1. BURDEN OF PROOF vs.

BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. It is also known as
onus probandi. (Sec. 1 Rule 131), while burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward
with the evidence to overthrow prima facie evidence established against him. (Bautista v.
Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587 [1985]).
Whether it shifts throughout the proceedings
Burden of Proof -does not shift as it remains throughout the entire case exactly where the
pleadings originally placed it. While in Burden of Evidence it does shift to the other party when
one party has produced sufficient evidence to be entitled to a ruling in his favour.
What determines it
Burden of Proof generally determined by the pleadings filed by the party; and whoever asserts
the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, while Burden of Evidence generally
determined by the developments at the trial, or by the provisions of the substantive law or
procedural rules which may relieve the party from presenting evidence on the fact alleged.
Effect of a legal presumption
Burden of Proof it does not shift the burden of proof. However, the one who has the burden of
proof is relieved from the time being, from introducing evidence in support of his averment
because the presumption stands, in the place of evidence. Burden of Evidence It creates a
prima facie case and thereby sustains the said burden of evidence on the point which it covers,
shifting it to the other party. It relieves those favoured thereby of the burden of proving the fact
presumed.
2. COMPETENCY OF WITNESS vs CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS
Competency of a Witness has reference to the basic qualifications of a witness as his capacity
to perceive and his capacity to communicate to his perception to others.
Credibility of a Witness refers to the believability of the witness and has nothing to do with the
law or the rules.
RULE ON COMPETENCY OF WITNESS:
GR: A person who takes the witness stand is presumed to possess the qualifications of a witness.
(Presumption of competency)
XPN: There is prima facie evidence of incompentency in the following:
a. The fact that a person has been recently found of unsound mind by a court of
competent jurisdiction; or
b. That one is an inmate of an asylum for the insane.
3. AFFIRMATIVE FACT
POSITIVE when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur, it is entitled to greater
weight since the witness represents of his personal knowledge the presence or absence of a fact.
NEGATIVE when the witness states that he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact and
there is total disclaimer of personal knowledge. Such s admissible only if has to contradict
positive acts of the other side or would tend to exclude the existence of fact sworn to by the other
side.
4. HEARSAY EVIDENCE vs. OPINION EVIDENCE
Hearsay Evidence consists of testimony that s not based on personal knowledge of the person
testifying, (sec. 36, Rule 130).
Opinion Evidence is expert evidence based on the personal knowledge skill, experience or
training of the person testifying (sec. 49, Id) and evidence of an ordinary witness on limited
matters (sec. 50, Id).
5. QUESTION OF LAW vs. QUESTION OF FACT
QUESTION OF LAW is when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
set of facts.
QUESTION OF FACT is when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
alleged facts. (Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling co., 19 SCRA 289, [19670]).

6. INSTANCES WHEN PHILIPPINE COURT WILL TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAW
The three (3) instances when Philippine Court can take judicial notice of a foreign law are:
a. When the Philippine courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law;
b. When the foreign law refers to the law of nations (sec 1, Rule 129) and
c. When it refers to a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the subject of law if the court
takes judicial notice of the fact that the writer thereof is recognized in his profession or calling as
expert on the subject. (sec 46, Rule 130).
7. HOW TO PROVE WRITTEN FOREIGN LAW?
A written foreign law 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 deputy, and accompanied. If the
record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody, if the office
in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, 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 office. (sec. 24, Rule 132, Zalamea v. CA, 228 SCRA 23).
Q: Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense of the defendant but no
evidence was presented to prove the existence of said law, what is the presumption to be
taken by the court as to the wordings of said law?
A: The presumption is that the wordings of the foreign law are the same as the local law.
(Norwest Orient Airlines v. CA, 241 SCRA 192; Lim v. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil. 472). This is
known as PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION.
8. PRESUMPTION (UST Golden Notes pages 298 to 303)
Matters which need not to be proved;
1. Facts admitted or not denied provided thy have been
sufficiently alleged (Sec. 11, Rule 8);
2. Agreed and admitted facts Sec. 4, Rule 129);
3. Facts subject to judicial notice (Sec. 3, Rule 129);
4. Facts legally presumed (Sec. 2 & 3, Rule 131).
PRESUMPTION it is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law, which requires such fact to
be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.
It is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from
the proof of other facts.
Note:
A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence. It imposes on the party against
whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to meet or rebut the presumption.
Classes of Presumptions
Presumption of Law:
It is deduction which the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts.
A certain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis of
the inference.
Reduced to fixed rules and form a part of the system of jurisprudence
Need not be pleaded or proved if the facts on which they are based are duly averred and
established.
Presumption of Fact:
It is a deduction which reason draws from the facts proved without an express direction
from law to that effect.
Discretion is vested in the tribunal as to drawing the inference

 Derived wholly and directly from the circumstances of the particular case by means of the
common experience of mankind
Has to be pleaded and proven.
Kinds of Presumptions of Law
Conclusive Presumptions are those which are not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the
contrary.
Disputable Presumptions those which are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted
and overcome by other evidence. (Sec. 3, Rule 131)

9. WHEN RTC TAKE MOTO PROPIO JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CERTAIN FACTS? (UST Golden
Notes page 308 to 311)
Facts that need not be proved:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Those which the courts may take judicial notice. (Rule 129)
Those that are judicially admitted. (Rule 129)
Those that are conclusively presumed (Rule 131); and
Those that are disputably presumed but uncontracidted (Rule 131).

What is judicial notice?

It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act upon without proof
because they are supposed to be known to them. It is based on considerations of expediency
and convenience. It displaces evidence, being equivalent to proof.
Note: Judicial notice fulfils the objective which the evidence intends to achieve. It is equivalent to
judicial knowledge or that which is based on the personal knowledge of the court; rather, it is the
cognizance of common knowledge. Judicial notice relieves the parties from the necessity of
introducing evidence to prove the fact notified. It makes evidence unnecessary.
Requisites of Judicial Notice
1. The matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
3. It must be one which is not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either;
a. Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or
b. Capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable. (Expertravel & Tours, Inc. vs.
CA, G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005).
Note: The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that
of notoriety (Ibid). The test of notoriety is whether the fact involved is so notoriously known as to
make it proper to assume its existence without proof.

10. PRIVILEGE MARITAL COMMUNICATION

Requisites for the application of this privilege:
b. There was a valid marriage;
c. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication
between the spouses during the said marriage; and
d. The spouses against whom such evidence is being offiered has not given his
consent to such testimony.
The privilege is INAPPLICABLE when:
1. In a civil case by one against the other; or
2. In a Criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latters direct ascendants or descendants.
NOTE:

G.R. Third persons who, without the knowledge of the spouses, overheard the
communication are not disqualified to testify.
EXPN: When there is collusion and voluntary disclosure to a third party, that third party
becomes an agent and cannot testify.

11. HEARSAY EVIDENCE

Hearsay Evidence consists of testimony that is not based on personal knowledge of the person
testifying, (see Sec 36, Rule 130).
12. EFFECT OF OFFER OF COMPROMISE IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES
In Civil Case:
An offer of compromise is NOT an admission of any liability and is NOT admissible in evidence
against the offeror.
The reason for rule against the admission of an offeror of compromise in civil case as an
admission of any liability is that parties are encouraged to enter into compromise. Courts
should endeavour to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise.
(ART. 2029, Civil Code). During the pre-trial, courts should direct the parties to consider the
possibility of an amicable settlement.
In Criminal Case:
Except those involving quasi-offense (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt.
COMPROMISE is an agreement made between two or more parties as a settlement matters in
dispute.
GR: An offeror of compromise is NOT an admission of any liability and is NOT admissible in
evidence against an offeror.
EXPN:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

An express admission of liability made during negotiations for a compromise

Express and unqualified admission of indebtedness accompanying an offer of compromise.
An Admission of the correctness of an account or specific items.
Admission involving interest in property
Admission affecting liability for a tort.

13. WHEN IS TESTIMONY OF WITNESS IRRELEVANT?(Salcedo vs. CA)

(requisites for admissibility UST Golden Notes page 312)
The testimony of witness is irrelevant when evidence adduced is inadmissible.
In the case of Salcedo vs. CA G.R. No. 110662, August 4, 1994, the accused violated the privacy
of communication.
Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related
Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and for other purposes expressly makes such tape
recordings inadmissible in evidence.
The law provides that anti-wire tapping law or usage of unauthorized tape recordings of telephone
conversations is not admissible in evidence.
Note: The right of privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication and dissemination of matters of
public interest. (Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. vs. Capulong, 160 SCRA 861 [1988])
14. EFFECT OF OFFER TO PAY HOSPITAL EXPENSES IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES OF
THE PARTIES. (sec. 27 (d), Rule 130)
Same with EFFECT OF OFFER OF COMPROMISE IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES
No. 12.

15. DEADMANS STATUTE. (UST Golden Notes page 331)

The testimony of a witness not a party to litigation is admissible in evidence. Disqualified are
those parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted,
against the administrator or deceased estate, upon a claim or demand against his estate as to
any matter of fact occurring before the deceased death. (sec. 23, Rule 130)
Dead Mans Statute
Only a partial disqualification as the witness is not completely disqualified but is only
prohibited from testifying on the matters therein specified.
Applies only to a civil case or special proceeding over the estate of a deceased or insane
person.
16. PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE (UST Golden Notes page 323 to 324)
Parole Evidence is any evidence aliunde (extrinsic evidence) which is intended or tends to vary or
contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document. It may refer to
testimonial, real or documentary evidence.
Rationale of the parol evidence rule:
a. To give stability to written statements;
b. To remove the temptation and possibility of perjury; and
c. To prevent possible fraud.
17. EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION (PP vs. Antonio Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15,2010)
(UST Golden Notes page 309)
Extrajudicial Confession
Those made out of court or in a judicial proceeding other that the one under
consideration.
Regarded as evidence and must be offered as such, otherwise the court will not consider
it in deciding the case.
Requires formal offer for it to be considered
Rebuttable
Not admissible if self-serving
Not subject to cross-examination.
18. GONI vs. CA (G.R. No. L-27434, September 23, 1986)
The privilege to invoke the Dead Mans Statute is waived by the defendant where:
a. He cross-examines the plaintiff; and
b. He files a counterclaim against the plaintiff.
Such protection, however, was effectively waived when counsel for petitioners examined private
respondent Vicente. A waiver occurs when plaintiffs desposition is taken by the representative
of the estate or when counsel for the representative cross-examined the plaintiff as to matters
occurring during deceaseds lifetime. It must further be observed that petitioners presented a
counterclaim against private respondent Vicente. When Vicente thus took the witness stand, it
was in a dual capacity as plaintiff in the action for recovery of property and as defendant in the
counterclaim for accounting and surrender of fields nos. 4 and 13. Evidently, as defendant in the
counterclaim, he was not disqualified from testifying as to matters of fact occurring before the
death of Praxedes Villanueva, said action not having been brought against, but by the estate or
representatives of the estate/ deceased person.
The written contract to sell in this case was satisfactorily proved to have been novated to a verbal
lease agreement s shown by the failure of respondent Vicente to demand the execution of a deed
of sale or annotation of an adverse claim on the title to the sugarlands during his lifetime.
19. PP vs. Domingo (G.R. No. 97921, September 8, 1993)
One of the ways by which rape can be committed is by having carnal knowledge of a woman by
using force or intimidation. (Art. 225 RPC) Appellant Domingo admits having had carnal
knowledge of complainant, only the elements of force and/ or intimidation therefore need to be
proved.
It is the policy of the Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the factual findings of
the trial court on the rational assumption that the trial court is in a better position to assess the
evidence before it, EXCEPTION to the rule is where such findings are clearly arbitrary or
erroneous as when they are tainted with bais or hostility or are so lacking in basis as to suggest

that they were reached without the careful study and perceptiveness that should characterize a
judicial decision.
Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy, not generally attempted except in dark or deserted and
secluded places away from prying eyes, the crime usually commences solely upon the word of
the offended woman herself, and conviction invariably turns only upon her credibility as the
Peoples single witness of the actual occurrence.
The law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. (While coitus was
going on between complainant and her abuser, she had a free hand to resist the appellants
further advances is no argument that no resistance was employed.) What has to be proved by the
prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with
the victim.
In using force, it is not necessary that the offender is armed with a weapon as the use of a
weapon serves only to increase the penalty. Intimidation can be addressed to the mind as well.
The victims virginity is not an element of the crime and is therefore inconsequential, what is
material is that she had been forced and or intimidated to have sex with the felon.
From a mere fiance, definitely a man cannot demand sexual submission and worse, employ
violence upon her on a mere justification of love. Not only was his claim categorically denied by
complainant, but there was also no substantial evidence such as love notes, mementos or
pictures presented by him to support it. Love is not a license for lust.
Under our law and jurisprudence on evidence, an offer to compromise and of marriage is an
implied admission of guilt. (Domingo, after his arrest and while being detained at the city jail, he
pleaded to complainant, through his sister, for forgiveness and even offered to marry her,
obviously to induce the latter to withdraw the charge.)
20. WAIVER OF RIGHTS TO COUNSEL IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
.

42. RES IPSA LOQUITOR RULE

It literally means the thing speaks for itself. This doctrine provides that the fact of the occurrence
of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a
presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiffs prima facie case, and present a question of
fact for defendant to meet with an explanation.