) He must have understood the statement;
(d) He must have an interest to object as he would naturally have done if
the statement was not true;
(e) The facts are within his knowledge; and
(f) The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is
material to the issue. (People vs. Ciobal, G.R. No. 86220, April 20, 1990)
Confession
Section 34. Confession. — The

declaration of an accused acknowledging
his or her guilt of the offense charged, or
of any offense necessarily included
therein, may be given in evidence against
him or her (Rule 130).
Is extra-judicial confession alone enough to
convict the accused?
NO. Rule 133, Section 3 of the Rules of Court

provides that an extra-judicial confession
shall not be a sufficient ground for conviction,
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti. (People vs. Quitola, G.R. No. 200537,
July 13, 2016). Thus, corpus delicti must be
coupled with corpus delicti.
Effect of extrajudicial confession
Rule 133, Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground
for conviction. — An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall
not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti.
Corpus delicti is the “body of the crime” or the offense. It means the
actual commission of the crime and someone is criminally responsible
therefor.
Elements: 1) proof of occurrence of a certain event; 2) some person’s
criminal responsibility for the act (People vs. Boco, 309 SCRA 42)
What is a corpus delicti?
Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime;

it is the fact that a crime has actually been
committed, (People vs Sota, G.R. No. 203121,
November 29, 2017), or the actual commission
by someone of the particular crime charged
(Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 164580, February 6,
2009).
Corpus Delicti in certain crimes
In the prosecution for illegal drugs, the corpus delicti is the drug itself (Fajardo
vs. People, 677 SCRA 541)
In theft, corpus delicti has two elements: 1) property was lost by the owner; 2)
that it was lost by felonious taking (Zapanta vs. People, march 20, 2013)
In illegal possession of firearm, the accused lack of license or authority to
possess or carry firearm is the corpus delicti (Sayco vs. People, 547 SCRA 368)
In arson, the corpus delicti is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence
of the fire, e.g., the charred remains of a house burned down and of its having
been intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single
eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to
warrant conviction (People v. De Leon, 599 Phil. 759 (2009).
When extra-judicial confession admissible?
An extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence if the
following requisites have been satisfied:
1. It must be voluntary;
2. It must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel;
3. It must be express; and
4. It must be in writing (People v. Base, 385 Phil. 803, 815
(2000), cited in People vs. Reyes, GR No. 178300).
4. Previous conduct as Evidence

RULE 130
Similar Acts as Evidence
Section 34. Similar acts as evidence. — Section 35. Similar Acts as Evidence. —
Evidence that one did or did not do a Evidence that one did or did not do a
certain thing at one time is not certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did admissible to prove that he or she did
not do the same or similar thing at or did not do the same or similar thing
another time; but it may be received to at another time; but it may be received
prove a specific intent or knowledge; to prove a specific intent or knowledge,
identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like. custom or usage, and the like.
May similar conduct be admitted as
evidence?
Evidence that one did or did not do a
certain thing at one time is not admissible
to prove that he or she did or did not do
the same or similar thing at another time
(Sec. 35, Rule 130).
Evidence of Similar Conduct
The general rule is that the law will not consider
evidence that a person has done a certain act at a
particular time as probative of a contention that he has
done a similar act at another time. This is the rule of
res inter alios acta found in Section 34, Rule 130 of the
Rules. A similar conduct which does not even
sufficiently establish a plan or scheme is not admissible
(Enriquez vs. People, 331 SCRA 538).
Illustration
In a the prosecution for the felony of serious physical
injuries against the accused, the prosecution called to the
witness stand, the record officer of PNP municipal police
station to prove that the accused could have committed the
felony considering they have records in their blotter that the
accused had been involved in several mauling incidents.
The testimony of the record officer is inadmissible in
evidence for violation of the res inter alios acta rule.
When is similar acts or previous act
admissible?
It may • Specific intent
be •
•
•
Knowledge,
Identity
Plan
receive •
•
System
Scheme
d to •
•
•
Habit
Custom
Usage, and the like.
prove:
Example of previous conduct as evidence
A confession voluntarily executed in another case by an accused,
containing detailed recitals which could not have been fabricated,
where he admitted that before he was arrested in the case at bar, he
became obsessed with another child whom he raped (thereby
revealing that he has paedophiliac tendencies because he prefers
young girls as sexual objects, a sexual deviation or perversion
belonging to the category of paedophilia erotica), may be admitted
as an evidence of similar conduct on the part of the accused which
lends credibility to the declaration of the 9-year old victim in the case
at bar that she was sexually abused by the accused (People vs. De
Jesus, GR L-38309, October 3, 1978).
5. Hearsay
5. Hearsay
Section 37; Hearsay.
OLD RULES 2019 AMENDMENT
Section 37. Hearsay. — Hearsay is a statement other than
Section 36. Testimony generally confined to one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or
personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted
witness can testify only to those facts which he therein. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2)
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or
her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except
are derived from his own perception, except as as otherwise provided in these Rule. A statement is not
otherwise provided in these rules. hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is
subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and
the statement is (a) inconsistent with the declarant's
testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty
of perjury at a trial hearing, or other proceeding, or in a
deposition; (b) consistent with the declarant's testimony
and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against
the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or
motive; or (c) one of identification of a person made after
perceiving him or her.
What is 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 Rule.
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is
subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a)
inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to
the penalty of perjury at a trial hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition; (b)
consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or
implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or
motive; or (c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her
Let us dissect the definition of hearsay.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise
provided in these Rule.
Elements of Hearsay
There must be an out of court

statement which was not made by the
declarant in the hearing or trial
The statement is offered by the witness-
declarant in court to prove the truth of
the matters asserted by the statement
Therefore:
All out of court statements of an “in
trial” witness is hearsay if it is offered
to prove the substance of such
testimony or to prove the matters
asserted by that statement.
What is covered by word “statement”?
A statement is:
(1) Oral or written assertion or
(2) Non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is

intended by him or her as an assertion.
Example 1
The prosecution presented Roberto to testify that Lito
confided to him that he saw Luis killed Juan. Roberto’s
testimony is offered to prove that Luis killed Juan.
The testimony of Roberto is objectionable because it is
hearsay. Roberto is testifying on the statement made
by Lito in order to prove the matters asserted by the
latter’s statement.
The subject of testimony is oral statement.
Example 2
The prosecution presented Roberto to testify that Lito
handed to him his written statement detailing how Luis
killed Juan. Roberto’s testimony is offered to prove that Luis
killed Juan.
The testimony of Roberto is objectionable because it is
hearsay. Roberto is testifying on the written statement
made by Lito to prove the matters asserted by the latter’s
written statement.
The subject of testimony is a written statement.
Example 3
The prosecution presented Roberto to testify
that he saw Lito pointing to Luis when asked
who killed Juan.
The testimony of Roberto is offered to prove
that Luis killed Juan. It is objectionable because
it is hearsay.
The subject of testimony here is non-verbal act.
Lack of Personal Knowledge
Section 22. Testimony confined to personal
knowledge. — A witness can testify only to those
facts which he or she knows of his or her personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her
own perception, except as otherwise provided in
these rules.
How do we explain this?
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing
and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the
statement is:
a) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under
oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial hearing, or other
proceeding, or in a deposition;
b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an
express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or
improper influence or motive; or
c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her
Example 1
Roberto testified that he saw Luis killed Juan. He was being
cross-examined by the counsel for the defense on the statement
he executed before the police which is inconsistent with his
present testimony.
Objection your Honor. Hearsay because that is an out of court
statement of the witness.
Objection overruled. It is not hearsay. Roberto is cross-examined
on his inconsistent statement. The purpose is to impeach his
testimony.
Example 2
Roberto testified that he saw Luis killed Juan. He was cross-
examined by the counsel for the defense on the statement he
executed before the police which is inconsistent with his present
testimony. During re-direct, the prosecution confronted Roberto with
an Affidavit he executed before the NBI which is consistent with his
testimony.
Objection your Honor. Hearsay because that is an out of court
statement of the witness.
Objection overruled. It is not hearsay. Roberto is cross-examined on
his consistent statement to rebut the implied charged of fabrication.
Example 3
Roberto testified that he saw Luis killed Juan. He was
being cross-examined on how he was able to recognize
Luis as the one who killed Juan.
Objection your Honor. Hearsay because that is an out
of court assertion of the witness.
Objection overruled. It is not hearsay. Roberto is cross-
examined on how he able to identify Juan.
6. Exceptions to Hearsay
Exception to Hearsay
1. Dying declarations (Sec. 38, Rule 130) 8. Record of regularly conducted business
activity (Sec. 45, Rule 130)
2. Statement of decedents or persons of
unsound mind (Section 39, Rule 130) 9. Entries in the official records (Sec. 46,
Rule 130)
3. Declaration against interest (Sec. 40,
Rule 130) 10. Commercial Lists and the like (Sec. 47,
Rule 130)
4. Act or declaration about pedigree (Sec.
41, Rule 130) 11. Learned treatise (Sec. 48, Rule 130)
5. Family reputation or tradition regarding 12. Testimony or deposition at the former
pedigree (Sec. 42, Rule 130) proceeding (Sec. 49, Rule 130)
6. Common reputation (Sec. 43, Rule 130) 13. Residual exception (Sec. 50, Rule 130)
7. Part of res gestae (Sec. 44, Rule 130)
Dying Declaration
Section 38. Dying declaration. The declaration
of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be
received in any case wherein his or her death is
the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause
and surrounding circumstances of such death
(Rule 130).
Elements
1. The declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s impending death.
2. It is made when the death appears to be imminent and the
declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death.
3. The declarant would have competent to testify had he or
she survived.
4. The dying declaration is offered in case in which the subject
of inquiry involves the declarant death. (People vs. Gatarin,
April 7, 2014)
Is dying declaration confined to criminal cases
only?
Sec. 31 of the former rule.
The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an
impending death, may be received in a criminal case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of
such death.
The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an
impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject
of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such
death.
Is dying declaration admissible to prove the
innocence of the accused?
YES
U.S. vs. Antipolo, 37
SCRA 726
U.S. vs. Clemente, 22

Phil. 277
People vs. Martinez,

42 Phil. 85
Statement of decedent or person of
unsound mind
Section 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind. – In an action
against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person,
or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of
such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, where a party or
assignor of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a
matter of fact occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the
person became of unsound mind, any statement of the deceased or the person of
unsound mind, may be received in evidence if the statement was made upon the
personal knowledge of the deceased or the person of unsound mind at a time
when the matter had been recently perceived by him or her and while his or her
recollection was clear. Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under the
circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness (Rule 130).
Statement of decedent or person of
unsound mind
Section 39 is the former Section 23. However, unlike the Section
23 of the old Rule, parties, assignor of parties or persons in
whose behalf the case is prosecuted are not anymore prohibited
to testify in an action against an executor or administrator of the
deceased or person of an unsound mind upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased person or against
such person of unsound mind.
The coverage of the testimony is any statement made by the
deceased or person of unsound mind.
What are the conditions of the
admissibility those statements?
The statement 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 (Section 39, Rule 130).
When may such statements be denied
admission?
Such statement, however, is inadmissible if

made under the circumstances indicating its
lack of trustworthiness (Section 39, Rule 130).
Declaration against Interest
Section 40. Declaration against interest. - The declaration made by a person
deceased or unable to testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact
asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to the
declarant's own interest that a reasonable person in his or her position
would not have made the declaration unless he or she believed it to be true,
may be received in evidence against himself or herself or his or her
successors in interest and against third persons. A statement tending to
expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the
accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly
indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. (Rule 130).
Example 1
In a settlement of Carlito, Luisa, the mother Carlo, presented a
letter, purportedly sent by Carlito to Luisa, acknowledging his
responsibility as the father Carlo.
The administrator of Carlito objected to said testimony and the
admission of the letter for being hearsay.
Should objection be sustained?
NO. Because such statement is in the nature of declaration
against interest under Section 40, Rule 130.
Example 2
In order to prove his innocence in the murder case filed against
him, the accused testified that Carlito, before his death,
acknowledged to have committed the crime for which the
accused was charged.
Should such testimony be admitted?
YES, provided that the offeror will present corroborating
circumstances that will clearly indicate the trustworthiness
of the statement (Sec. 40, Rule 130).
Act or Declaration about Pedigree
Section 41. Act or declaration about pedigree. - The act or declaration of a
person deceased or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another
person related to him or her by birth, adoption, or marriage or, in the
absence thereof, with whose family he or she was so intimately associated
as to be likely to have accurate information concerning his or her pedigree,
may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and
the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where
these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of
family history intimately connected with pedigree. (Rule 130).
“Requisites”
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify;
2. The declarant is related by birth, adoption or marriage to the
person whose pedigree is in issue; absence thereof, with whose
family he or she was so intimately associated as to be likely to
have accurate information concerning his or her pedigree;
3. The declaration was made before the controversy;
4. The relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence
other than such declaration.
What is pedigree?
The word "pedigree" includes relationship,
family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and the places where these facts
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It
embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.
Example
The declaration of A who is dead already, prior
to his death and prior to any controversy, that B
is his illegitimate son, is a declaration about
pedigree. Similarly, a statement from a mother
while living, that her daughters, C and D, were
sired by the same father is admissible.
Family Reputation or Tradition
Regarding Pedigree
Section 42. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.
— The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to
the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its
members, may be received in evidence if the witness
testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity, affinity, or adoption. Entries in family bibles or
other family books or charts, engraving on rings, family
portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of
pedigree. (Rule 130).
Requisites
1. There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any
members of the family
2. The reputation or traditions of the pedigree of the
person concerned existed previous to the controversy.
3. The witness testifying to the refutation or tradition
regarding the pedigree of the person is a member of the
family of said person, either by consanguinity of affinity.
Example
In a statutory rape case, the issue is the age of the
victim. The grandfather testified that the victim was
born on September 5, 1976 basing on the information
from the mother of the child.
Is the testimony admissible?
Yes. Section 40, Rule 130 applies.
People vs. Alegado, 201 SCRA 37
Common Reputation
Section 43. Common reputation. — Common reputation
existing previous to the controversy, as to boundaries of or
customs affecting lands in the community and reputation
as to events of general history important to the
community, or respecting marriage or moral character, may
be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public
places may be received as evidence of common reputation.
(Rule 130).
Please take NOTE:
Common reputation in community cannot be admitted to
prove pedigree, except marriage which can be evidenced by
common reputation. The SC ruled:
◦ [T]he weight of authority appears to be in favor of the theory that it is the
general repute, the common reputation in the family, and not the common
reputation in community, that is a material element of evidence going to
establish pedigree. . . . [Thus] matters of pedigree may be proved by
reputation in the family, and not by reputation in the neighborhood or vicinity,
except where the pedigree in question is marriage which may be proved by
common reputation in the community (Jison vs. CA, GR No. 124853, February
24, 1998).
Part of Res Gestae
Section 44. Part of the res gestae. — Statements made by a
person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto, under the stress
of excitement caused by the occurrence with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of
the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. (Rule
130).
Kinds of Res Gestae
Spontaneous statements
Verbal acts
Elements of Res Gestae (Spontaneous
statement)
1. There is a startling occurrence.
2. A statement was made while the event is taking place, or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto.
3. The statement was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise
falsehood.
4. The statement relates to the circumstances of the startling event or occurrence.

Example 1
The requisites were meet in one case where the victim
went to her aunt’s house immediately after escaping from
the crime scene and spontaneously, unhesitatingly and
immediately declared to her that the accused had sexually
abused her. Such manner of denunciation of him as rapist
was confirmed by the aunt’s testimony about the victim’s
panic-stricken demeanor and her use of words sufficiently
indicating her being raped (People vs. Lupac, September
19, 2012)
Example 2
When the deceased gave the identity of his assailant to
another, he was referring to a startling occurrence, i.e., his
stabbing by the accused. The victim was then on board the
taxicab that would bring him to the hospital and, had no
time to contrive his identification of the accused as the
assailant. His utterance about the accused having stabbed
his was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to a
startling occurrence (People vs. Salafranca, 666 SCRA
501).
Example 3
Ernesto's statement referred to a startling occurrence, that
is, him being stabbed by Dodong, Eugene, Ramil, and a
certain "Palaka." At the time he relayed his statement to
Julie Ann, he was wounded and blood oozed from his chest.
Given his condition, it is clear that he had no time to
contrive the identification of his assailants. Hence, his
utterance was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to
the startling occurrence. Definitely, such statement is
relevant because it identified the authors of the crime.
(People vs. Santillan, GR No. 227878, August 9, 2017).
Manner of analyzing res gestae
Analyze whether there is a starling occurrence.
When is the utterance made in relation of startling

occurrence. There should be an element of immediacy
What is the tenor of the statement uttered? It should

be related to the circumstances of the event.
Verbal acts as res gestae
Requistes: The principal act to be categorized must be
equivocal
The equivocal act must be material to the issue
The statement must accompany the equivocal

act
The statement gives a legal significance to
equivocal act
Example
In a collection suit filed by A against B where the loan is not evidence by a written
document.
Q. Mr. witness, did you testify that you saw the plaintiff give money to the
defendant?
A. I did, sir.
Q. What, if any, did anybody say at the time the money was handed over by the
plaintiff to the defendant?
A. As the plaintiff handed the money, he said to the defendant “This is the P10,000
you told me you were borrowing from me.”
Q. What did the defendant say, if any?
A. The defendant said, “Thank you. I will pay you after a year.
Records of Regularly Conducted
Business Activity
Section 45. Records of regularly conducted business activity. — A
memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events,
conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing, typing, electronic,
optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge
thereof and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity,
and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report,
record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of
which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified
witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence. (Rule 130).
What will be testified to under
Section 45?
Records of business activity, which includes
memorandum, report, record or data compilation of
acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made
by writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar
means at or near the time of or from transmission or
supply of information by a person with knowledge
thereof and kept in the regular course or conduct of a
business activity (Sec. 45, Rule 130).
Who will be testify on those records of
business activity?
By the custodian of those records or other
qualified witness (Sec. 45, Rule 130).
This is considered an exception to the
hearsay rule because the custodian is not
actually the one who recorded the
business activity.
Entries in Official Records
Section 46. Entries in official records. -
Entries in official records made in the
performance of his or her duty by a public
officer of the Philippines, or by a person in
the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence
of the facts therein stated (Rule 130).
Requisites
1. The entry was made by a public officer or by another
person specifically enjoined by law to do so.
2. It was made by the public officer, or by such other person in
the performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law
3. The public officer had sufficient knowledge of the facts he
stated which must have been acquired by the public officer
personally or through official information (Alvarez v. PICOP
Resources, G.R. Nos. 162243, 164516 & 171875, December
3, 2009, 606 SCRA 444, 525; citing Africa v. Caltex, 123 Phil.
272, 277 (1966).
DST Movers Corp. vs. People’s General
Insurance,
Jan. 13, 2016
It is plain to see that the matters indicated in the Report are not
matters that were personally known to PO2 Tomas. The Report
is candid in admitting that the matters it states were merely
reported to PO2 Tomas by "G. Simbahon of PNCC/SLEX." It was
this "G. Simbahon," not PO2 Tomas, who had personal
knowledge of the facts stated in the Report. Thus, even as the
Report embodies entries made by a public officer in the
performance of his duties, it fails to satisfy the third requisite for
admissibility for entries in official records as an exception to the
Hearsay Rule.
Commercial List and the Like
Section 47. Commercial lists and the like. - Evidence of
statements of matters of interest to persons engaged
in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical,
or other published compilation is admissible as tending
to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if
that compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation and is generally used and
relied upon by them therein. (Rule 130).
Learned Treatise
Section 48. Learned treatises. - A published treatise,
periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law,
science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the
truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes
judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject
testifies, that the writer of the statement in the
treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his or
her profession or calling as expert in the subject. (Rule
130).
Testimony or deposition at a Former
Proceeding
Section 49.Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding. - The testimony or deposition of a witness
deceased or out of the Philippines or who cannot, with
due diligence, be found therein, or is unavailable or
otherwise unable to testify, given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the
same parties and subject matter, may be given in
evidence against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to cross-examine him or her. (Rule 130).
Requisites
1. The witness is dead or out of the Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence,
be found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable to testify
2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same parties
3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on
different cause of action
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved
in the present case
5. The adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former
case (Manliclic vs. Calaunan, 512 SCRA 642).
Residual Exception
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 (Rule 130).
Let us dissect 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.
Substantive requirements for the
admissibility residual exception
1. Equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.
2. The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
3. 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.
4. The general purposes of these rules and the interests of
justice will be best served by admission of the statement into
evidence.
Rationale for residual exception
The "residual exception" rule is essentially a
recognition that the other rules dealing with
hearsay exceptions could not reasonably cover
and address each and every type of hearsay
evidence and the factual and legal situations
under which a party might argue for its
admission.
Procedural Requirement for Admission
of residual exception
In order for a party to rely on the rule on residual
exception for the admission of hearsay, it must
advise the opposing party sufficiently in advance of
the trial or hearing about the statement and the
name and address of the declarant. This is to allow
the opposing party time to prepare its response to
arguments in support of the proposed admission.
Residual evidence is related to “standard
of totality of evidence rule”
It is the consideration of all the pieces of evidence adduced in
their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise
inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is
consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. In other
words, it is the reduction of the rules to the most basic test of
reason — i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at
hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced
evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it
satisfies this basic minimum test (Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, December
3, 2009, 606 SCRA 598).
7. Opinion Rule
What is the general rule on opinion
of witness?
Section 51. General rule.—The opinion of
a witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in the following sections (Rule
130).
What opinion may be admitted as
evidence?
Section 52. Opinion of expert witness. The
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience, training
or education, which he or she is shown to
possess, may be received in evidence (Rule
130).
Section 5; Weight to be given to expert witness, how determined .
Under the old Rule, Judges do not have standards of how to give weight to
the opinion of an expert witness.
Judges can 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.
Section 5; Weight to be given to expert witness, how determined .

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:
No comparable provision under the old rule. (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
May the opinion of be admitted as
evidence?
Section 53. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. - The opinion of a witness, for
which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding –
(a) The identity of a person about whom he or she has adequate
knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently
acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the emotion,
behavior, condition or appearance of a person. (Rule 130).
8. Character Evidence
When is evidence of person’s
character or trait of character not
admissible?
Evidence of a person's character or a trait
of character is not admissible for the
purpose of proving action in conformity
therewith on a particular occasion
When is evidence of person’s character or trait
of character admissible in criminal cases?
1) The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability
of the offense charged.
2) The accused may prove his or her good moral character,
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
However, the prosecution may not prove his or her bad moral
character unless on rebuttal. (Section 54(a), Rule 130).
3) Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible
until such character has been impeached (Section 54[c]).
When is evidence of person’s character or
trait of character admissible in civil cases?
1) Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil
case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the case.
2) Evidence of the good character of a witness is not

admissible until such character has been impeached
(Section 54[c]).
In case character or trait of character
is admissible, how is it proved?
1. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of
character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by
testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an
opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into
relevant specific instances of conduct.
2. 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. (Section 54[c], Rule 130).
.
EXAMINATION OF
WITNESS
How should examination be done?
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. —
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath
or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated
to speak, or the questions calls for a different mode
of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given
orally (Rule 130).
Rights and Obligation of Witness
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and
from harsh or insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an
offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless
it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous
final conviction for an offense. Section 3, Rule 132
Order of in the examination of an
Section 4, Rule
132
individual witness
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.

What is direct-examination?
Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct

examination is the examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting him or her on
the facts relevant to the issue (Rule 132).
What is cross-examination?
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.
(Rule 132).
RULE NUMBER 132
A. Examination of Witness
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and Section 6. Cross-examination; Its Purpose and
extent. — Upon the termination of the direct Extent. — Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross- examination, the witness may be cross-
examined by the adverse party as to any examined by the adverse party on any
matters stated in the direct examination, or relevant matter, with sufficient fullness and
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness freedom to test his or her accuracy and
and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
important facts bearing upon the issue.
What is re-direct examination?
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent.
— After the cross-examination of the witness has been
concluded, he or she may be re-examined by the party
calling him or her, to explain or supplement his or her
answers given during the cross-examination. On re-
direct-examination, questions on matters not dealt with
during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the
court in its discretion. (Rule 132).
What is re-cross examination?
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the
conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse
party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters
stated in his or her re-direct examination, and also on
such other matters as may be allowed by the court in
its discretion (Rule 132).
May a witness be recalled?
Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination
of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the
witness cannot be recalled without leave of the
court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its
discretion, as the interests of justice may require.
(Rule 132).
When leading question are allowed
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers
from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of
feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or
managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership
or association which is an adverse party. Section 10, Rule 132.
What is a misleading question?
A misleading question is one which assumes as

true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he or she has previously
stated. It is not allowed. (Section 10, Rule 132).
How do you impeach a witness?
Section 11, Rule 132. 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 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 present testimony, but not by evidence of
particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that
he has been convicted of an offense (Rule 130).
How to impeach a witness
By contradictory evidence
By evidence that his general reputation for truth,

honesty or integrity is bad
By evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present
testimony.
May a witness be impeached by
evidence of conviction of a crime?
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 conviction. (Rule 130).
A. Examination of Witness
Section 12; Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
Under the New Rule, a witness my now be impeached
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, if the witness was given absolute pardon or
amnesty, his or her conviction cannot be used to impeach
him or her.
RULE 132
A. Examination of Witnesses
(No comparable provision under the old rule) 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 conviction.
May a party impeach his own witness?
No, 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. (Section 13, Rule 130).
Section 10 (d) – hostile and unwilling witness
Section 10 (e) – adverse party
When is a witness considered hostile or
unwilling?
A witness may be considered as unwilling or
hostile only if so declared by the court upon
adequate showing of 1) his or her adverse
interest, 2) unjustified reluctance to testify, or 3)
his or her having misled the party into calling
him or her to the witness stand (Sec. 13, Rule
130).
How may a hostile or unwilling witness
of adverse party be impeached?
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.
(Sec. 13, Rule 130).
Impeachment by evidence of
inconsistent statement
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he or she has
made at other times statements inconsistent with his or her
present testimony, the statements must be related to him or her,
with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons
present, and he or she must be asked whether he or she made
such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the
statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness
before any question is put to him concerning them.
Who are the witnesses that may not be
excluded from hearing the testimony of other
witnesses?
(a) a party who is a natural person;

(b) a duly designated representative of a juridical
entity which is a party to the case;
(c) a person whose presence is essential to the
presentation of the party’s cause;
(d) a person authorized by a statute to be
present (Sec. 15, Rule 130).
RULE 132
A. Examination of Witnesses
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of Section 15. Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses. – The
court, motu proprio, or upon motion, shall order
witnesses. — On any trial or hearing, the judge witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the
may exclude from the court any witness not at testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not
the time under examination, so that he may not authorize exclusion of (a) a party who is a natural
hear the testimony of other witnesses. The judge person, (b) a duly designated representative of a
may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and juridical entity which is a party to the case, (c) a person
to be prevented from conversing with one whose presence is essential to the presentation of the
another until all shall have been examined. party’s cause, or (d) a person authorized by a statute to
be present.
The court may also cause witnesses to be kept separate
and to be prevented from conversing with one another,
directly or through intermediaries, until all shall have
been examined.
When may a witness be allowed to refer
to memorandum?
Section 16. When Witness May Refer to Memorandum. — A witness may be
allowed to refresh his or her memory respecting a fact, by anything written or
recorded by himself or herself, or under his or her direction at the time when the
fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was
fresh in his or her memory and he or she knew that the same was correctly written
or recorded; but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be
inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he or she chooses, cross examine the
witness upon it, and may read it in evidence.
A witness may also testify from such writing or record, though he or she retains no
recollection of the particular facts, if he or she is able to swear that the writing or
record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be
received with caution. (Sec. 16, Rule 130).
OFFER AND OBJECTION
Offer of Evidence and Trial Objections
RULE:
SECTION 34. Offer of evidence. — The
court shall consider no evidence which has
not been formally offered. The purpose for
which the evidence is offered must be
specified.
May evidence not formally offered
be considered?
YES
If the evidence was duly identified by the testimony
duly recorded.
The same must have been incorporated in the records
of the case.
(People vs. Mate, 103 SCRA 484; Medina vs. People,
June 17, 2015)
Please take note:
“Marking of document is not

an offer”
When formal offer of evidence is not
required
1. In summary proceedings
2. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of
3. Documents, affidavits and depositions used in a summary
judgment
4. Documents or affidavits and depositions used in deciding quasi-
judicial or administrative (Bantolino vs. Coca-Cola, 403 SCRA 699)
5. Lost objects, previously marked, identified, described in the
record and testified to by the witnesses who hade been subjects of
cross-examination in respect to said objects (Tabuena vs. CA, 196
SCRA 650)
When is the testimony of the witness
offered?
Section 35. When to make offer. -

The offer of the testimony of a
witness in evidence must be made
at the time the witness is called to
testify. (Rule 132).
When is documentary or object
evidence offered?
Section 36. When to make offer. –

x x x The offer of documentary
and object evidence shall be
made after the presentation of a
party’s testimonial evidence.
C. Offer of evidence
Section 36; Objection.
The amendment in Section 36 is in line with the

amendment in the Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases. Under
the procedural set up, the offer of evidence
shall be done orally. Thus, objection must be
done orally and immediately after the officer.
When is objection to evidence orally
offered made?
Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately
after the offer is made.
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer
must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness must be made as soon as the ground
therefor become reasonably apparent.
The grounds for the objections must be specified.
Continuing Objection
Section 37, Rule 132 - When repetition of objection
unnecessary. - When it becomes reasonably apparent
in the course of the examination of a witness that the
questions being propounded are of the same class as
those to which objection has been made, whether
such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not
be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient
for the adverse party to record his continuing objection
to such class of questions.
When shall the Court rule?
Section 38. Ruling - The ruling of the court must be given
immediately after the objection is made, unless the court desires to
take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented;
but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time
as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to
meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be
stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a
ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify
the ground or grounds relied upon (Rule 132).
Striking out of an answer
Section 39, Rule 132. Striking out answer. — Should a
witness answer the question before the adverse party had
the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and
such objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall
sustain the objection and order the answer given to be
stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out
of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise
improper.
Ground for striking out of an answer
1. When the answer is premature
2. When the answer of the witness is irrelevant,
incompetent or improper
3. When the answer is unresponsive
4. When the witness becomes unavailable for cross-
examination
5. When the testimony is allowed conditionally but the
condition was not fulfilled
Tender of Excluded Evidence
Section 40, Rule 132. 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.

Lecture On Rules of Evidence

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

Lecture On Rules of Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LECTURE

JUDGE GENER M. GITO, LL.M., D.C.L.

The RTC granted the petitioner’s petition for naturalization. The CA

The general rule is that administrative agencies are not bound

When a fact is subject to judicial notice.

When the fact is judicially admitted

When the law or rule presumes the truth of a fact.

Proof is the product of evidence.

Evidence is the medium of

The factum probandum is the fact to be proved; it is the fact

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the

How do you determine the connection of evidence

It is not matter of law, rather it is a matter of logic.

To be relevant, evidence must relate to an

If you introduce evidence for a fact not

It is one that is not excluded by the law or rules.

If the test of relevancy is logic and common

It proves a fact without It is that evidence which

There is more than one

The facts from which the inference

The combination of all the

It refers to evidence of the same It is one which is supplementary to

Evidence is said to be positive It is negative when the witness

The defense of denial is viewed with disfavor for being

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to

In administrative cases, the complainant bears the burden in proving the

The burden of proof that a debt was contracted

Ask: Which party to an action or suit will fail if he

Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to

t • It is an inference of the existence or non-

Conclusive – when the presumption becomes

Disputable – if it may be contradicted by other evidence.

Persons who assume to be a corporation

In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found

The party against whom it is directed has the

It is the obligation of the prosecution to prove

5. Law of nations the admiralty and 8. Laws of nature,

It must be made by a party to a case

It must be made in the course of the

It does not require a particular form.

◦By showing that the admission was made

◦The imputed admission was not, in fact,

Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied

The evidence must be relevant

The evidence must be competent

The evidence must be authenticated by a witness

The object evidence must be formally offered in evidence

The right against self-

Objects that have readily identifiable marks

1. Best Evidence Rule 1. Original Document Rule

Section 3. Original document must be Sec. 3. Original document must be produced;

If the matter inquired into is the

Please take a look at the changes

2. The offeror must prove its unavailability

3. The offeror must prove that its unavailability was

2. By recital of its contents in some authentic

OLD RULE 2019 AMENDMENT

2. Document is under the custody or control of the adverse party

3. Proponent has given the other party reasonable opportunity

2. By recital of its contents in some authentic

OLD RULE 2019 AMENDMENT

It will be in the form of a chart,

When the original of a document is in the