RULE 128

EVIDENCE defined-

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules of ascertaining in a

judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Sources of Rules of Evidence

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

Rules 128 and 133 of the Revised Rules of Court
Resolution of the Supreme Court dated March 14, 1989 approving the
Proposed Rules on Evidence submitted by the Rules of Court Revision
Committee on August 31, 1987
Rule 115, Section 1, Formerly Rule III, Section 1 of the Rules of Court
(Right of defendant at the trial);
Substantive and Remedial Statutes;
Judicial decisions

THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE ONLY IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

The means of ascertaining in a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth

respecting a matter of fact.

The decision of a barrio council, respecting the settlement of ownership

and possession of a parcel of land, is ultra vires because a barrio
councils, which are not courts, have no judicial powers. Miguel v
Catalino,20 SCRA 234

Therefore, said decision, if introduced as an exhibit is not admissible in

a judicial proceeding as evidence for ascertaining the truth respecting
a matter of fact of ownership and possession. Supra

TRUTH IS BEST ASCERTAINED UNDER AN ADVERSARY SYSTEM OF

JUSTICE. Republic v Valencia, 141 SCRA 462

EVIDENCE distinguished from:

PROOF-
 Refers to the degree or kind of evidence which will produce full
conviction, or establish the proposition to the satisfaction of the
tribunal. Proof is the effect or result of evidence while evidence is the
medium of proof.

TESTIMONY-

That kind of evidence which in a trial is presented by witnesses

verbally. Evidence is the generic term and testimony that of the
species.

ARGUMENT-

Argument and evidence, taken together, represent the means by which

the tribunal is sought to be persuaded as to some fact-in-issue.

FACTUM PROBANDUM distinguished from FACTUM PROBANS:

FACTUM PROBANDUM (Fact in issue)-

The ultimate fact or the fact sought to be established

Refers to proposition

FACTUM PROBANS-

Is the evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum

probandum is to be established
Materials which establish the proposition

KINDS AND DEGREES OF EVIDENCE

Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence:

DIRECT EVIDENCE that which proves the fact in dispute

without the aid of any interference or presumption (Lake County
vs. Nellon.)
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is the proof of a fact or facts
from which taken either singly or collectively, the existence or a
particular fact, in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or
probable consequence (State vs. Avery, 113, Mo., 475, 494, 21,
S.W. 193)

Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence:

PRIMARY EVIDENCE that which the law regards as affording

the greatest certainty of fact in question. Also referred to as the
best evidence

SECONDARY EVIDENCE that which is inferior to the primary

evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is
not available. Known as the substitutionary evidence

Positive Evidence and Negative Evidence:

POSITIVE EVIDENCE when the witness affirms that a fact did

or did not occur. Entitled to a greater weight since the witness
represents of his personal knowledge the presence or absence of
a fact

NEGATIVE EVIDENCE when the witness did not see or know of

the occurrence of a fact. There is a total disclaimer of personal
knowledge, hence without any representation or disavowal that
the fact in question could or could not have existed or happened.
It is admissible only if it tends to contradict positive evidence of
the other side or would tend to exclude the existence of fact
sworn to by the other side.

Corroborative Evidence and Cumulative Evidence:

CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE is additional evidence of a

different kind and character tending to prove the same point
(Wyne v. Newman, 75, Va., 811, 817)

Case:
 The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the victims
died because of stab wounds inflicted by the armed men who
entered their residence on the night of December 4, 1965
remain uncontroverted. XXX Their death certificates therefore
are only corroborative of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. (People vs. Watson (1965))

CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE evidence of the same kind and to

the same stale of facts.

Case:
Thus, on the issue of the capacity of a boy to write a certain
paper, evidence of his school fellows as to his capacity is
cumulative to that of his teachers and medical men upon the
same question. (Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray (Mass. 434))

Prima Facie Evidence and Conclusive Evidence:

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE is that which suffices for the proof of

a particular fact, until contradicted and overcome by other
evidence

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is that which is incontrovertible.

When evidence is received which the law does not allow to be
contradicted.

Cases:
Accordingly, a party introducing in evidence a letter written by
his agent to the adverse party, is bound by the statements
contained therein. (Lilian Realty Co. v. Erdum, 120 N.Y.S. 749)

In an action to recover money paid in settlement of an account

in stock transactions, plaintiff is bound by his own testimony that
the transactions were gambling transactions, so as to preclude
recovery by him. (Atwater v. A.G. Edwards Brokerage Co, 147 Mo.
A. 436, 126 S.W. 822)

Relevant Evidence and Material Evidence:

 RELEVANT EVIDENCE evidence having any value in reason as
tending to prove any matter provable in an action. The test is the
logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue,
whether the former tends to establish the probability or
improbability of the latter.

MATERIAL EVIDENCE evidence directed to prove a fact in

issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and
pleadings. The test is whether the fact it intends to prove is an
issue or not. As to whether a fact is in issue or not is in turn
determined by the substantive law, the pleadings, the pre-trial
order and by the admissions or confessions on file

Competent Evidence:
Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by law in a
particular case (Porter v. Valentine)

Irrelevant, Incompetent, Inadmissible, and Immaterial

Evidence:

Irrelevant in strictness, signifies that the offered piece of

evidence has no probative value. The rules of circumstantial
evidence are what determine the irrelevancy.

Incompetent, in strictness, signifies that an offered witness is not

qualified, under the rule of testimonial evidence.

Immaterial, in strictness, signifies that the offered evidential fact

is excluded by some rule of evidence, no matter what the rule.
The rules of substantive law ad of pleading are what determine
immateriality.

Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal Evidence:

Rebuttal Evidence is that which is given to explain, repel,

counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse
party (State v. Silva).
 It is also defined as evidence in denial of some affirmative care
or fact which the adverse party has attempted to prove. (Carver
v. United States, 160 U.S. 553)

Object (Real) Evidence:

Directly addressed to the senses of the court and consist of

tangible things exhibited or demonstrated in open court, in an
ocular inspection, or at place designated by the court for its view
of observation of an exhibition, experiment or demonstration.
This is referred to as autoptic preference.

Documentary Evidence:

Evidence supplied by written instruments or derived from

conventional symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are
represented on material substances

Testimonial Evidence:

Is that which is submitted to the court through the testimony or

deposition of a witness

Expert Evidence:

Is the testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular

subject or department of human activity, knowledge not usually
acquired by other persons (U.S. v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530)

Substantial Evidence:

Is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion (Philippine
Overseas Drilling and Oil Development Corp. v. Ministry of Labor,
146 SCRA 79)
ROLE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:

What part does the Rules of Evidence play in the whole system of law?

Enforcement of the rules requires the application of the law to an

individual person.

WHAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE DETERMINE:

All rights and liabilities are dependent upon and arise out of
facts.
Every judicial proceeding whatever has for its purpose the
ascertaining of some right or liability. If the proceeding is
Criminal, the object is to ascertain the liability to punishment of
the person accused. If the proceeding is Civil, the object is to
ascertain some right of property or status, or the right of one
party and the liability of other to some form of relief.
NECESSITY FOR RULES OF EVIDENCE:

It is necessary that we have Rules of Evidence which will limit the

field of matters that can properly be taken into consideration in
determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, and the law of
evidence, as we have, is in the shape of a set of primary rules for
the exclusion of evidence that is logically probative, which but for
such exclusionary rules would be legal evidence, and a further
set of exceptions to these rules.

To facilitate the ascertainment of truth.

GOOD COMMAND OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL:

Cases are not always won by the righteousness of the clients

cause but by the evidence which his counsel presents in court to
support his claim or defense

RULES OF EVIDENCE NOT STATIC:

Rules of Evidenceare not static. They are constantly

undergoing change, in the interest of the successful
 development of the truth. The changes are sometimes made by
the legislatures, sometimes by the Courts.

Section 2. Scope- The Rules of Evidence shall be the same in all

courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise
provided by law or these rules.

(Sec. 2, Revised Rules of Court, hereinafter, RROC)

REASONS FOR THE RULE:

The Rules of Evidence must be applied in all courts and in all

trials and hearings for the following:

The relation between the evidentiary fact and a particular

proposition is always the same, without regard to the kind
of litigation in which that proposition becomes material to
be proved;

If the rules of evidence prescribe the best course to arrive

at the truth that must be ad are the same in all cases and
in all civilized countries

DIFFERENCE IN THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL AND

CIVIL CASES:

CIVIL CRIMINAL
Parties attend The accused
by accord attends by
compulsion
There is no Presumption of
presumption as innocence
to either party attends the
accused
throughout the
trial until the
same has been
overcome by
prima facie
 evidence of his
guilt
An offer to It is an implied
compromise admission of
does not, as a guilt
general rule,
amount to an
admission of
liability
Must prove by Guilt beyond
preponderance reasonable
of evidence: doubt
Reason is that
there is no
presumption ad
due to the fact
that the proof
will only result
in a judgment
of pecuniary
damages

APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF EVIDENCE:

The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings

before the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations
Commission (Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. vs.
NLRC, 136 SCRA 669); Employees Compensation Commission
(Philippine Overseas Drilling and Oil Development Corporation
vs. Minister of Labor, 146 SCRA 79); Securities and Exchange
Commission; Commission on Elections (Geromo v. COMELEC, et
al., 118 SCRA 165); Agrarian Cases (Bagsican v. CA, 141 SCRA
226); Immigration Proceedings (Moy Yoke Shue v. Johnson, 290
Fed. 621); Court of Tax Appeals (Celestino Co. & Company v.
Collector of Internal Revenue, BTA Case No. 195, Oct. 4, 1954,
affirmed by the Supreme Court on Aug. 31, 1956, G.R. No. L
8506); Probation Court; Board of Transportation; Police
Commission; Oil Industry Commission; and other similar bodies
(Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, 2 Phil. 500; Ayala de Roxas v. Case, 8 Phil.
197)
NO VESTED RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN RULES OF EVIDENCE:

There is no vested right of property in rules of evidence. Hence,

any evidence inadmissible according to the laws in force at the
time the action accrued, but admissible according to the laws in
force at the time of the trial, is receivable.

RULES OF EVIDENCE SANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE

ALTERED BY LEGISLATION:

A Constitutional provision sanctioning a rule of evidence has the

legal effect of making it unalterable by ordinary statutory
legislation.

RULES OF EVIDENCE MAY BE WAIVED (when available):

The parties may waive such rules during the trial of a case
The can also make the waiver in a contract

Case:

A contract of insurance requiring the testimony of eyewitness as

the only evidence admissible concerning the death of the insured
person is valid. (National Acc. Soc. V. Ralstin, 101, Ill. App., 192;
Connel v. Travelling Mens Assn, 139, 444 N.W. 820)

Contract waiving the privilege against the disclosure of confidential

communications made by a patient to a physician is also valid.
(Keeler v. Iss. Co., 95 Mo. App., 627, 69 S.W. 612)

However, if the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been

established by law on grounds of public policy, the waiver is void.
Accordingly, the waiver of the privilege against the disclosure of
state secrets is void. (Rowland v. Rowland, 40 N.I. Eq., 281)

POLICY TO BE OBSERVED BY COURTS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE

RULES OF EVIDENCE:

Reception of evidence of doubtful admissibility is in the long run

the less harmful course, since all materials necessary for final
 adjudication would come before the appellate tribunals (Obispo,
et. Al. vs. Obispo, 50 O.G. 614)

Case:Trial courts are enjoined to observe the strict enforcement of

the rules of evidence which crystallized through constant use and
practice and are very useful and effective aids in the search for
truth and for the effective administration of justice. But in
connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful
relevancy or incompetency or admissibility, it is the safest policy to
be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but
admitting themxxx (Banaria v. Banaria, et. al., CA. No. 4142, May
31, 1950)

Even in case of doubt as to the materiality or relevancy of such

question, it would be more in keeping with the administration of
justice to allow the answer to such question and render the ruling as
to its admissibility when all evidence are in. (People v. Jaca, et al.,
G.R. No. L-10971, Nov. 28, 1959)

Where a judge is in doubt as to the admissibility of a particular

piece of evidence, he should declare in favor of admissibility rather
than non-admissibility. (The Collector v. Palakadhari, 12 A. (1899))

RULE 128, Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence.

1. Requisites of admissibility of evidence.

a. Evidence is relevant to the issue

b. Evidence is competent, that is, it does not belong to that class
of evidence which is excluded by the law or the Rules of
Evidence

Cases:
People vs. Soriaga (G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011). The
non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the
making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs
confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible
in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be
 inadmissible there should be a law or rule which forbids its
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be
admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be
accorded it by the courts.

BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. 168644 February 16,

2010). The testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of
respondents supposed bank account with Security Bank and the
documentary evidence represented by the checks adduced in
support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by
operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the
case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and
reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent for
qualified theft.

2. Two axioms of Admissibility

a. None but facts having rational probative value are

admissible. It prescribes that whatever is presented as
evidence shall be presented on the hypothesis that it is
calculated, according to the prevailing standards of reasoning,
to effect rational persuasion.

b. All facts having rational probative value are

admissible, unless some specific rule forbids. This
principle does not mean that anything that has probative
value is admissible. But everything having a probative value is
ipso facto entitled to be assumed to be admissible, and
therefore any rule of policy which may be valid to exclude it is
a superadded and abnormal rule.

3. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from weight of

evidence

Admissibility of Evidence Weight of Evidence

The admissibility of evidence is The weight of evidence has to do

determined by its relevance and with the effect of evidence
competence. admitted, its tendency to convince
 and persuade.

The admissibility of evidence does The weight of evidence is not

not depend on its weight and
sufficiency; credibility and weight
being questions of fact.
determined mathematically by
numerical superiority of witnesses
testifying to a given fact, but
depends upon its practical effect in
inducing belief on the part of the
judge trying the case.

It involves credibility of witnesses

and all inherent probabilities and
improbabilities deducible from the
evidence as a whole.

ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by way of defense, he
attempts to establish an alibi.
1. His mother testifies that he was at home in bed at the
time the murder was committed; or
2. A distinguished physician testifies that he was attending
the defendant in his home at the time the murder was
committed.

As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally admissible. But
it is likely that the court would give greater weight to the
testimony of a disinterested physician than of a mother, who
might be expected to commit perjury in an effort to save her son.

Case:
Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011).
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or not
the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all. On the
other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not it proves an issue.

4. Types of Admissibility

A. Multiple Admissibility of Evidence.

 When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as
it satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its
failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it if
offered for another purpose does not exclude it.

B. Conditional Admissibility of Evidence.

Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected under the
issues that the relevancy of one depends upon another not yet
received, and the party is unable to introduce them both at the
same moment, the offering counsel may be required by the court as
a condition precedent (1) to state the supposed connecting facts,
and (2) to promise to give the evidence later.

Effect if condition precedent is not fulfilled:

Upon motion by the opposite party, the court may strike out
the evidence thus conditionally admitted

C. Curative Admissibility of Evidence.

Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one party and
received without objection and the opponents afterwards, for the
purpose of negativing or explaining or otherwise counteracting,
offers a fact similarly inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it
serves to remove an unfair effect upon the court which might
otherwise ensue from the original fact.

5. Rules of Exclusion and Exclusionary Rules

Rules of Exclusion Exclusionary Rules

Governed by the rules of evidence Evidence excluded by the

Constitution

Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19,
2004). Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
1993 only provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule
on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state that
procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render
said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the
Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of
evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and seizures.
 Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and
the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from
evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents
are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into
consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against
the respondent.

A. Admissibility of Telephone Conversations.

Unless otherwise objectionable, a telephone conversation between

a witness and another person is admissible in any case in which a
face to face conversation between a witness and another person
would be admissible in evidence, provided that the identity of the
person with whom the witness was speaking is satisfactorily
established, but not otherwise.

Proof of Identity through witness recognition of the voice of the

person with whom he was speaking, however, it may be established
by means other than the recognition of the voice.

B. Admissibility of radio broadcast.

Evidence of a message or a speech by means of radio broadcast is

admissible as evidence when the identity of the speaker is
established by the following:
By the testimony of a witness who saw him broadcast his
message or speech
By the witness recognition of the voice of the speaker

C. Admissibility of wiretapping and tape recordings.

Recording of conversations, statement, confessions, speech, and

the sounds of various kinds, are admissible in evidence, subject of
course, to the general rules relating to hearsay, best evidence,
relevancy, privilege and the like, and subject to the proper
authentication by foundation testimony.
1. The wiretapping and other related violations of the privacy of
communications are prohibited and penalized by Republic Act No.
4200.

REPUBLIC ACT 4200, ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT

A. UNLAWFUL ACTS
1. Section 1, par 1.
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all
the parties to any private communication or spoken word,
to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described
2. Section 1, par 2.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant
or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding
sentence,

to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc

record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured either before or
after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited
by this law; or
to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to
communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person

Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof

as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of
offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be
covered by this prohibition.

3. Section 2.
Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid,
permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be
unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the
 provisions of the following section or of any order issued
thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation.

B. EXEMPTED ACTS
1. Section 3, par 1. Any peace officer, who is authorized by
a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts
declared to be unlawful in cases involving:
crimes of treason,
espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy,
mutiny in the high seas,
rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion,
sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national security

Requirements:
That such written order shall only be issued or granted
upon written application and the examination under
oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses
he may produce and a showing:
1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that
any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is about to be
committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving
the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition,
such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof
that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be,
have actually been or are being committed;
2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that
evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of
any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention
of, any of such crimes; and
 3. That there are no other means readily available for
obtaining such evidence.

2. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and

Recording of Communications.
(Section 7, Republic Act No. 9372, Human security Act)
The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping
Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law
enforcement official and the members of his team may,
upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to,
intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind
or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or
intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any
other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
communication, message, conversation, discussion, or
spoken or written words between members of a judicially
declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association,
or group of persons or of any person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism.

Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of

communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and
patients, journalists and their sources and confidential
business correspondence shall not be authorized.

C. Admissibility

Any communication or spoken word, or the existence,

contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same
or any part thereof, or any information therein contained
obtained or secured by any person in violation of the
preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation. (Section 4, R. A.
4200)

Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112. The law refers to a
tap of wire or cable or the use of a device or arrangement for
the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording
the communication The extension telephone cannot be placed
 in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or the other
devices enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use
thereof cannot be considered as tapping the wire not installed
for that purpose.

2. Requisites to be established before a recording of conversation

can be given probative value:
a. A showing that the recording device was capable of taking
testimony;
b. A showing that the operator of the device was competent;
c. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the
recording;
d. A showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been
made;
e. A showing of manner of the preservation of the recording;
f. Identification of the speakers; and
g. A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made
without any kind of inducement

D. Admissibility of evidence illegally seized.

Rights protected under Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987

Constitution:
1. Right against unreasonable search and seizure. ( Sec. 2)
2. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication ( Sec. 3)
3. Right of a person under investigation for an offense (Sec. 12)
4. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17)

Case:
Ambre vs. People (G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012).
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search
and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a
judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause,
absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable"
within the meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence
obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such an
unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the
language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
 This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid
proscription. One of the recognized exception established by
jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest. In this
exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the
search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.

E. Admissibility of Electronic Documents.

An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:
1. It complies with the Rules on admissibility prescribed by the
Rules and related laws; and
2. It is authenticated in the manner by the Rules on Electronic
Evidence

F. Scientific Detection Devices.

1. Lie detector
2. Speed detection and recording devices
3. Chemical tests for drunkenness
4. Truth serums and hypnosis
5. Blood grouping tests

RULE 128, Section 4. Relevancy; Collateral maters.

1. Relevancy of Evidence

a. Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue;

or to a fact which, by the process of logic, an inference may
be made as to the existence or non-existence of a fact in
issue.
b. Evidentiary facts are relevant where there is such rational and
logical connection between them and the matter in issue that
proof of the former logically tends to make the latter more
probable or improbable, that is, where the facts offered in
evidence have a legitimate tendency to establish the truth
concerning a controversial issue.

Case:
Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005). Evidence
is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not
otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is
relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule
 130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony,
provides that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown
to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not pose
any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as
evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed
"when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

2. Test of Relevancy

a. Every fact or circumstance tending to throw light on the issue

is logically inferable
b. Any circumstance is relevant from which tends to make the
proposition at issue more or less probable, or which is
calculated to explain or establish facts pertinent to the inquiry
c. The test is whether the evidence conduces to the proof of a
pertinent hypothesis being one which, if sustained, would
logically influence the issue
d. Facts are relevant if they fairly tend to prove the offense
charged
e. The test is the connection between the fact proved and the
offense charged.

3. Relevancy does not generally depend upon its source.

Whether evidence offered is relevant does not, as a general rule,

depend upon its source. Neither does relevancy depend upon the
importance or weight of the evidence, weight being a matter for the
court.

4. Logical relevancy distinguished form legal relevancy

Logical relevancy Legal Relevancy

Means that evidence must be
absolutely essential to the fact in
issue.
The main condition of admissibility
Requires a higher standard of
evidentiary force and includes logical
relevancy.
All rules excluding evidence which is
logically relevant are exceptions to
the general rule.
The attribute of all those logically
 relevant matters which are not
declared inadmissible by one or more
of the excluding rules.

Case:
People vs. Yatar (G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004).
Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly
established evidence and never on mere conjectures or
suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes
"something more than a minimum of probative value,"
suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must contain a "plus
value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from
being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence
without "plus value" may be logically relevant but not legally
sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court to
balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely
harm that would result from its admission.

5. Issue defined.

It is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the

pleadings which one side affirms, and the other denies. Issues arise
upon the pleading where a fact or conclusion of law is maintained
by one party, and is controverted by the other.

6. Fact defined

It is a thing done, or existing. Facts are thus either:

a. Physical, e.g. the existence of visible objects
b. Psychological, e.g. the intention or animus of a particular
individual in doing a particular act

7. Facts in issue as distinguished from facts relevant to the

case

Facts in issue Facts relevant to the issue

Those facts the truth or existence of
which the right or liability to be
ascertained in the proceeding
depends
Facts from the existence of which
inference as to the truth or
existence of the right or liability to
be ascertained may logically be
drawn
8. Collateral facts defined

Those facts which are outside of the controversy, or are not

directly connected with the principal matter in issue in dispute, as
indicated in the pleadings of the parties.

9. Collateral facts in evidence

General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they tend to
draw away the mind of the court and to prejudice and mislead it.

Exception: Evidence on collateral matters shall be allowed when it

tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.

Relevant collateral matters:

a. Intention to commit crime
b. Motive and absence of motive
c. Circumstances preceding the crime
d. Guilty knowledge
e. Plan, design or conspiracy
f. Opportunity
g. Alibi
h. Value

10. Probability and improbability of evidential fact

The truth of any statement of fact may be considered from the

standpoint of the probability or improbability of the fact per se. Its
probability or improbability is to be measured by the degree with
which the fact as stated accords with the general experience of
mankind.

RULE 128, Sec. 3.Admissibility of evidence.

6. Requisites of admissibility of evidence.

a. Evidence is relevant to the issue

b. Evidence is competent, that is, it does not belong to that class
of evidence which is excluded by the law or the Rules of
Evidence
Cases:
People vs. Soriaga (G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011). The
non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the
making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs
confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible
in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be
inadmissible there should be a law or rule which forbids its
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be
admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be
accorded it by the courts.

BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. 168644 February 16,

2010). The testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of
respondents supposed bank account with Security Bank and the
documentary evidence represented by the checks adduced in
support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by
operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the
case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and
reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent for
qualified theft.

7. Two axioms of Admissibility

a. None but facts having rational probative value are

admissible. It prescribes that whatever is presented as
evidence shall be presented on the hypothesis that it is
calculated, according to the prevailing standards of reasoning,
to effect rational persuasion.

b. All facts having rational probative value are

admissible, unless some specific rule forbids. This
principle does not mean that anything that has probative
value is admissible. But everything having a probative value is
ipso facto entitled to be assumed to be admissible, and
therefore any rule of policy which may be valid to exclude it is
a superadded and abnormal rule.
8. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from weight of
evidence

Admissibility of Evidence Weight of Evidence

The admissibility of evidence is The weight of evidence has to do

determined by its relevance and with the effect of evidence
competence. admitted, its tendency to convince
and persuade.

The admissibility of evidence does The weight of evidence is not

not depend on its weight and
sufficiency; credibility and weight
being questions of fact.
determined mathematically by
numerical superiority of witnesses
testifying to a given fact, but
depends upon its practical effect in
inducing belief on the part of the
judge trying the case.

It involves credibility of witnesses

and all inherent probabilities and
improbabilities deducible from the
evidence as a whole.
ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by way of defense, he
attempts to establish an alibi.
1. His mother testifies that he was at home in bed at the
time the murder was committed; or
2. A distinguished physician testifies that he was attending
the defendant in his home at the time the murder was
committed.

As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally admissible. But
it is likely that the court would give greater weight to the
testimony of a disinterested physician than of a mother, who
might be expected to commit perjury in an effort to save her son.

Case:
 Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011).
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or not
the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all. On the
other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not it proves an issue.

9. Types of Admissibility

A. Multiple Admissibility of Evidence.

When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as

it satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its
failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it if
offered for another purpose does not exclude it.

B. Conditional Admissibility of Evidence.

Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected under the

issues that the relevancy of one depends upon another not yet
received, and the party is unable to introduce them both at the
same moment, the offering counsel may be required by the court as
a condition precedent (1) to state the supposed connecting facts,
and (2) to promise to give the evidence later.

Effect if condition precedent is not fulfilled:

Upon motion by the opposite party, the court may strike
out the evidence thus conditionally admitted

C. Curative Admissibility of Evidence.

Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one party and

received without objection and the opponents afterwards, for the
purpose of negativing or explaining or otherwise counteracting,
offers a fact similarly inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it
serves to remove an unfair effect upon the court which might
otherwise ensue from the original fact.
10. Rules of Exclusion and Exclusionary
Rules

Rules of Exclusion Exclusionary Rules

Governed by the rules of evidence Evidence excluded by the

Constitution

Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19,
2004). Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
1993 only provides for sanctions against persons violating the
rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state
that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would
render said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand,
the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of
evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and
seizures.Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the
exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question, said
public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be
properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this
administrative case against the respondent.

G. Admissibility of Telephone Conversations.

Unless otherwise objectionable, a telephone conversation between

a witness and another person is admissible in any case in which a
face to face conversation between a witness and another person
would be admissible in evidence, provided that the identity of the
person with whom the witness was speaking is satisfactorily
established, but not otherwise.

Proof of Identity through witness recognition of the

voice of the person with whom he was speaking, however,
it may be established by means other than the recognition
of the voice.
H. Admissibility of radio broadcast.

Evidence of a message or a speech by means of radio broadcast is

admissible as evidence when the identity of the speaker is
established by the following:
By the testimony of a witness who saw him broadcast
his message or speech
By the witness recognition of the voice of the speaker

I. Admissibility of wiretapping and tape recordings.

Recording of conversations, statement, confessions, speech, and

the sounds of various kinds, are admissible in evidence, subject of
course, to the general rules relating to hearsay, best evidence,
relevancy, privilege and the like, and subject to the proper
authentication by foundation testimony.

3. The wiretapping and other related violations of the privacy of

communications are prohibited and penalized by Republic Act No.
4200.

REPUBLIC ACT 4200, ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT

D. UNLAWFUL ACTS
4. Section 1, par 1.
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by
all the parties to any private communication or spoken
word,
to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described
5. Section 1, par 2.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant
or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding
sentence,
to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc
record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured either before or
 after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited
by this law; or
to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to
communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person

Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof

as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of
offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be
covered by this prohibition.

6. Section 2.
Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid,
permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be
unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the
provisions of the following section or of any order issued
thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation.

E. EXEMPTED ACTS
3. Section 3, par 1.Any peace officer, who is authorized by a
written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts
declared to be unlawful in cases involving:
crimes of treason,
espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy,
mutiny in the high seas,
rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion,
sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national security

Requirements:
That such written order shall only be issued or granted
upon written application and the examination under
 oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses
he may produce and a showing:
1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that
any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is about to be
committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving
the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition,
such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof
that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be,
have actually been or are being committed;
2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that
evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of
any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention
of, any of such crimes; and
3. That there are no other means readily available for
obtaining such evidence.

4. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and

Recording of Communications.
(Section 7, Republic Act No. 9372, Human security Act)
The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping
Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law
enforcement official and the members of his team may,
upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to,
intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind
or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or
intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any
other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
communication, message, conversation, discussion, or
spoken or written words between members of a judicially
declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association,
or group of persons or of any person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism.

Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of

communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and
patients, journalists and their sources and confidential
business correspondence shall not be authorized.
 F. Admissibility

Any communication or spoken word, or the existence,

contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same
or any part thereof, or any information therein contained
obtained or secured by any person in violation of the
preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation. (Section 4, R. A.
4200)

Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112.The law refers to a

tap of wire or cable or the use of a device or arrangement for
the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording
the communication The extension telephone cannot be placed
in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or the other
devices enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use
thereof cannot be considered as tapping the wire not installed
for that purpose.

4. Requisites to be established before a recording of conversation

can be given probative value:
h. A showing that the recording device was capable of taking
testimony;
i. A showing that the operator of the device was competent;
j. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the
recording;
k. A showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not
been made;
l. A showing of manner of the preservation of the recording;
m. Identification of the speakers; and
n. A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made
without any kind of inducement

J. Admissibility of evidence illegally seized.

Rights protected under Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987

Constitution:
5. Right against unreasonable search and seizure. ( Sec. 2)
6. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication ( Sec.
3)
 7. Right of a person under investigation for an offense (Sec.
12)
8. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17)

Case:
Ambre vs. People (G.R. No. 191532 August 15,
2012).Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a
search and seizure must be carried out through or on the
strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of
probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes
"unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional
provision. Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of
such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should
be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In
the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.

This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid

proscription. One of the recognized exception established by
jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest. In this
exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the
search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.

K. Admissibility of Electronic Documents.

An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:
3. It complies with the Rules on admissibility prescribed by the
Rules and related laws; and
4. It is authenticated in the manner by the Rules on Electronic
Evidence

L. Scientific Detection Devices.

6. Lie detector
7. Speed detection and recording devices
8. Chemical tests for drunkenness
9. Truth serums and hypnosis
10. Blood grouping tests

RULE 128, Section 4.Relevancy; Collateral maters.

11. Relevancy of Evidence

 c. Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue;
or to a fact which, by the process of logic, an inference may
be made as to the existence or non-existence of a fact in
issue.
d. Evidentiary facts are relevant where there is such rational and
logical connection between them and the matter in issue that
proof of the former logically tends to make the latter more
probable or improbable, that is, where the facts offered in
evidence have a legitimate tendency to establish the truth
concerning a controversial issue.

Case:
Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005).Evidence
is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not
otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is
relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule
130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony,
provides that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown
to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not pose
any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as
evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed
"when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

12. Test of Relevancy

a. Every fact or circumstance tending to throw light on the issue

is logically inferable
b. Any circumstance is relevant from which tends to make the
proposition at issue more or less probable, or which is
calculated to explain or establish facts pertinent to the inquiry
c. The test is whether the evidence conduces to the proof of a
pertinent hypothesis being one which, if sustained, would
logically influence the issue
d. Facts are relevant if they fairly tend to prove the offense
charged
 e. The test is the connection between the fact proved and the
offense charged.

13. Relevancy does not generally depend upon its source.

Whether evidence offered is relevant does not, as a general rule,

depend upon its source. Neither does relevancy depend upon the
importance or weight of the evidence, weight being a matter for the
court.

14. Logical relevancy distinguished form legal relevancy

Logical relevancy Legal Relevancy

Means that evidence must be
absolutely essential to the fact in
issue.
The main condition of admissibility
Requires a higher standard of
evidentiary force and includes logical
relevancy.
All rules excluding evidence which is
logically relevant are exceptions to
the general rule.
The attribute of all those logically
relevant matters which are not
declared inadmissible by one or more
of the excluding rules.

Case:
People vs. Yatar (G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004).
Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly
established evidence and never on mere conjectures or
suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes
"something more than a minimum of probative value,"
suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must contain a "plus
value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from
being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence
without "plus value" may be logically relevant but not legally
sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court to
 balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely
harm that would result from its admission.

15. Issue defined.

It is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the

pleadings which one side affirms, and the other denies. Issues arise
upon the pleading where a fact or conclusion of law is maintained
by one party, and is controverted by the other.

16. Fact defined

It is a thing done, or existing. Facts are thus either:

c. Physical, e.g. the existence of visible objects
d. Psychological, e.g. the intention or animus of a particular
individual in doing a particular act

17. Facts in issue as distinguished from facts relevant to the

case

Facts in issue Facts relevant to the issue

Those facts the truth or existence of
which the right or liability to be
ascertained in the proceeding
depends
Facts from the existence of which
inference as to the truth or
existence of the right or liability to
be ascertained may logically be
drawn

18. Collateral facts defined

Those facts which are outside of the controversy, or are not

directly connected with the principal matter in issue in dispute, as
indicated in the pleadings of the parties.

19. Collateral facts in evidence

General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they tend to
draw away the mind of the court and to prejudice and mislead it.
 Exception: Evidence on collateral matters shall be allowed when it
tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.

Relevant collateral matters:

i. Intention to commit crime
j. Motive and absence of motive
k. Circumstances preceding the crime
l. Guilty knowledge
m. Plan, design or conspiracy
n. Opportunity
o. Alibi
p. Value

20. Probability and improbability of evidential fact

The truth of any statement of fact may be considered from the

standpoint of the probability or improbability of the fact per se. Its
probability or improbability is to be measured by the degree with
which the fact as stated accords with the general experience of
mankind.

G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLLY SORIAGA y STO.

DOMINGO

For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule

which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the
evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary
weight that will be accorded it by the courts.

FACTS:

Pursuant to a buy-bust operation conducted by the police, Soriaga was

placed under arrest and brought to the office of the Anti-illegal Drugs
Special Operation Task Force. The evidence seized was turned over to
police investigator PO2 Reynaldo Juan. An examination was conducted
on the contents of the plastic sachet which tested positive for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.Soriaga was charged with Violation
of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165. In addition to the above-mentioned
charge, Soriaga was indicted for illegal use of dangerous drugs under
Section 15, Article II, also of R.A. No. 9165. The trial court rendered a
decision acquitting Soriaga of this charge of illegal use of dangerous
drugs but finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
illegally selling dangerous drugs. Soriaga appealed the decision
arguing that that buy-bust team failed to comply with the requisites of
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules
requiring the immediate inventory and photograph of the items seized
in the buy-bust operation. Further, Soriaga proceeds to question the
chain of custody of the seized shabu.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the non-compliance with the prescribed procedures in

the inventory of seized drugs render the items seized or confiscated
inadmissible as evidence.

HELD:

No. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and

means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In this jurisdiction,
the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method
of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional
and legal safeguards is undertaken."

The that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the

making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs
confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in
evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence
is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a
law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule,
the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight
that will be accorded it by the courts.

There is no provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will

bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized
drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not
of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value
to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said
evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.

G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010

BSB GROUP, INC., represented by its President, Mr. RICARDO
BANGAYAN, vs.
SALLY GO a.k.a. SALLY GO-BANGAYAN

The testimony and the documentary evidence presented are

not only incompetent for being excluded by operation of R.A.
No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as
they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable
connection to the prosecution of respondent for qualified
theft.

FACTS:

Respondent Sally Go, cashier of petioner BSB Group, Inc. was charged
with qualified theft. On the premise that respondent had allegedly
encashed the subject checks and deposited the corresponding
amounts thereof to her personal banking account, the prosecution
moved for the issuance of subpoena ducestecum /ad testificandum
against the respective managers or records custodians of Security
Bank and Metrobank which was granted by the trial court. The
prosecution was able to present in court the testimony of
ElenitaMarasigan, the representative of Security Bank whose testimony
sought to prove that respondent, while engaged as cashier at the BSB
Group, Inc., was able to run away with the checks issued to the
company by its customers, endorse the same, and credit the
corresponding amounts to her personal deposit account with Security
Bank. In the course of the testimony, the subject checks were
presented to Marasigan for identification and marking as the same
checks received by respondent, endorsed, and then deposited in her
personal account with Security Bank. But before the testimony could
be completed, respondent filed a Motion to Suppress, seeking the
exclusion of Marasigans testimony and accompanying documents thus
far received, bearing on the subject Security Bank account. This time
respondent invokes, in addition to irrelevancy, the privilege of
confidentiality under R.A. No. 1405. The trial court in its order denied
respondents motion to suppress.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the testimony of Marasigan and the accompanying

documents are irrelevant to the case, and whether they are also
violative of the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits and,
hence, excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405.

HELD:

Yes. In taking exclusion from the coverage of the confidentiality rule,

petitioner in the instant case posits that the account maintained by
respondent with Security Bank contains the proceeds of the checks
that she has fraudulently appropriated to herself and, thus, falls under
one of the exceptions in Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 that the money
kept in said account is the subject matter in litigation. What indeed
constitutes the subject matter in litigation in relation to Section 2 of
R.A. No. 1405 has been pointedly and amply addressed in Union Bank
of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, in which the Court noted that the
inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No. 1405 must be
premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself
the subject of the action. Given this perspective, the subject matter of
the action in the case at bar is to be determined from the indictment
that charges respondent with the offense, and not from the evidence
sought by the prosecution to be admitted into the records. In the
criminal Information filed with the trial court, respondent, unqualifiedly
and in plain language, is charged with qualified theft by abusing
petitioners trust and confidence and stealing cash. The said
Information makes no factual allegation that in some material way
involves the checks subject of the testimonial and documentary
evidence sought to be suppressed. Neither do the allegations in said
Information make mention of the supposed bank account in which the
funds represented by the checks have allegedly been kept. It comes
clear that the admission of testimonial and documentary evidence
relative to respondents Security Bank account serves no other
purpose than to establish the existence of such account, its nature and
the amount kept in it. It constitutes an attempt by the prosecution at
an impermissible inquiry into a bank deposit account the privacy and
confidentiality of which is protected by law. On this score alone, the
objection posed by respondent in her motion to suppress should have
indeed put an end to the controversy at the very first instance it was
raised before the trial court. In sum, the Court holds that the testimony
of Marasigan on the particulars of respondents supposed bank account
with Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the
checks adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for being
excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to
the case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and
reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent for qualified
theft.

G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011

RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA, vs. BOARD OF MEDICINE and EDITHA
SIOSON

Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or not

the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all. On the
other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not it proves an issue.

FACTS:

A complaint for gross negligence was filed before the Board of

Medicine against the doctors, including the petitioner Atienza, who
allegedly participated in the fateful kidney operation which led to the
removal of the private respondents functional right kidney instead of
the left non-functioning kidney. The complaint was heard by the BOM.
Private respondent Editha filed her formal offer of documentary
evidence, which is offered for the purpose of proving that her kidneys
were both in proper anatomical locations at the time she was operated.
Petitioner objected to the formal offer of exhibits alleging that they are
inadmissible because the same are mere photocopies, not properly
identified and authenticated, and intended to establish matters which
are hearsay and incompetent to prove the purpose for which they are
offered. However, the BOM admitted the documentary exhibits. A
motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but was denied
by the BOM. Hence, a petition for certiorari was filed before the Court
of Appeals but was dismissed by the Court.Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the documentary exhibits are inadmissible as evidence

and incompetent?

HELD:

No. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of PNOC Shipping and
Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals, admissibility of evidence is
distinguished from probative weight of evidence, as:
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or
not the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all.
On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to
the question of whether or not it proves an issue.

The fact sought to be established by the admission of Edithas exhibits,

that her "kidneys were both in their proper anatomical locations at the
time" of her operation, need not be proved as it is covered by
mandatory judicial notice. The rules of evidence are merely the means
for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact. Thus, they
likewise provide for some facts which are established and need not be
proved, such as those covered by judicial notice, both mandatory and
discretionary. Laws of nature involving the physical sciences,
specifically biology, include the structural make-up and composition of
living things such as human beings. In this case, the Court may take
judicial notice that Edithas kidneys before, and at the time of, her
operation, as with most human beings, were in their proper anatomical
locations.

ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19, 2004

PEDRO G. TOLENTINO vs. ATTY. NORBERTO M. MENDOZA

Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993
and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the
exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question,
said public documents are, therefore, admissible as evidence.

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Norberto M. Mendoza was administratively charged

with Grossly Immoral Conduct and Gross Misconduct. Complainants
alleged that respondent, a former Municipal Trial Court Judge,
abandoned his legal wife, Felicitas V. Valderia in favor of his paramour,
Marilyn delaFuente, who is, in turn, married to one Ramon G. Marcos.
On the other hand, respondent averred that complainants illegally
procured copies of the birth certificates of his alleged daughters Mara
KhrisnaCharminadelaFuente Mendoza and
MyrraKhrisnaNorminadelaFuente Mendoza, in violation of Rule 24,
Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993, thus, such documents are
inadmissible in evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not birth certificates are inadmissible in evidence for

having been obtained in violation of Rule 24, Administrative Order No.
1, series of 1993 which provides for strict confidentiality of a persons
birth record.

HELD:

No. Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that
"evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules." There could be no dispute that the
subject birth certificates are relevant to the issue. The only question,
therefore, is whether the law or the rules provide for the inadmissibility
of said birth certificates allegedly for having been obtained in violation
of Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993.

Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only
provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule on
confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state that
procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render said
records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules
of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained
as a result of illegal searches and seizures. It should be emphasized;
however, that said rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is
meant only to protect a person from interference by the government or
the state.

Consequently, in this case where complainants, as private individuals,

obtained the subject birth records as evidence against respondent, the
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply.

Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the
Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from
evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents
are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into
consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against
respondent.

G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012

MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid

proscription. One of the recognized exception established by
jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest.

FACTS:

Ambre was charged with the crime of violation of Section 15, Article II
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. From the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses, it appeared that on April 20, 2005, the Caloocan Police
Station Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Unit conducted a buy-bust
operation pursuant to a tip from a police, the buy-bust operation
resulted in the arrest of Ambre having pot session, in particular, was
caught sniffing what was suspected to be shabu in a rolled up
aluminum foil. The trial court rendered its decision declaring that the
prosecution was able to establish with certitude the guilt of Ambre for
illegal use of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or violation of Section
15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, however, acquitted Ambre on the crime
of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for failure of the
prosecution to prove with particularity the drug paraphernalia found in
her possession.

ISSUE:

Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of her person
was valid; and whether the items seized are admissible in evidence.

HELD:

Yes. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search

and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial
warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which
such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning
of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and confiscated on
the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and
should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In
the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.

This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid

proscription. One of the recognized exception established by
jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest. In this exception, the
law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person
and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if
effected with a valid warrant of arrest.

In this case, there is no gainsaying that Ambre was caught by the

police officers in the act of using shabu and, thus, can be lawfully
arrested without a warrant. His conviction stands.

G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005

ROSENDO HERRERA vs. ROSENDO ALBA

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue

and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court.
Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.

FACTS:
Thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba represented by his mother Armi Alba,
filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition,
support and damages against petitioner. Petitioner Herrera denied that
he is the biological father of respondent and denied physical contact
with respondents mother.Respondent filed a motion to direct the
taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the
proceedings.Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended
that it has not gained acceptability and further argued that DNA
paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. The trial
court granted respondents motion to conduct DNA paternity testing on
petitioner. Petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 asserting that the trial court acted "in excess
of, or without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing the order of DNA
testing, however, the petition was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a DNA test is a valid probative tool to determine

filiation and as such be admissible in evidence in a paternity suit.

HELD:

Yes. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and

is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is
relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule 130, which
governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the opinion
of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience
or training which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence.
This Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA
analysis as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is
allowed "when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue."

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts

should consider, among other things, the following data: how the
samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of
contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed
in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests. DNA analysis that excludes the putative father
from paternity should be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value
of Probability of Paternity (W) is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA
analysis should be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of
Probability of Paternity (W) is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable
presumption of paternity.

The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation
of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate
children, is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to
claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid this
investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and
technology, such evidence should be considered subject to the limits
established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.
G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"

The legal relevancy of evidence denotes "something more than

a minimum of probative value," suggesting that such
evidentiary relevance must contain a "plus value." This may be
necessary to preclude the trial court from being satisfied by
matters of slight value, capable of being exaggerated by
prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence without "plus value"
may be logically relevant but not legally sufficient to convict.

FACTS:

Joel Yatar was convicted by the trial court with rape with homicide
defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by R.A. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of
1997, and was accordingly, sentenced to Death. Pursuant to Article 47
of the revised Penal Code, an automatic review was made, the
appellant alleging that the trial court gravely erred in giving weight to
the evidence presented by the prosecution notwithstanding their
doubtfulness and thereby he should be acquitted from the crime
charged due to reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in convicting

the accused of the crime charged on the basis of circumstantial
evidence.

HELD:

No. Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a conviction,

must form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable
conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of others, is the
perpetrator of the crime. To determine whether there is sufficient
circumstantial evidence, three requisites must concur: (1) there is
more than one circumstance; (2) facts on which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly established
evidence and never on mere conjectures or suppositions. The legal
relevancy of evidence denotes "something more than a minimum of
probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must
contain a "plus value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial
court from being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence without
"plus value" may be logically relevant but not legally sufficient to
convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court to balance the probative
value of such evidence against the likely harm that would result from
its admission.

The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only when there is

relevant evidence from which the court can properly find or infer that
the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt requires moral certainty of guilt in order to sustain a
conviction. Moral certainty is that degree of certainty that convinces
and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of
those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. It is certainty
beyond reasonable doubt. This requires that the circumstances, taken
together, should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; leading, on
the whole, to a satisfactory conclusion that the accused, and no one
else, committed the offense charged. In view of the totality of evidence
appreciated thus far, we rule that the present case passes the test of
moral certainty.

However, as a matter of procedure, and for the purpose of meeting the

requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, motive is essential for
conviction when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit. Thus,
appellants motive to sexually assault and kill the victim was evident in
the instant case. It is a rule in criminal law that motive, being a state of
mind, is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or
statements of the accused before or immediately after the commission
of the offense, deeds or words that may express it or from which his
motive or reason for committing it may be inferred. Accordingly, the
Court is convinced that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Appellant sexually
assaulted KathylynUba, and by reason or on the occasion thereof, in
order to conceal his lustful deed, permanently sealed the victims lips
by stabbing her repeatedly, thereby causing her untimely demise.
RULE 129

What Need Not Be Proved

Section 1. Judicial notice, when properly take and act on without

mandatory. A court shall take proof because they already
judicial notice, without the know them.
introduction of evidence of the:

a. the existence and -It is the notice taken by

territorial extent of states; the court, without the
production of evidence, of facts,
b. their political history,
which are within common
forms of government and
knowledge and experience.
symbols of nationality;

c. the law of nations;

d. the admiralty and

maritime courts of the
world and their seals;

e. the political constitution KINDS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE

and history of the
Philippines the official acts MANDATORY DISCRETIONARY
of legislative, executive -it is - Under Sec.
and judicial departments mandatory as 2, on matters
of the Philippines; far as those which are of
matters public
f. the laws of nature; enumerated knowledge,
in Sec. 1, or are
g. the measure of time;
Rule 129; capable of
unquestionab
h. and the geographical
le
divisions.
demonstratio
Judicial Notice, defined: n, ought to
be known to
-It is the cognizance of judges
certain facts which judges may because of
 their judicial
functions.
Note: The application of the
doctrine of judicial notice is not
confined to the courts of record.
Certain special tribunals which
are not strictly courts but which
partake of their nature and the
findings of which partake of the
nature of judgments may take
judicial notice on certain
matters.
Points to Remember:
a. All courts of justice are
bound to take judicial notice of
the territorial extent of the
jurisdiction exercised by the
government the laws of which
they administer and of the
extent and boundaries of the
territory under which they
themselves can exercise
jurisdiction;
b. It is without an exception
for the court to take judicial
notice without of those great
historical events which have
affected the destiny of our
nation or other nations;
c. The rule must be taken
with the qualification that it
relates only to such
governments as have been
recognized by the home
government. The recognition of
a foreign government is a
political rather than a judicial
matter and therefore courts
follow the determination of the
executive department of the
forum;
d. In conformity to the law of
nations all courts in a
government, where that
government has recognized the
existence of a foreign nation,
but not in the absence of such
recognition will take cognizance
of the flag and great seal of that
nation or provinces;
e. Foreign law must be proved
as facts, those rules which by
common consent of mankind
have been acquiesced in as las
stand upon an entirely different
footing;
Note: It is well settled that
foreign laws do not prove
themselves in our jurisdiction
and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice
of them. Like any other fact,
they must be alleged and
proved.
f. No proof need be given of
the seals of foreign maritime
and admiralty courts. By
common consent and general
usage, the seal of a court of
admiralty has been considered 3. Judiciary The Supreme
as sufficiently authenticating its Department Court has taken
records; judicial notice of
its record in a
previous case in
g. connection with
the conduct of
Matters relating the litigant or
to: witness in a
1. Legislative Courts are similar matter.
Department bound to take
judicial notice, General Rule:
as a matter of Courts are not
law, of dates authorized to
when Congress take judicial
begins and knowledge of
closes its contents of the
session, the other cases, in
number, the adjudication
function, of cases pending
privileges of its before them,
members; even though the
trial judge in
2. Executive Courts judicially fact knows or
Department recognize all remember the
public matters contents
which will affect thereof;
the government
of the country.
On this principle, i. Courts judicially recognize
the accession all public matters which
will affect the government
and death of the
of the country. On this
sovereign and principle, the accession
principal officers and death of the
of the state are sovereign and principal
recognized; officers of the state are
recognized;
j. Judicial Notice is taken of
the familiar and
unquestionable laws of
nature and of the
 existence of fact which are facts admitted, whether
happened according to directly or impliedly, in
the course of nature; pleadings of the prosecution.(
k. Courts will judicially notice
Lopez v. Sandiganbayan, GR
the things belonging to
the almanac. Calendar of No. 103911)
the periods within the
calendar. Section 2. Judicial notice,
l. Judicial Notice is taken of when discretionary,
the fact that the generally:
Philippines is divided into
provinces, municipalities, a. Matters which are of
cities, and cities is divided public knowledge;
into lots, blocks, streets;
JURISPRUDENCE
- Judicial knowledge of facts
is measured by general
Judicial notice may be taken
knowledge of the same fact.
of petitioner's oath taking as
A fact is generally known
evidenced by a certification
when its existence or
from the Records Officer of
operation when it is accepted
the office of the Provincial
by public without
Governor. The oath taking
qualification or contention.
partakes of an official act,
while the certification is an
The doctrine of judicial notice
official act of an official of the
rests on the wisdom and
Executive Department of the
discretion of the courts. The
government.( Lopez v.
power to take judicial notice
Sandiganbayan, GR No.
is to be exercised by courts
103911)
with caution; care must be
taken that the requisite
We uphold the submission
notoriety exists; and every
that the factual defenses of
reasonable doubt on the
petitioner are matters within
subject should be promptly
the concept of mandatory
resolved in the negative.
judicial notice. While it is true
Generally speaking, matters
that, as pontificated by the
of judicial notice have three
Court a quo, factual defenses
material requisites: (1) the
on the part of the accused
matter must be one of
are evidentiary matters
common and general
which may be presented only
knowledge; (2) it must be
during trial on the merits, the
well and authoritatively
facts alleged by the accused
 settled and not doubtful or - This refers o facts,
uncertain; and (3) it must be theories and conclusions
known to be within the limits which have come to be
of the jurisdiction of the established and accepted
court. The principal guide in by the specialists in the
determining what facts may areas of natural science,
be assumed to be judicially natural phenomena,
known is that of notoriety. technology, history,
Hence, it can be said that geography, scientifically
judicial notice is limited to facts and other fields of
facts evidenced by public scientific knowledge.
records and facts of general
notoriety. (Latip vs. Chua) c. Matters ought to be
known by judges by
Things of "common knowledge," reason of their judicial
of which courts take judicial function
notice, may be matters coming
to the knowledge of men Judicial Notice of
generally in the course of the Proceedings in Another
ordinary experiences of life, or Case.
they may be matters which are
generally accepted by mankind GENERAL RULE: Court is not
as true and are capable of ready authorized to take judicial notice
and unquestioned of the contents of another case
demonstration. Thus, facts even if said case was heard by
which are universally known, he same judge.
and which may be found in
Exception:
encyclopedias, dictionaries or
other publications, are judicially
1. When in the absence of any
noticed, provided they are of
objection, with the
such universal notoriety and so
knowledge of the opposing
generally understood that they
party, the contents of said
may be regarded as forming
other case are clearly
part of the common knowledge
referred to by title and
of every person.( Latip vs. Chua,
number in a pending action
GR NO. 177809)
and adopted or read into the
record of the latter;
b. Matters capable of
Unquestionable
2. when the original record of
Demonstration
the other case or any part of
 it is actually withdrawn from PURPOSE OF
the archives at the courts HEARING
discretion upon the request,
or with the consent of the
parties and admitted as part To afford the parties
of the record of the pending reasonable opportunity
case. to present information
relevant to the
Note: Judicial notice is not propriety of taking such
judicial knowledge. The mere judicial notice or to the
personal knowledge of the tenor of the matter to
judge is not judicial be noticed.
knowledge of the court;
judicial cognizance is taken
only of those matters which TIME WHEN JUDICIAL
are commonly known. NOTICE MAY BE
TAKEN:
SECTION 3 JUDICIAL
NOTICE, WHEN HEARING
NECESSARY During trial

During the trial, the court After trial and before

on its own initiative, or on judgment
request of a party, may
announce its intention to On appeal
take judicial notice of any
In all instances, the
matter and allow the
parties to be heard court may act on its
thereon. own initiative or on
request of a party.
After the trial, and before
judgment or on appeal,
the proper court, or its JUDICIAL NOTICE
own initiative or on the TAKEN DURING
request of a party, may TRIAL
take judicial notice of any DISTINGUISHED
matter and allow the FROM THAT TAKEN
parties to be heard AFTER BUT BEFORE
thereon if such matter is JUDGMENT OR ON
decisive of a material APPEAL
issue or in the case.
 DURING TRIAL any ADMISSIONS
matter DEFINED.

AFTER TRIAL BUT

BEFORE JUDGMENT OR JUDICIAL is one made
ON APPEAL Any in the pleadings filed or
matter if such decisive in the progress of a
of a material issue in trial. It is conclusive
the case. upon the party making
them.

DETERMINATION OF EXTRA JUDICIAL

FACTS SUBJECT OF ADMISSION one made
JUDICIAL NOTICE out of court. As a rule,
is disputable except on
estoppel.
The court may refer to
appropriate and
reliable sources of
information. Where FORM OF JUDICIAL
judicial notice must be ADMISSION
taken of a fact, the
court is required to
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
pursue inquiries
MAY BE:
sufficient to make that
knowledge real as far
as possible. 1. Oral as a verbal
waiver of proof
SECTION 4 An admission,
made in open court
verbal or written, made by or a
party in the course of the 2. A withdrawal of a
proceedings in the same case, contention
does not require proof of the
admission may be contradicted 3. A disclosure made
only by showing that it was before a court
made through palpable mistake 4. Admission made by
or that no such admission was a witness in the
made. course of testimony
JUDICIAL AND EXTRA or deposition
JUDICIAL
 5. In writing as in the truth of such fact or
pleadings facts.

6. Bill of particulars

7. Stipulation of facts NO ADMISSION

ARISES WHEN
8. Request for
DEFENDANT IS
admission
ADJUDGED IN
9. Judicial admission DEFAULT.
contained in an
affidavit used in a
Such failure to answer
case.
does not amount to an
admission of the facts
CONCLUSIVENESS OF alleged in the
JUDICIAL ADMISSION complaint.

Cannot be contradicted
unless previously
shown to have been
made through a
palpable mistake or BILL OF
that no such admission PARTICULARS
was made.
Written statements in
ADMISSION IN nature of bill of
particulars, purporting
PLEADINGS
to be signed by a
partys attorney, and
May be made by an which the opposing
express party claims was
acknowledgement of delivered to his counsel
some fact or facts set as a bill of particular
forth in the pleading of was been held
the opposite party. admissible.

By failure to deny or
otherwise controvert
 VERIFIED AND ADMISSIONS IN
UNVERIFIED WITHDRAWN,
PLEADINGS SUPERSEDED OR
AMENDED PLEADING

Verification is
considered essential to The pleading which has
the admission of been withdrawn or
statements in a stricken out or
pleading against the superseded by
pleader. If a party does amendment, still
not verify, authorize or remain as statements
adopt a pleading, seriously made and are
allegations thereof are admissible in evidence,
not admissible against on behalf of the
him. opposite party as
admissions by the
pleader, where he is a
ADMISSIONS BY
party to the
ATTORNEY subsequent litigation,
where the statements
are material and
Admissions by counsel relevant to the issues
made in the trial of a in connection with
cause may be which they are sought
conclusive on the party to be introduced, and
unless withdrawn or set where, in case of a
aside by the court for pleading withdrawn by
good cause shown as leave of court, no order
mistake or lack of is made relieving the
authority. pleader from the
admissions made; and
the probative force of
such statements has
even been given a
prima facie value.

ADMISSIONS IN
STIPULATION OF
FACTS
 making the same, as
Stipulations of facts in well as on the court,
a case are agreements unless the court in its
or admissions reasonable discretion
regarding certain facts allows the concession
included in the to be later withdrawn,
litigation and are explained, or modified
conclusive between the if it appears to have
parties. Acts or facts been made by
admitted do not require improvidence or
proof and cannot be mistake.
contradicted, unless it AFFIDAVITS,
be shown that the DEPOSITIONS AND
admission was made TESTIMONY
through a palpable
mistake, for parties are
not allowed to gain say A judicial admission in
their own acts or deny an affidavit used in the
rights which they have case is admissible
previously recognized. against the party
A party may not making or adopting the
withdraw from an affidavit, and it may
agreement of facts also be admitted in
without the consent of another action to which
the other party or he is a party.
without leave of court
Statements made in a
on justifiable reasons.
deposition, relevant to
the issues, may be
BINDING EFFECT OF admitted against the
STIPULATION OF deponent as
FACTS admissions against the
interest in the same or
another action to which
A concession or he is a party, even
stipulation as to a fact though he is present in
made for the purpose court and able to
of trial has the force testify, or has testified
and effect of an
established fact The testimony given by
binding on the party or for a party at the
 trial of a case may be have been made
used against him as an through palpable
admission in the same, mistake.
or on a subsequent
trial, or even in another
STIPULATION OF
action, provided such
testimony is material FACTS IN CRIMINAL
and relevant. CASES

It is not proper to
PROOF OF
consider a case closed,
ADMISSION IN or to render judgment
PLEADING, therein, by virtue of an
AFFIDAVIT OR agreement entered into
DEPOSITION between the fiscal and
counsel for the accused
Where a pleading, with reference to facts
affidavit or deposition some of which are
is offered in evidence, favorable to the
the statements relied defense, and others
on as admissions and related to the
the qualifying prosecution, without
statements must be any evidence being
construed together. adduced or testimony
The party offering taken from the
written admissions is witnesses mentioned in
not stopped to disprove the agreement; such
them. practice is not
authorized and defeats
the purposes of the
COMPROMISE criminal law.
AGREEMENT -
JUDICIAL ADMISSION
A judicial admission in OF A FACT
a compromise DISTINGUISHED
agreement submitted FROM AN
to the court cannot be ADMISSION THAT A
contradicted unless CERTAIN WITNESS, IF
previously shown to CALLED, WOULD SO
TESTIFY.
 explanations, or view would be
In the first case, there unreasonable expensive or
is a judicial admission cause unreasonable delay, or
of the facts, and they serve no useful purpose, unless
cannot be contradicted. here appears a clear abuse of
In the second case, it discretion.
will only have the same
effect as if the witness DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
had testified to the
facts. Such testimony Section 2 Documentary
evidence
of the party is free to
contradict. DOCUMENT any substance
Constitutional Right not having any matter expressed or
violated by inspection of described upon it by marks
scene of crime, provided that capable of
the same is with consent of and being read. If it is produced
accompanied by counsel for the without regard to the message
which it contains, it is treated as
accused, it further appearing
real evidence.
that no evidence was taken
during the inspection. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
evidence supplied by written
Information obtained on a instruments, or derived from the
view is independent conventional symbols, such as
evidence to be taken into letters, by which ideas are
consideration by the curt in represented on material
substances; documents;
determining the issues in the
documents produced for the
case. inspection of the court or judge.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
Order denying or granting DOCUEMNTARY EVIDENCE-
view not reviewable when it subject to the same basic rules
appears that the condition of on relevancy, materiality,
the premises or property has exclusionary rules and court
discretion as determined by the
changed since the time of
issues in the particular case.
occurrence in issue and before Identity and authenticity of the
the demand for a view, or that document must be reasonably
the facts involved are such that established as a pre-requisite to
they can be accurately its admission.
described to the court by oral
testimony, or by the use of IMPORTANT RULES ON
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
maps or diagrams with proper
 1. Best Evidence Rule applicable to external or
2. Rule on Secondary collateral facts about the
Evidence document such as its existence,
3. Parol Evidence Rule execution or delivery.
4. Rule on Authentication
and Proof of People v. Tandoy
Documents (1990)
5. Inadmissibility of The Best Evidence Rule applies
written document in an only when the contents of the
unofficial language document are the subject of
unless translated in inquiry. It does not apply when
English and Filipino the issue is only as to whether
or not such document was
1. Best Evidence Rule actually executed or in the
circumstances relevant to its
BEST EVIDENCE or PRIMARY execution. An objection by the
EVIDENCE- particular means of party against whom secondary
proof which is indicated by the evidence is sought to be
introduced is essential to bring
nature of the fact under
the best evidence rule into
investigation as the most application. Where secondary
natural and satisfactory that evidence has been admitted,
affords the greatest certainty of the rule of evidence might have
the fact in question and on its been successfully invoked if
face indicates that no better proper and timely objection had
evidence remains behind. been taken

BEST EVIDENCE RULE - is WHAT CONSTITUTES THE

that rule which requires the ORIGINAL:
(a) The original of the
highest grade of evidence
document is one the
obtainable to prove a
contents of which are the
disputed fact.
subject of inquiry;
Purpose of the rule requiring
the production of the best (b) When a document is in
evidence: prevention of fraud, two or more copies
because if the best evidence is executed at or about the
not presented then the same time, with identical
presumption of suppression of
contents, all such copies
evidence will be present.
Best evidence rule applies are equally regarded as
only when originals; and
the purpose of the proof is t
o establish the terms of (c) When an entry is
writing, therefore NOT repeated in the regular
 course of business, one as to entitle the writing to be
being copied from another admitted in evidence, and it
at or near the time of the must be available to the
transaction, all the entries opposite party for cross-
are likewise equally examination.
regarded as originals.
Best Evidence Rule in
Criminal Cases- In criminal
Note: cases, where the issue is not
> Original may depend on only with respect to the
the substantive law contents of the document but
applicable also as to whether such
> Original may depend on document actually existed, the
the act of the parties original itself must be
>where there may be presented.
duplicate original, either is
an original ad may be
used without accounting US vs Gregorio
for another 17 Phil 522
>Whenever a document is For only only presenting the
executed in several parts, each Xerox copy of the falsified
part is a primary evidence documents, prosecution failed to
> Whenever a document prove the corpus delicti of the
is executed in counterpart, crime charged. In the absence
each part executed by one of the original document, it Is
or more of the parties improper to conclude, with only
only, each counterpart is copy of the said original in view,
primary evidence as that there has been a
against the parties who falsification of the document
executed it which was neither found nor
exhibited, because in such a
People vs Sto. Tomas case, even the existence of such
138 SCRA 206 document may be doubted.
The trial court correctly rejected
the xerox copy of the marriage Non-production of the
certificate, since the admission original document unless
would violate the best evidence justified in Section 3, gives rise
rule. to the presumption of
suppression of evidence.
For the application of the
best evidence, it is essential Amended Documents- where
that: a duplicate or copy is amended
the original writing or if it is a or altered by the party or
private document, be first duly parties, it becomes the original.
identified, and a sufficient and a
sufficient foundation be laid, so
Document executed in two as sent by the
or more identical contents sender- the original
each one of the parts is primary is the message
evidence and the other need not delivered
be proved. if the issue is the
inaccuracy of
Mechanically reproduced transmission,
copies: both telegrams as
a) Carbon copy- sent and received
admissible as duplicate are originals
original when executed e) Letter press copies-
at the same time or merely secondary
about the same time. evidence as its prone
Imperfect carbon to improper
copies, although made reproduction and are
at the same time as the not produced
original but if there is simultaneously as the
something else to be original
done for it to be f) Thermofax- merely
binding or there is secondary evidence as
incomplete signature, it lacks satisfactory
its not the best reproduction as some
evidence. portions are not clearly
b) Reproduction from the printed
same matrix i.e. g) Photographs and Xerox-
mimeograph, merely secondary
hectograph- admissible evidence since they are
as duplicate original reproduced at a latter
when produced from time but if
the same matrix as authenticated
original photostatic copy of
c) Blueprints and vellum income tax returns,
tracings- have been public and business
held to be originals records are allowed as
rather than copies evidence
d) Telegraph and cable
messages-
if the issue is the
contents of the
telegram
as received by the
addressee- then the
original dispatch is
the copy of the
message sent to the
addressee;
 People vs defendant objected to this
Mangulabnan evidence, which objection was
52 OG 6532 sustained. Petitioner contends
At the trial, presented as
that the exhibits in question are
evidence a post-mortem report
of the injuries received by the the best evidence of the libel,
deceased. This was admitted the subject matter of the
over the objection of the information, and should
accused, who contend that a therefore be admitted.
mere carbon copy is
inadmissible. The court ruled Issue: Whether the exhibits are
that the fact the post-mortem admissible.
report is a mere carbon copy is
also of no moment for it has
Ruling: The rule of procedure
been signed by the physician
who executed the same and his which requires the production of
signature was identified b him at the best evidence, is applicable
the witness stand. to the present case. And
certainly the copies of the
weekly where the libelous article
Provincial Fiscal of was published, and its
Pampanga vs Reyes
translation, constitute the best
August 5, 1931
The provincial fiscal of evidence of the libel charged.
Pampanga filed two informations The newspaper itself is the best
for libel against Guevarra. The evidence of an article published
informations alleged that the in it.
defendant, with malicious
Thus if the issue is the contents
intent, published on page 9 of
of the articles sent for
the weekly paper Ing
publication, the best evidence is
Magumasid. The defendant
the manuscript. But is if issue is
demurred on the ground of
on what was actually published,
duplicity of informations, he
then the best evidence is the
having published only one
copy of the news paper.
libelous article in the Ing
Magumasid for July 13,
Respondent judge of the CFI
1930. The fiscal attempted to
was required to admit Exhibits
present as evidence for the
A, B, C, and D, in question.
prosecution Exhibits A, B, C, and
D, which are copies of the Ing Manchester & Lawrence vs
Magumasid containing the Fisk
libelous article with the (1856)
innuendo. Counsel for the
A copy of the standard tariff rate
posted at the railway depots,
the court held them to be the
best evidence in an action over
a railway freight charge as each
of the printed copies as original
and the whole of the natre of
duplicates, so that the proof of
anyone would be competent
evidence of the contents of the
whole; there being necessary in
the whole nature of the process
of printing strong presumptive
evidence that the impression
from the same types must be
similar.
Section 3. Original
document must be
produced; exceptions
GENERAL RULE: when the
subject of the inquiry is the
contents of the document, the
original document must be
produced.
EXCEPTIONS: When
secondary evidence be
admitted
1. When the original has been
lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
2. 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;
3. When the original consists of
numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be
examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought
to be established from them is
only the general result of the
whole; and
4. When the original is a public
record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public
office
Compania Maritima vs Allied
Free Workers Union
77 SCRA 24 (1977)
Facts: In 1952, Compania
Maritima (CM) and Allied Free
Workers Union (AFWU) entered
into a written contract whereby
the Union agreed to perform
arrastre and stevedoring work in
Iligan, effective for one month.
It was stipulated that the
Company would revoke the
contract before the expiration of
the agreed term, if the Union
failed to render proper service.
After a month, the contract was
verbally renewed. In 1954, the
Union sent a letter to CM
requesting to recognize it as the
exclusive bargaining unit, to
load and unload he cargo of its
vessels in Iligan. CM ignored the
request. The Union
subsequently filed in CIR a
petition for certification election.
Despite the certification case,
CM sent notice to the Union for
termination of their contract and
entered into a new contract with
another stevedoring association.
CM assailed that the termination
of the contract was due to Union
workers inefficiency and that
the Company suffered financial
losses due to such service. To
ascertain its annual losses, CMs
manager hired auditors. CM
relied only upon such auditors
report and presented in court
only a summary of damages.
The sales invoices were not
produced.
Issue: WON the non-submission
as evidence of the records of
the alleged losses of the
Company is excused because of
the rule exempting voluminous
records from being produced in
court.
Ruling: The best evidence of the
Companys losses would have
been the sales invoices instead
of the Manager oral testimony.
The rule that 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 in only the general
result of the whole, the original
writings need not be produce,
CANNOT BE APPLIED because
the voluminous character f the
records was NOT DULY
ESTABLISHED. It is also a
requisite for the application of
the rule that the records of
accounts should be made
accessible to the adverse party
so that the correctness of the
summary may be tested on
cross-examination.
When an entry is repeated in
the regular course of
business, one being copied
from another at or near the time
of the transaction, all the entries
are regarded as originals. For as
long as they are made within
reasonable time, it is sufficient.
A much longer but reasonable
delay and when entries appear
to have been made while the
memory as to the transaction as
clear or the source of such
knowledge was unimpaired, still
makes it admissible.
However, a book of account
containing only a single entry,
or charge of money lent, which
show no mutual recourse of
dealing between the parties, is
not admissible.
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. OBJECT (REAL
EVIDENCE)
SECTION 1, RULE 130
Object as evidence
object as evidence are
those addressed to the
senses of the court. When
an object is relevant to the
fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to, examined or
viewed by the court.
Source This provision is
a reproduction of Section 1, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court with
the following differences:
a. The title of the section View
of an object, has been
changed to Object as
evidence, in the present
provision;
b. The phrases as to afford
reasonable grounds of belief
respecting the latter; such
object; or its existence,
situation, condition, or
character proved by
witnesses, as the court in its
discretion may determine;
and has such a relation,
have been deleted in the
present provision;
c. The phrase Objects as
evidence are those
addressed to the senses of
the court and the words is
relevant; it; examined not limited to that which may be
have been added in the
present provision.
Object (real) evidence
defined Object (real)
evidence is that which is
addressed to the senses of
the tribunal, as where objects
are presented for the
inspection of the court.
Object (real) evidence may
consist of articles or persons,
which may be exhibited inside
or outside the courtroom; it may
also consist in the mere
inspection of an object; or in an
experiment.
Scope of object (real)
evidence -- This source of
persuasion has been resorted to
in a great number of instances.
A witness may use his own
body, or an article, to illustrate
or explain the evidence. In the
same way counsels, to show its
meaning on their theory of the
case, may make any use of the
court room or furniture; and it
has also been held permissible
to use the furniture from the
room where a crime was
committed, arranged so as to
illustrate the testimony of a
witness.
Object (real) evidence is
known by the sense of vision; it
extends to what is perceived by
the senses of hearing, taste,
smell or touch. Any article
made important by the evidence
or by the nature of the
investigation may be produced
for inspection, or where the
circumstances are such that it
cannot be or should not be
brought to the court, it may be
inspected at the place where it
is to be found. Inspection
evidence of this character may
range over any line of human
activity, as building or
mechanical trades, the medical
or surgical profession, or
nautical affairs. A frequent
application of the rule is found
in the production of the tools or
implements with which as
certain act was, or is claimed to
have been worn by a person at
the time of an occurrence in
controversy.
Where properly identified
and where relevant to a material
issue, objects such as the e. In homicide, the bones
following have been received in
evidence:
a. In abortion cases, the
instrument or medicine
with which the crime
was committed, and
the clothing of the
victim;
b. In arson, articles used
in starting the fire, and f. In theft cases, the
burned objects;
c. In any case where a
weapon is used, the
weapon, including, if it
is a firearm, bullets and g. In a hit-and-run case,
shells; weapons other
than the one used, to
show intent; weapons
found on or near the
victim, to show self-
defense;
h. In a drunken driving
d. In cases involving an
assault or a homicide,
the clothing of the
victim to show the
location of wounds, the
manner or means of
death, the relative
positions of the victim
and his assailant or the
distance between
them, or to throw light
on any material issue;
also the clothing of the
victims companion
where relevant;
or flesh of the victim,
to show the character
and location of wounds
(it is within the courts
discretion to order the
victims skull exhumed
so it may be offered in
evidence); objects used
to help hide the body;
stolen goods, burglars
tools, other objects
which help accomplish
the theft;
headlight glass partly
recovered from the
scene and partly from
the garage where
repairs were made;
case, liquor, tools to aid
in its manufacture,
marked money used in
its purchase;
i. In liquor cases, the
liquor, tools to aid in its
manufacture, marked
money used in its
purchase;
j. In narcotics trials, the
drug, a drug container,
the syringe, needle and
spoon, marked money
used to purchase the
drug;
k. In fraud and cheating
cases, any object which
shows how the result
was accomplished;
l. In counterfeiting; the
counterfeiting machine;
m. In gambling cases, the
gambling
paraphernalia;
n. In rape, any weapon
used to subdue or
intimidate the victim,
the clothing of the
victim, the clothing of
the accused;
o. In sex cases other than
rape, objects which
throw light on the
crime;
p. The clothing of the
accused, to identify
him or to throw light on
other issues;
q. Any object which is
used in accomplishing
the crime;
r. Drawings and maps
which help explain the
crime or the
defendants escape
route;
s. Objects which illustrate
a consciousness of guilt
on defendants part;
t. Objects which
corroborate or illustrate
verbal testimony.
Reason for
admissibility of object (real)
evidence to a rational man of
perfect organization the best
and highest proof of which any
fact is susceptible is the
evidence of his senses. This is
the ultimate test of truth, and is
therefore the first principle in
the philosophy of evidence.
Hence, the evidence of ones
own senses, furnishes the
strongest probability and indeed
the perfect and indubitable
certainty of the existence of any
sensible fact.
Physical evidence is
evidence of the highest order. It
speaks more eloquently than a
hundred witnesses.
 Requisites for improper where the fact of
admissibility of object (real) injury was uncontroverted.
evidence an object may be The present condition of
exhibited, examined or viewed an object offered may not be the
by the court when (1) it is same as to be proper evidence
relevant to the fact in issue, and of its former condition;
(2) the present condition of the accordingly, autoptic preference
object is the same at the time in is allowable only on the
issue. assumption that the condition is
the same or sufficiently similar.
Experiments to show the
If, by some principle of quality or operation of a
relevancy, a fact offered to be substance, a machine, etc., are
shown is not admissible, often excluded because of the
because irrelevant, it cannot be dissimilarity of circumstances or
shown, either in this or in any because of probable confusion
other way. For example, of issues; and for this reason the
whether a persons color is exhibition of such experiments
black or white is best before the tribunal may of
ascertained by inspecting the course be forbidden.
person; but if his color when As a general rule it seems
ascertained would be irrelevant essential that articles shown to
for the purpose concerned, an the court be connected, at least
inspection to learn his color prima facie, with the crime in
would obviously be issue. An article of personal
unnecessary, and therefore property, the relevancy of which
improper. Thus, his color might has been shown by its
be relevant to show his race- identification with the subject-
ancestry, but not to show his matter of the crime, may be
state of health; in the former exhibited in the courtroom,
case inspection would be whether as direct evidence of a
allowed in the latter case not, relevant fact, or to enable them
the ruling in each instance to understand the evidence or
depending on the admissibility to realize more completely its
of the fact shown by inspection. cogency and force, or to assist
In a large number of instances the court in solving a material,
this is the real question. controverted or doubtful point.
Admission of clothing Admission of visual, exhibitive or
worn by plaintiff at time of demonstrative evidence is much
accident has been held within the discretion of the
court, and the extent of
identification of such articles
necessary before admission
varies with circumstances. The
court may inspect and smell the
contents of a bottle properly
identified and admitted in
evidence. Comparison of
materials may also be made by
the court, aided by the evidence
of expert witnesses. So in case
the quality of an article, or its
adaptability to a specific use or
purpose, is in issue, a sample
may be shown to the court,
together with a specimen of a
like material which is shown to
be of good quality or adapted to
the required purpose, and the
court may then make a indecency. Where an arm or a
comparison to ascertain
possible points of difference.
Exhibition of person
Trial courts, in actions to recover
damages, have an inherent
discretionary power to order a
reasonable physical examination
of the plaintiff to be made
before trial by competent
physicians and surgeons
whenever such examination is
necessary to ascertain the
nature, extent, or permanency
of alleged injuries. Trial courts
also are generally deemed to
have power to compel the
exhibition of the plaintiffs
person, under proper
restrictions, in the trial of a
personal-injury action; and it is
within the discretion of the trial
judge, when the physical
condition of a party is in
question, as in personal-injury
actions, to permit the injured
party to exhibit his person to the
court in order to show the
extent and nature of his injury.
Such exhibitions of part of the
plaintiffs person are often
permitted without objections.
Under the rule stated, the
plaintiff may be permitted to
exhibit an arm, hand, leg, foot,
and other parts of the body,
such as the shoulder, head, etc.,
provided the exhibition is not
objectionable on the ground of
leg has been amputated, the
exhibition of the naked remnant
may be permissible.
The extent to which one
may be allowed to exhibit his
person to the court on the trial
is a matter largely of discretion
of the court. If it appears that
the exhibition by the plaintiff
would necessitate an exposure
which would be indecent, the
court, in the exercise of its
discretion, should not permit the
exhibition before the court.
Where an issue as to
personal injuries or disability is
involved, the injured person
may be permitted to exhibit to
the court the wound or injury, or
the member or portion of his
body on which such wound or seems appropriate: (a) there
injury was inflicted. Thus, the should be fair necessity for
court has permitted the inspection, the trial court to
exhibition of an ankle, a knee, a determine; (b) the inspection
foot, a leg, an arm, a hand, an should take place apart from the
eye socket, and various other public courtroom, in the sole
parts of the body. A similar presence of the tribunal and the
exhibition may be made where parties.
the injury has resulted in the Introduction of object
death of the injured person or (real) evidence for the
the loss of a member or part of purpose of arousing undue
his body. prejudice The object of all
evidence is to inform the trial
Indecency or tribunal of the material facts,
impropriety as ground for which are relevant as bearing
disallowing the introduction upon the issue, in order that the
of object (real) evidence; truth may be elicited and that a
exception when the object just determination of the
produced as evidence is controversy may be reached. It
indecent, or improper, it should is not objectionable, in these
be excluded, unless the same is cases, which the evidence may
necessary for ascertaining the go beyond the oral narrative
truth. and may be addressed to the
But when justice and the senses; provided that it is kept
discovery of truth, are at stake, within reasonable limits by the
the ordinary canons of modesty exercise of a fair judicial
and delicacy of feeling cannot discretion. It should be only of a
be allowed to impose a nature to assist the court to an
prohibition upon necessary understanding of a situation, of
measures. If such matters were an act, or to comprehend
not unshrinking discussed and objective symptoms resulting
probed, many kinds of crime from an injury. Examples of this
would remain unpunished. class of evidence are frequent;
Nevertheless, needless in the viewing of the place of an
spectators having no occurrence, in the exhibition of
responsibility for the course of the person and of the marks, or
justice may well be avoided. obvious evidences, of injuries
Where it is a question of what sustained. Personal injuries
would otherwise be an may be simulated and deception
indecency, two limitations may be practiced in such
exhibitions; but that cannot
more be prevented, than can
perjury in testimony. When,
however, proof is attempted to
be made by allowing the plaintiff
to act out upon a judicial stage
before the court what he or his
physicians, have testified to be
some nervous affection,
resulting from an injury, the
exhibition is improper because it
is unfair. As something under
the sole control of the witness
himself, it is beyond the
ordinary tests of examination.
Nor does such evidence allow
any record, beyond the
reporters notes of what he saw
upon the trial. It is intended to
prejudice the mind of the judge
and it is calculated to affect the
calm judicial atmosphere of a
court of justice. The plaintiff, in
such cases, has sufficient
advantages without adding to
them a spectacular illustration
of his symptoms.
The exhibition of the
weapons or tools of a crime, or
of the clothing or the mutilated
members of the victim of the
crime, has often been objected
to on grounds of Undue
Prejudice. The objection thus
indicated seems to be two-fold.
First, there is a natural tendency
to infer from the mere
production of any material
object, and without further
evidence, the truth of all that is
predicated on it. Secondly, the
sight of deadly weapons or of
cruel injuries tends to
overwhelm reason and to
associate the accused with the
atrocity without sufficient
evidence. The objection in its
first phase may be at least
partly overcome by requiring
the object to be properly
authenticated, before or after
the production; and this
requirement is constantly
enforced by the courts. The
objection in its second phase
cannot be entirely overcome,
even by express instruction from
the Court; but it is to be doubted
whether the necessity of thus
demonstrating the method and
results of the crime should give
way to this possibility or undue
prejudice. No doubt such an
effect may be occasionally and
in an extreme case be
produced; and no doubt the trial
court has a discretion to prevent
the abuse if the process. But, in
the vast majority of instances
where such objection is made, it
is frivolous and there is no
ground for apprehension.
Accordingly, such objections
have almost invariably been
repudiated by the Courts.
Where it appears that the
real evidence is produced
merely for the purpose of
arousing feeling, admission has
been held error. For example,
where the plaintiff, a little girl,
sues for the loss of her leg, and
the defendant admits the fact of
amputation and the child is
present in court, the
introduction of the amputated
limb as preserved in spirits
warrants a new trial. Of such a
case, the court said that, it may
however, be assumed that
technically the rule of evidence
authorized the exhibition of the
foot. Such rule, however, is
without force when the
legitimate purpose for which the
exhibit may be made is light,
and the strong tendency is to
work improper and illegitimate
results. It is perfectly clear in
the present case that the direct
tendency of the exhibition of
this mangled foot, coupled with
the other considerations already
noted, was to arouse the
prejudice and inflame the
passions of the court into an
angry resentment against the
author of the misfortune. This
condition far overbalanced any
legitimate purpose for which the
exhibit might have been made,
and made the exhibition of this
foot, under the circumstances of
this case, improper.
Other grounds for
denying application for the
production of object (real)
evidence Beyond question it
rests in the discretion of the
court to deny applications for
the production of real evidence
in cases where the order will
cause great inconvenience, or
where, for other reasons, it is
unjust. Thus, in Mississippi
case, the court refused to order
the exhumation of a dead body;
although the defendant, an
insurance company, claimed
that the deceased had made
admissions that he had in
childhood received a severe
injury to the skull which could
only be prove by an
examination. It may happen
that it is impracticable to bring
an animal into the room where
the court is sitting, and in such
cases the examination need not
necessarily be has in the
courtroom, so long as it is under
the direction of the court and in
the presence of the parties.
Similar holdings may be found
with reference to articles of
great weight, such as large steel
bars.
Photographs the courts
take judicial notice that all
civilized communities rely on
photographic pictures for
presenting resemblances of
persons and animals, scenery,
natural objects, buildings, and
other artificial objects. It is
accordingly well established that
photographs of persons, things,
and places, when duly verified
and shown by extrinsic evidence
to be faithful representations of a.) Can a holographic will
the subjects as of the time in which was lost be
question, are, in the discretion proved by means of a
of the trial court, admissible in photostatic copy?
evidence as aids to it in arriving
at an understanding of the
Held: The Supreme Court
evidence, the situation or
ruled in the affirmative. It is
condition of objects or premises,
necessary that there be a
the circumstances of an
comparison between sample
accident, or the condition or
handwritten statements of the
identity of a person when any
testator and the handwritten
such matter is relevant to the
will. But, a photostatic copy of a
issues being litigated.
holographic will may be allowed
Where depositions of
because comparison can be
subscribing witnesses to a will
made with the standard writings
are taken, a photographic copy
of the testator.
of the will may be presented to
the witnesses on their The facts as depicted by
examination and they may be photographs are usually
asked the same questions with reasonably correct
respect to said copy as if it were representations and constitute
the original will and testimony evidence of a satisfactory and
as to the identity of the conclusive nature.
photographic copy shown to the Photographs of any place
witnesses is admissible in which may be viewed by the
evidence. trial court are admissible in
evidence upon proof of their
In the case of Rodelas vs. exactness and accuracy.
Aranza; G. R. No. L-58509 The logic underlying the
December 7, 1982: admission of photographs which
have been authenticated by the
The appellant Marcela operator of the camera, or by
Rodelas filed a petition for the some other witness who can
probate of the holographic will testify from personal knowledge
of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the as to the accuracy of the
issuance of letter testamentary representation, is drawn
in her favor. However, it was principally from the cases
opposed on the following admitting maps and diagrams.
ground: There are, however, two
fundamental distinctions
between diagrams, or drawings,
and photographs, which
emphasize the prejudicial
implications to the latter: (1)
the photograph is generally
accepted by courts as an
accurate machine-made
reproduction of nature; while the
diagram or drawing is
recognized by them as man-
made and considerably less
accurate; a slight inaccuracy or
distortion of size, distance or
shape in a photograph is thus
far more objectionable that an
error of similar degree in a
diagram; (2) the vital, mirror-like
appearance of a photograph
makes it capable of inciting
passions and prejudices of a
court, whereas a lifeless map or
drawing of the same subject
would not have this effect.
Thus, while photographs may be
of a fairly similar evidential
character as diagrams, and
maps, there is little room for
comparison as to their
respective degrees of probative
force. The court has in effect an
eye witness view of the subject
matter. Photographs are
admissible in evidence in
criminal cases upon the same
principles and rules governing
their admission in civil cases.
The test of admissibility is
whether the photograph
accurately portrays the scene at
the time of the crime, and the
photographer is not a necessary
witness. Photographs of the
scene, taken several months
after the crime was committed,
were properly admitted where it
appeared that the condition of
the premises has not materially
changed in the meantime.
If the correctness of the
photograph as a likeness shown
prima facie, either by the
testimony of the person who
made it or by other competent
witnesses, to the effect that it
faithfully represents the object
portrayed, it should go to the
court subject to impeachment
as to its accuracy. Whether the
photograph is an accurate
likeness then becomes a
question of fact to be
determined by the court.
The photograph or must
be relevant as well as correct.
Its relevancy will depend on the
relevancy of the scene or object
it represents. If a photograph
purports to represent a relevant
scene or object, but portrays it
in a grossly inaccurate manner,
so that it practically represents
something else, and the scene
or object would scarcely be
recognized thereby, the non-
reliability of the photograph as a
correct likeness may almost be
considered as producing
irrelevancy. But usually the
question of relevancy is distinct
from that of correctness, and is
for the judge exclusively. It is to
be determined upon the
considerations which govern
when the relevancy of any other
sort of evidence is corrected.
Photographs are received
in evidence for the following
purposes:
a. To show the scene of
the crime (the picture
need not show the
complete premises)
sometimes with the
body of the victim still
at the scene;
b. To show the victim of
an assault or a the road by tires or other parts
homicide;
c. To show the identity of
persons alive or dead,
including the defendant
and the victim or his
remains, even when
decomposed;
d. To show wound or other
physical injuries, or
that a child or an
animal has been ill-
treated or not properly
fed;
e. To show the fruits of
the crime, contraband,
and the weapons used;
f. To supply facsimiles of
public records;
g. To illustrate
handwriting testimony
and fingerprint
testimony;
h. To rebut testimony of
the other side.
Use of devices to
accentuate photographic
evidence In many instances a
photograph will not sufficiently
depict important details of a
scene to give it significance in
the eyes of the court. This is
especially true in cases
involving skid marks, scratches,
gouges, and other marks left on
of vehicles involved in a
collision. In such instances it is
not an unusual practice to lay
down sticks, rocks or other
objects to indicate or intensify
such features of the picture.
These do not affect its
admissibility when the presence
of the markers is verified and
explained by the witnesses.
Obviously, when a photographic
representation includes foreign
objects marking such details it is
not sufficient that the general
accuracy of the photograph be
verified. Someone must also
explain why the objects appear
therein and what they purport to
represent or mark. If the object
is nothing more than a marker,
the exhibit is not subject to the
objection that it is a posed
picture for it does not purport to X-ray In one way or
recreate a bygone scene. An another, X-rays are perhaps the
example of this would be the modality of medical treatment
placing of a yardstick to indicate or diagnosis most commonly
the distance between the appearing in litigation.
ground and rear fender of the Diagnostic X-ray films often
cat involved in a fatal hit and provide counsel with his best
run accident. source of objective proof of his
clients injuries, establishing in a
Enlargements Although manner that all can see that
magnification that constitutes plaintiffs leg bones indeed were
distortion may be objectionable, fractured a year before trial, and
it is no valid objection to the the like. Even when X-ray films
introduction of the photograph do not reveal their secrets
that it is an enlargement made clearly enough for a court to
from an original. Enlargements understand them without expert
are, of course, subject to the interpretation, they
usual tests of accuracy and nevertheless comprise a means
relevancy that any photograph of dramatic persuasion often of
would be. inestimable value.
The same rules and
Color pictures color principles which apply to
photographs or slides are ordinary pictures are applicable
admissible on the same basis as to an X-ray photograph,
ordinary black and white although subject to explanation
pictures. The same test is or interpretation by experts in
applies by courts, the test of order to make them intelligible
probative value. The color to the court.
tends to be regarded as a more
faithful type of representation Motion pictures
that black and white Principles underlying
photographs. admissibility of talking motion
pictures are not different from
Aerial photographs those governing the
Aerial photographs, depicting admissibility of still pictures and
ground areas pertinent to the phonograph records. It is a
particular issue, are held matter of common knowledge
admissible upon the same that motion pictures are no
foundation basis as other longer a novelty. They are
photographs.
constantly used for commercial
and scientific purposes. The
talking motion picture, or movie
tone, as it is technically known,
results merely from adaption of
the scientific processes used in
producing photographic records
in order that words spoken, or
sounds produced at the time of
the taking of the picture, may
be reproduced with the picture.
The movie tone, in basic
characteristics, is no different
from ordinary photography, in
regard to the visual pictures
reproduced, and on the other
hand, from phonographic
records, in regard to the
auditory recording of sound. A
movie tone, duly authenticated
as a true portrayal of the actions
and words of a defendant at the
time it was taken is admissible
evidence.
The question of permitting
a motion picture to be displayed
before the court is wholly within
the discretion of the court, and
where the picture does not
amplify matters, no reversible
error is committed in refusing to
allow its admission or display as
evidence.
Authentication of motion
pictures ordinarily includes (1)
evidence as to the
circumstances surrounding the
taking of the film; (2) the
manner and circumstances
surrounding the development of
the film; (3) evidence in regard
to the projection of the film; (4)
testimony by the person present
at the time the motion pictures
were taken that the pictures
accurately depict the events as
he saw them when that
occurred.
Video tape The use of
the video tape in the courtroom
have become more
commonplace in recent times.
A Michigan court has said: A
video tape is nothing more than
a motion picture synchronized
with a sound recording.
Therefore, a complete video
tape may be received into
evidence if the offering party
lays the foundation necessary to
admit a motion picture and the
foundation necessary to admit
sound recording. Thus, where it
is testified that the video tape is
a true and accurate
representation of what it is
purported to represent, it is
sufficient authentication. Video
tapes have been admitted for
confessions, admissions,
lineups, crime scenes, witnesss
testimony, drinking drivers
condition and even to show the
actual commission of the crime.
Diagrams, sketches
and maps Pencil, pen and ink
drawings and maps have been
received to identify or explain
localities or positions of objects.
Though they are received as that they represent a method of
primary evidence appealing to pictorial communication of a
the eyes of the court under the qualified witness which he may
rule admitting photographs, use of instead of, or in addition
they differ from the latter in that to, some other method.
their accuracy as portraits or Evidence of this character is
likeliness must be affirmatively helpful in aiding the court to
shown by the testimony of the visualize the objects and scenes
artist or other competent in the action. Thus a model of a
witness. There is no machine, a mechanical device
presumption of correctness or a bridge, may be submitted
founded on general use and to the court to aid them in
employment, or on their being understanding how an event
mechanical reproductions by a occurred or might have been
process which the court will prevented. This type of
judicially notice, as exists in the evidence is properly described
case of photographs. The as illustrative evidence. It is a
witness called to prove their type of demonstrative evidence
correctness must testify of his especially useful to police
own knowledge that they officers and other witnesses in
faithfully represent the object describing traffic accident
depicted, and their accuracy, if scenes.
disputed, is a question for the
court, turning upon the Fingerprints, palm
credibility of the witnesses prints, footprints, tracks,
The draftsman of the map etc. A method of proof now
must testify as to its accuracy, commonly resorted to in
but any other witnesses may providing identity is in the use of
refer to it while testifying, to evidence as to the
illustrate his testimony. It is not correspondence or similarity of
material by whom the map or the fingerprints, palm prints and
diagram was prepared providing footprints. Authenticated
that he can testify that the map fingerprints, palm prints, or
or diagram is accurate and footprints or photographs
based on knowledge derive from thereof of a person may be
his own investigation. introduced in evidence and
The use of diagrams, compared with other
models and casts as testimony fingerprints, palm prints, or
of the objects represented rests footprints found at or near the
fundamentally upon the theory scene of the crime. This
comparison is usually made by
experts.
Testimony concerning
tracks and footprints discovered
near the scene of crime is
admissible if a connection with
defendant by means
comparison or otherwise is
shown. A comparison of
footprints, proved to have been
made by the prisoner, with
other tracks or footprints found
near the scene of the homicide
is relevant, but the opinion of
the witness that footprints near
the scene of the crime were
those of the accused not based
on a comparison, is not
admissible. The witness
generally must have made some
actual comparison of the
footprint not just looked at it.
The correspondence of
footprints to shoes, feet or other
footprints is a matter not
restricted to expert opinion. A
witness may give his opinion as
to the correspondence of
footprints to shoes, feet or other
footprints after testifying as to
the measurements or
peculiarities thereof upon which
such opinion is based.
Phonograph and tape
recordings Sound recordings
are generally admitted in
evidence where a proper
foundation has been laid to
assure the authenticity of the
recording. The phonograph, the
Dictaphone, the talking motion
picture machine, and similar
recording devices, with
reproducing apparatus, are now
in such common use that the
of verity of their recordingand
reproducing sounds, including
those made by the human voice
in conversation, is well-
established; and as advances in
such matters of scientific
research and discovery are mad
and generally adopted, the
courts will be permitted to make
use of them by way of present-
evidentiary facts.
Voiceprints
(spectrograms) It is
established law that an accused
person in lawful custody may be
required to demonstrate his
voice for identification purpose
on the same grounds that he
may be subjected to
fingerprinting, photographing,
measurements, and the like.
This can be done through line-
ups, tape recordings, video
tape, or other similar methods,
in addition to speaking in court.
Another method of voice
identification has been
developed in recent years called
voice print or spectrograms.
This device consists of a
magnetic recording device, a
variable electronic filter, a
paper-carrying drum which is
coupled to the recording device,
and an electronic stylus that
marks the paper as the drum
rotates. Spectrograms can be
compared point for point to
determine if any significant
similarities exist. It is based on
the theory that no two persons
have exactly the same physical
voice properties.
Personal appearance of
a person It has been held that
to determine whether a person
is an alien or not, his personal
appearance, ethnological and
racial characteristic, language,
customs, dress and manners
may be taken into
consideration. The age of a
person may also be determined
by his personal appearance.
The resemblance between a
minor and his alleged father is
competent and material
evidence to establish parentage.
Of course, the absence of such
resemblance would not be
sufficient to show that
parentage does not exist.
The accused cannot object
if he be identified in open court
without being required to stand.
A direction to a witness to look
about the court and point out a
person in court who he thinks
committed the crime is always
proper. The court or the
prosecuting attorney may even
point out the accused and ask a
witness if that is the person who
committed the crime. If the
accused shall voluntarily stand
up and so thus be identified by a
witness pointing him out, he
should not be granted a new
trial upon the ground that he
has been compelled to testify as
against himself. And it has been
held merely directing the
accused to stand up for
identification is not compelling
him to be a witness against
himself, nor is the bringing of
the defendant into court for
inspection or identification or
dressed in clothes connected
with the crime. It has been held
in some cases, however, that to
go father and require accused to
do some affirmative act, such as
putting on clothing found at the
scene of the crime, violates his
constitutional rights.
Experiment In
instances where it is necessary
to show the condition or quality
of a certain article or substance,
the thing itself is the most
powerful evidence that can be
produced; it may be introduced
in evidence as supplementing
the testimony of witnesses, or
as direct evidence when
properly identified. Evidence of
the result of an actual
experiment or test is admissible
to aid in determining the issues
in a case where it is shown that
the conditions under which the
experiment or test was made
were the same or similar to the
circumstances prevailing at the
time of the occurrence involved
in the controversy. Such
evidence should, however, be
admitted only where it is
obvious to the court from the
nature of the experiments that
the court will be enlightened,
rather than confused.
When evidence of an
experiment is not admissible
Evidence of experiments
performed is admissible in both
civil and criminal cases when
the judge, in his discretion, is of
the opinion that the evidence is
beneficial, and that it does not
tend to distract or confuse. On
the other hand, tests and
experiments are not without
danger. Obviously, if the
experiment is too complicated
to afford any fair inference, or if
it cannot be performed in such a
manner as fairly to illustrate the
fact to be found, it should be
excluded. If the trial judge,
exercising reasonable judgment,
concludes that evidence of such
experiment is more likely to
confuse than to shed light upon
the matter in dispute, he may
exclude such evidence. It is
plain that evidence of an
experiment whereby to test the
truth of testimony that a certain
thing occurred is not admissible
where the conditions attending
the alleged occurrences and the
experiments are not shown to
be similar.
Mode and place of
presentation and inspection
No distinction shall be taken as
regards the mode of
presentation by the party. An
object may be merely set forth
for inspection, or some
experimental process may be
conducted in the tribunals
presence; whether the mode
involves a showing or doing,
neither is in itself objectionable.
Nor is any distinction to be
taken as to the mode of
inspection by the tribunal. It
may merely employ its senses
directly; or it may use some
suitable mechanical aid, such as
a microscope; and it may merely
look on, or it may take an active
share in the process of
experimentation. Nor is there
any distinction as to the place of
inspection; the thing may be
brought into the court, or the
tribunal may go to the place
where the thing is.
Object must be
inspected in open court and
in the presence of the
defendant When the trial
court is of the opinion that the
ends of justice will be advanced
by permitting the introduction of
an object in evidence, the court
may permit its examination or
inspection, but such
examination or inspection must
be in open court, and in the
presence of the defendant, and
at all times subject to the
control of the court. The rule
permitting an inspection by the
judge of places or premises,
when in his judgment the ends
of justice will be promoted
thereby, is simply an extension
of the power of inspection to
places and premises which
cannot be brought into court.
Ocular inspection or
view of an object out of
court where the object in
question cannot be produced be
produced in court because it is
immovable or inconvenient to
remove, the natural proceeding
is for the tribunal to go to the
object in its place and there
observe it. This process,
traditionally known as a view
has been recognized as an
appropriate one. It should be
remembered, however, that
whether or not an ocular
inspection or view of an object
out of the court should be made,
rest entirely on the sound
discretion of the trial court. The
inconvenience of adjourning
court until a view can be had, or
of postponing the trial for the
purpose, may suffice to
overcome the advantages of a
view, particularly when the
nature of the issue or of the
object to be viewed renders the
view off small consequence.
Ocular inspection or
view must be made in the
presence of, or with notice
to the parties The inspection
or view outside the court room
should be made in the presence
of the parties or at least
previous notice to them in order
that they may show the object
to be viewed. Such inspection
or view is a part of the trial,
inasmuch as evidence is thereby
being received, which is
expressly authorized by law.
Thus, it is error for the judge to
go alone to the land in question,
or to the place where the crime
was committed and take a view,
without previous knowledge or
consent of the parties.
Constitutional Right
not violated by inspection of
scene of crime Provided that
the same is with consent of and
accompanied by counsel for the
accused, it further appearing
that no evidence was taken
during the inspection.
Information obtained
on a view is independent
evidence To be taken into DOCUMENTARY
consideration by the curt in EVIDENCE- evidence supplied
determining the issues in the by written instruments, or
derived from the conventional
case.
symbols, such as letters, by
which ideas are represented on
Order denying or material substances;
granting view not documents; documents
reviewable When it appears produced for the inspection of
that the condition of the the court or judge.
premises or property has
changed since the time of ADMISSIBILITY OF
DOCUEMNTARY EVIDENCE-
occurrence in issue and before
subject to the same basic rules
the demand for a view, or that on relevancy, materiality,
the facts involved are such that exclusionary rules and court
they can be accurately discretion as determined by the
described to the court by oral issues in the particular case.
testimony, or by the use of Identity and authenticity of the
maps or diagrams with proper document must be reasonably
established as a pre-requisite to
explanations, or view would be
its admission.
unreasonable expensive or
cause unreasonable delay, or IMPORTANT RULES ON
serve no useful purpose, unless DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
here appears a clear abuse of
discretion. 1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Rule on Secondary
Evidence
3. Parol Evidence Rule
4. Rule on Authentication
and Proof of
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Documents
5. Inadmissibility of
Section 2 Documentary written document in an
evidence unofficial language
unless translated in
DOCUMENT any English and Filipino
substance having any matter
expressed or described upon it
by marks capable of
being read. If it is produced
without regard to the message 2. Best Evidence Rule
which it contains, it is treated as
real evidence. BEST EVIDENCE or
PRIMARY EVIDENCE-
particular means of proof which
is indicated by the nature of the
fact under investigation as the
most natural and satisfactory
that affords the greatest
certainty of the fact in question
and on its face indicates that no
better evidence remains behind.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE - is
that rule which requires the
highest grade of evidence
obtainable to prove a (a) The original of the
disputed fact.
Purpose of the rule
requiring the production of
the best evidence: prevention
of fraud, because if the best
evidence is not presented then
the presumption of suppression
of evidence will be present.
Best evidence rule applies
only when
the purpose of the proof is t
o establish the terms of
writing, therefore NOT
applicable to external or
collateral facts about the
document such as its existence,
execution or delivery.
People v. Tandoy
(1990)
The Best Evidence Rule applies
only when the contents of the
document are the subject of
inquiry. It does not apply when
the issue is only as to whether
or not such document was
actually executed or in the
circumstances relevant to its
execution. An objection by the
party against whom secondary
evidence is sought to be
introduced is essential to bring
the best evidence rule into
application. Where secondary
evidence has been admitted,
the rule of evidence might have
been successfully invoked if
proper and timely objection had
been taken
WHAT CONSTITUTES THE
ORIGINAL:
document is one the
contents of which are the
subject of inquiry;
(b) When a document is in
two or more copies
executed at or about the
same time, with identical
contents, all such copies
are equally regarded as
originals; and
(c) When an entry is
repeated in the regular
course of business, one
being copied from another
at or near the time of the
transaction, all the entries
are likewise equally
regarded as originals.
Note:
> Original may depend on
the substantive law
applicable
> Original may depend on
the act of the parties
>where there may be
duplicate original, either is
an original ad may be
 used without accounting original itself must be
for another presented.
>Whenever a document is
executed in several parts, each US vs Gregorio
part is primary evidence 17 Phil 522
> Whenever a document For only only presenting the
is executed in counterpart, Xerox copy of the falsified
each part executed by one documents, prosecution failed to
or more of the parties prove the corpus delicti of the
only, each counterpart is crime charged. In the absence
primary evidence as of the original document, it Is
against the parties who improper to conclude, with only
executed it copy of the said original in view,
that there has been a
falsification of the document
which was neither found nor
exhibited, because in such a
People vsSto. Tomas case, even the existence ofsuch
138 SCRA 206 document may be doubted.
The trial court correctly rejected
the xerox copy of the marriage
certificate, since the admission Non-production of the
would violate the best evidence original document unless
rule. justified in Section 3, gives rise
to the presumption of
suppression of evidence.
For the application of the Amended Documents-
best evidence, it is essential where a duplicate or copy is
that: amended or altered by the party
the original writing or if it is a or parties, it becomes the
private document, be first duly original.
identified, and a sufficient and a
sufficient foundation be laid, so Document executed in
as to entitle the writing to be two or more identical
admitted in evidence, and it contents each one of the parts
must be available to the is primary evidence and the
opposite party for cross- other need not be proved.
examination.
Mechanically reproduced
Best Evidence Rule in copies:
Criminal Cases In criminal h) Carbon copy-
cases, where the issue is not admissible as duplicate
only with respect to the original when executed
contents of the document but at the same time or
also as to whether such about the same time.
document actually existed, the Imperfect carbon
 copies, although made l) Letter press copies-
at the same time as the merely secondary
original but if there is evidence as its prone
something else to be to improper
done for it to be reproduction and are
binding or there is not produced
incomplete signature, simultaneously as the
its not the best original
evidence. m) Thermofax- merely
i) Reproduction from the secondary evidence as
same matrix i.e. it lacks satisfactory
mimeograph, reproduction as some
hectograph- admissible portions are not clearly
as duplicate original printed
when produced from n) Photographs and Xerox-
the same matrix as merely secondary
original evidence since they are
j) Blueprints and vellum reproduced at a latter
tracings- have been time but if
held to be originals authenticated
rather than copies photostatic copy of
k) Telegraph and cable income tax returns,
messages- public and business
if the issue is the records are allowed as
contents of the evidence
telegram
as received by the People vsMangulabnan
addressee- then the
original dispatch is 52 OG 6532
the copy of the At the trial, presented as
message sent to the evidence a post-mortem report
addressee; of the injuries received by the
as sent by the deceased. This was admitted
sender- the original over the objection of the
is the message accused, who contend that a
delivered mere carbon copy is
inadmissible. The court ruled
that the fact the post-mortem
report is a mere carbon copy is
if the issue is the also of no moment for it has
inaccuracy of been signed by the physician
transmission, who executed the same and his
both telegrams as signature was identified b him at
sent and received the witness stand.
are originals
 certainly the copies of the
Provincial Fiscal of weekly where the libelous article
Pampanga vs Reyes was published, and its
August 5, 1931
translation, constitute the best
The provincial fiscal of
evidence of the libel charged.
Pampanga filed two informations
The newspaper itself is the best
for libel against Guevarra. The
evidence of an article published
informations alleged that the
in it.
defendant, with malicious
intent, published on page 9 of
Thus if the issue is the contents
the weekly
of the articles sent for
paper IngMagumasid. The
publication, the best evidence is
defendant demurred on the
the manuscript. But is if issue is
ground of duplicity of
on what was actually published,
informations, he having
then the best evidence is the
published only one libelous
copy of the news paper.
article in the IngMagumasid for
July 13, 1930. The fiscal Respondent judge of the CFI
attempted to present as was required to admit Exhibits
evidence for the prosecution A, B, C, and D, in question.
Exhibits A, B, C, and D, which
are copies of
the IngMagumasid containing
the libelous article with the
innuendo. Counsel for the
defendant objected to this Manchester & Lawrence vs
evidence, which objection was Fisk
(1856)
sustained. Petitioner contends
A copy of the standard tariff rate
that the exhibits in question are posted at the railway depots,
the best evidence of the libel, the court held them to be the
the subject matter of the best evidence in an action over
information, and should a railway freight charge as each
therefore be admitted. of the printed copies as original
and the whole of the natre of
Issue: Whether the exhibits are duplicates, so that the proof of
anyone would be competent
admissible.
evidence of the contents of the
whole; there being necessary in
Ruling: The rule of procedure the whole nature of the process
which requires the production of of printing strong presumptive
the best evidence, is applicable evidence that the impression
to the present case. And
from the same types must be
similar.
Section 3. Original
document must be
produced; exceptions
GENERAL RULE: when
the subject of the inquiry is the
contents of the document, the
original document must be
produced.
EXCEPTIONS: When
secondary evidence be
admitted
1. When the original has been
lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
2. 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;
3. When the original consists of
numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be
examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought
to be established from them is
only the general result of the
whole; and
4. When the original is a public
record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public
office
CompaniaMaritimavsAllied
Free Workers Union
77 SCRA 24 (1977)
Facts: In 1952,
CompaniaMaritima (CM) and
Allied Free Workers Union
(AFWU) entered into a written
contract whereby the Union
agreed to perform arrastre and
stevedoring work in Iligan,
effective for one month.
It was stipulated that the
Company would revoke the
contract before the expiration of
the agreed term, if the Union
failed to render proper service.
After a month, the contract was
verbally renewed. In 1954, the
Union sent a letter to CM
requesting to recognize it as the
exclusive bargaining unit, to
load and unload he cargo of its
vessels in Iligan. CM ignored the
request. The Union
subsequently filed in CIR a
petition for certification election.
Despite the certification case,
CM sent notice to the Union for
termination of their contract and
entered into a new contract with
another stevedoring association.
CM assailed that the termination
of the contract was due to Union
workers inefficiency and that
the Company suffered financial
losses due to such service. To
ascertain its annual losses, CMs
manager hired auditors. CM
relied only upon such auditors
report and presented in court
only a summary of damages.
The sales invoices were not
produced.
Issue: WON the non-submission
as evidence of the records of
the alleged losses of the
Company is excused because of
the rule exempting voluminous
records from being produced in However, a book of account
court. containing only a single entry or
charge of money lent, which
Ruling: The best evidence of the show no mutual recourse of
Companys losses would have dealing between the parties, is
been the sales invoices instead not admissible.
of the Manager oral testimony.
The rule that when the original
consists of numerous accounts 2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
or other documents which
cannot be examined in court SECTION 5, RULE 130
without great loss of time and
the fact sought to be Sec. 5 . When original document is unavaila
established in only the general document has been lost or destroyed, o
result of the whole, the original court, the offeror, upon proof of its execu
writings need not be produce, cause of its unavailability without bad fai
CANNOT BE APPLIED because its contents by a copy, or by a recital
the voluminous character f the authentic document, or by the testimony
records was NOT DULY
stated.
ESTABLISHED. It is also a
requisite for the application of
the rule that the records of 1. Source.This provision is a
accounts should be made
accessible to the adverse party reproduction of Section 4,
so that the correctness of the Rule 130 the Rules of Court
summary may be tested on with the following
cross-examination. differences:
When an entry is repeated in
the regular course of Section
Section 4
business, one being copied 5
from another at or near the time Title secondar when
of the transaction, all the entries of the y original
are regarded as originals. For as sectio evidence documen
long as they are made within n when t is
reasonable time, it is sufficient. original is unavaila
A much longer but reasonable lost or ble
delay and when entries appear destroyed
to have been made while the
Chan and loss deleted
memory as to the transaction as
ges or
clear or the source of such
destructio
knowledge was unimpaired, still
n, or
makes it admissible.
unavailabi
lity;
 may be b. It is that class of
proved; evidence which is
recollecti relevant to the fact in
on issue, it being first
Added: shown that the primary
or evidence of the fact is
existenc not obtainable.
e and
the c. Performs the same
cause of function as that of
its primary evidence but is
unavaila LESS RELIABLE and
bility WORTHY OF BELIEF
without Ex. A warrant itself is
bad faith better evidence of what
on his it contains than a copy
part, of it
may A check is better
prove evidence of what it
and the contains than the stub
words On why secondary
docume evidence is admitted:
nt; the
offeror; It is admitted upon the
testimo theory that the original cannot
ny; in be produced by the party by
the order whom the evidence is offered
stated within a reasonable time by the
exercise of reasonable diligence.

2. Secondary evidence *This is applicable in both civil

explained. and criminal cases.

Definition: Rationale for requiring

a. That which shows that production of original, two-
better, or primary fold:
evidence exists as to
1. Copies and oral testimony
the proof of the fact in
are more prone to
question.
inaccuracy and subject to
fraud.
2. The appearance of the Before proof of
document may furnish contents can be
information as to its admitted, the court
authenticity. should be satisfied of
the existence and due
3. Requisites for the
execution of the
admissibility of
original in the same
secondary evidence:
manner as if the
original were produced.
a. Execution and existence
Before a party can be
of the original
permitted to introduce
b. Loss and destruction of secondary evidence of
the original or its non- the contents of a
production in court written instrument,
satisfactory proof must
c. Unavailability of the be made of he former
original is not due to bad existence of the
faith on the part of the instrument, and this
offeror necessarily involves
proof of its proper
4. Proof of due execution execution or
and existence of genuineness.
original

Meaning of execution: 5. Due execution of lost

The accomplishment of a ancient documents
thing, the completion of need not be
an actor instrument, the established.
fulfilment of an
Lost document is more
undertaking
than 30 years old-
Even though the secondary evidence of
production of an their contents is
original may be admissible without proof
excused because of of their execution
loss or destruction, it is
still necessary to 6. Proof of lost or
authenticate the destruction of original.
absent document.
 Destruction
The thing no longer exists
But the two come together for
consideration in this rule.
Test for the sufficiency of
proof of loss:
Includes practically not only the
cases of loss in the narrower
sense but also the cases in
which destruction is more or
less explicitly put forward as the
reason for non-production.
Destruction of the
instrument may be proved
by:
1. Any person knowing the
loss
2. Anyone who has made, in
the judgment of the court,
a sufficient examination in
the place or places where
the document or papers of
similar characters are
usually kept by the person
in whose custody the
document was lost was,
and has been unable to
find it
3. Who has made any other
investigation which is
sufficient to satisfy the
court that the instrument
is indeed lost
*A REASONABLE PROBABILITY of
its loss is sufficient, and this
may be shown by a BONAFIDE
and DILIGENT SEARCH,
fruitlessly made, for it in places
where it is likely to be found.
7. Proof of execution, loss
or destruction of the
original writing
recorded in a public
registry
Before the record or a
certified copy of the
recital made in a public
registry of the contents of
the document, it is
indispensable to establish
the following:
1. The document/deed
really existed
2. It was duly executed
3. It was lost
8. Proof of loss dispensed
with by admission
1. Where both parties
admit that an
instrument has been
lost, this is sufficient to
warrant the reception
of secondary evidence.
 2. The contents of an 1. Secondary evidence is
instrument may be inadmissible when the
proved against a party party offering it had
by his admissions in himself destroyed the
writing, without original, with the object
accounting for non- of preventing its
production of the production in court, for
original document. in such a case,
secondary evidence of
its contents could
9. Proof of non-
probably be regarded
production in court
as in all likelihood false
1. It is sufficient to show or misleading.
that it is deposited in a
2. If destruction was done
place from which it
in the ordinary course
cannot be removed for
of business or by
the purpose of being
mistake, or where the
produced in court;
proponent first
2. Or that it is not in the removes, to the
possession or under satisfaction of the court
the control of the party any reasonable
seeking to show the suspicion of fraud,
facts; secondary evidence is
admissible.
3. He is unable to produce
it within a reasonable *When primary
time after the exercise evidence has been
of reasonable diligence. wilfully destroyed,
receipt of secondary
*When the original of evidence may depend
the document e.g. upon the reasons for
receipt, cannot be the destruction, and
produced in court, the such evidence will not
Photostat copy thereof be received from the
is admissible as party who destroyed
evidence. the primary evidence.
*The burden of proving
10. Absence of bad absence of bad faith
faith on the part of the falls on the proponent.
offeror
11. Diligent search
for the document
claimed to have been
lost must be shown.
There must be proof that a
diligent search has been
made in the place where it
is most likely to be found
and that the search has
not been successful.
d. In every case, the
testimony should show
that the party has in
good faith exhausted
all the sources of
information and means
of discovery which the
circumstances naturally
suggest and which
have been accessible
to him.

a. Where the paper is GR: The loss or

such that from its destruction of the
nature it may be fairly document need not be
assumed that it has proved beyond the
some particular place possibility of mistake; it is
of deposit, that search enough if the testimony
should be search in the satisfies the court of the
utmost good faith, or fact with reasonable
the person in whose certainty. And the lost or
custody it is shown to destruction may be
have been should be proved by circumstantial
produced. evidence.

b. The testimony of the What constitute a

last custodian of the diligent search:
paper or record should
be produced; and, if The matter of the whole
this person is shown to foundation or predicate for
be dead, his admission of such
representative or secondary evidence is
successor should be subject to the wide
called. discretion of the court
although courts should be
c. The general statement cautious in the reception
that diligence has been of such evidence.
used, or a mere
perfunctory showing of General rule
some diligence will not concerning proof of a
ordinarily suffice. lost instrument:
 1. Reasonable search addressed to the
shall be made for it in discretion of the judge.
the place where it was
last known to have
12. Proof of true copy
been;
of original.
2. If such search does not
This may be shown by the
discover it, then inquiry
testimony of a person who
should be made of
has had the opportunity to
persons most likely to
compare the copy with the
have its custody; or
original and found it to be
3. Who have some reason correct.
to know of its
whereabouts. In order that the
testimony of such
Important points: person may be
admissible, it is
1. The party must show that
sufficient:
he has in good faith, and
1. That the original was
to a reasonable degree,
read to him by another
made an effort to discover
person while he read
the instrument, and to
the copy and found
that end has exhausted all
that it corresponded
sources of information and
with what was read to
means of discovery which
him.
were open to him, and
which in the nature of the 2. Where the person who
case were possible. made the original a
short time thereafter
2. No fixed rule as to the
made a copy by writing
necessary proof to
down the dictation of
establish loss, or what
another reading from
constitutes reasonable
the original.
search, can be formulated.
*When originals of a public
3. The sole object of such
document in the possession of
proof is, to raise a
the parties have been proven
reasonable presumption,
lost, a CERTIFIED COPY of the
merely that the
document made before it was
instrument is lost, and this
lost is admissible as
is a preliminary inquiry
SECONDARY EVIDENCE of its
contents, and the BURDEN OF
PROOF is upon the PARTY
QUESTIONING ITS
AUTHENTICITY to show that it is
not a true copy of the original.
Case:
1. Country Bankers
Insurance Corp. vs.
Antonio Lagman G.R.
No. 165487 July 13,
2011
A photocopy, being a
mere secondary evidence, is
not admissible unless it is
shown that the original is
unavailable. Section 5, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC.5 When
original document is
unavailable.
When the original
document has been
lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced
in court, the offeror,
upon proof of its
execution or
existence and the
cause of its
unavailability
without bad faith on
his part, may prove
its contents by a
copy, or by a recital
of its contents in
some authentic
document, or by the
testimony of
witnesses in the
order stated.
Before a party is
allowed to adduce secondary
evidence to prove the
contents of the original, the
offeror must prove the
following: (1) the existence
or due execution of the
original; (2) the loss and
destruction of the original or
the reason for its non-
production in court; and (3)
on the part of the offeror,
the absence of bad faith to
which the unavailability of
the original can be
attributed. The correct order
of proof is as follows:
existence, execution, loss,
and contents.
In the case at bar, Lagman
mentioned during the direct
examination that there are
actually four (4) duplicate
originals of the 1990 Bond: the
first is kept by the NFA, the
second is with the Loan Officer
of the NFA in Tarlac, the third is
with Country Bankers and the
fourth was in his possession. A
party must first present to
the court proof of loss or
other satisfactory
explanation for the non-
production of the original
instrument. When more than
one original copy exists, it
must appear that all of them
have been lost, destroyed, PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
or cannot be produced in
court before secondary Section 9, Rule 130
evidence can be given of any
Sec. 9 .Evidence of written
one. A photocopy may not agreements. When the
be used without accounting terms of an agreement have
for the other originals. been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the
Despite knowledge of terms agreed upon and there
the existence and can be, between the parties and
their successors in interest, no
whereabouts of these
evidence of such terms other
duplicate originals, Lagman than the contents of the written
merely presented a agreement.
photocopy. He admitted that
he kept a copy of the 1990 Bond However, a party may present
but he could no longer produce evidence to modify, explain or
it because he had already add to the terms of written
severed his ties with Country agreement if he puts in issue in
his pleading:
Bankers. However, he did not
explain why severance of ties is a) An intrinsic ambiguity,
by itself reason enough for the mistake or imperfection in
non-availability of his copy of the written agreement;
the bond considering that, as it
appears from the 1989 Bonds, b) The failure of the written
Lagman himself is a agreement to express the
true intent and agreement
bondsman. Neither did Lagman
of the parties thereto;
explain why he failed to secure
the original from any of the c) The validity of the written
three other custodians he agreement; or
mentioned in his
testimony. While he apparently d) The existence of other
was able to find the original with terms agreed to by the
the NFA Loan Officer, he was parties or their successors
in interest after the
merely contented with
execution of the written
producing its agreement.
photocopy. Clearly, Lagman
failed to exert diligent The term "agreement" includes
efforts to produce the wills.
original.
General Rule
Parol Evidence Rule practices which to
all purposes would
- The so-called parol alter the written
evidence forbids agreement.
any addition to or Whatever is not
contradiction of the found in the writing
terms of a written must be understood
instrument by to have been waived
testimony and abandoned.
purporting to show Soriano vs.
that, at or before Compania General
the signing of the de Tabacos de
document, other or Filipinas, 125 Phil.80
different terms were
orally agreed upon - If oral testimony or
by the parties parol evidence is
presented on facts
- The existence of a or circumstances
valid contract is a which do not refer to
condition precedent the terms or
to the application of contents of a
the rule. writing, the
prohibition in the
- Where the terms of parol evidence rule
an agreement are does not apply.
reduced to writing, Talosig vs. Vda. De
the document itself, nieba, 43 SCRA 472.
being constituted by
the parties as the Reason for the Rule
expositor of their
intentions, is the - The purpose of the
only instrument of rule is give stability
evidence in respect to written
to that agreement agreements and to
which the law will remove the
recognize, so long temptation and
as it exists for the possibility of
purpose of perjury, which would
evidence. be afforded if parol
evidence were
- When an agreement admissible. Castro
has been reduced to vs. CA GR L-34613,
writing, the parties January 26, 1989
cannot be permitted
to adduce evidence
to prove alleged
 Parol evidence rule
distinguished from best
evidence rule
 Parol evidence rule not applicable to strangers to the
instrument

- The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be
invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where
at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a
party to the written instrument in question and does not base a
claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the
instrument or the relation established thereby. Lechugas vs. CA,
143 SCRA 335

Parol evidence not admissible to validate a void contract

- Where an instrument is on its face illegal or void, because it

shows a violation of some statutory provision, or omits
something which the law makes essential to its validity, or for
any reason, parol evidence cannot be admitted to contradict to
show a violation of the statute, to supply the omission, or
otherwise to make effectual that which the law declares shall be
of no effect, unless it can be shown that the provision which
renders the instrument void was inserted by mistake.

Waiver of benefit of rule

- by failure to object to the introduction of parol evidence

Exceptions to parol evidence must be put in issue in the pleading

Parol evidence rule applicable to wills

- That means that there is no evidence on the terms of the will and
of its attestation clause other than the contents of the same
- If the ambiguity is patent (one which appears upon the face of
the instrument)
o extrinsic evidence not admissible
o testators intention is to be ascertained from the words of
the will, taking into consideration the circumstances under
which it was made, excluding oral declarations
- If the ambiguity is latent (one which is not discoverable from a
perusal of the will)
o extrinsic evidence admissible
 when it names a person as the object of a gift or a thing
as the subject of it and there are two persons or things
that answer such name or description
where there is a mis-description of the object or subject

Exceptions
When parol evidence is admissible

- When any of the following is put in issue in the pleading:

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

Kinds of ambiguities in documents

a. patent - instrument on its face is intelligible

b. latent - the words of the instrument are clear, but their
application to the circumstances is doubtful

Test of the difference between latent and patent ambiguities

- A good test of the difference between the two forms of

ambiguities is to put the instrument into the hands of an
ordinarily intelligent educated person. If on perusal he sees no
ambiguity, but there is nevertheless an uncertainty from merely
reading the instrument, it is patent.

Latent or intrinsic ambiguity defined

- An uncertainty which does not appear on the face of the

instrument, but which is shown to exist for the first time by the
matter outside the writing may be explained or clarified by
parol evidence

Kinds of latent ambiguities

a. where the description of the devises or the property devised is

clear upon the face of the will, but it turns out that there is
more than one estate or person to which the description
applies
 b. where the devisee or property devised is imperfectly or, in
some respects, erroneously described, so as to leave it
doubtful what person or property is meant

Extrinsic or patent ambiguity not a justification for reforming the

writing

- The contest and every legitimate rule of exposition may be listed

and used in obedience to the maxim ut res magisvaleat quam
pereat (That the thing may rather have effect than be destroyed)
but parol testimony or extraneous proof of any kind, is deemed
to be inadmissible
- The rule expressly mentions intrinsic or latent ambiguity and not
extrinsic or patent ambiguity as one of the exceptions to the
parol evidence rule.
- Reason for the rule: if the language be too doubtful for any
settled construction, by the admission of parol evidence, you
create and do not merely construe the contract; you attempt to
do that for the party which he has not chosen to do for himself.

Where both intrinsic and extrinsic ambiguities appear in the

writing

- Where the words are all sensible, and have a settled meaning but
the same time consistently admit of two interpretations.
- In such a case, parol evidence may be admitted to show the
circumstances under which the contract was made, and the
subject-matter to which the parties referred

Rules governing the admissibility of parol evidence to explain

ambiguity (latent ambiguity)

a. Where the instrument itself seems to be clear and certain the

ambiguity arises from some extrinsic or collateral matter, the
ambiguity may be helped by parol evidence. (latent ambiguity)
b. Where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words
designating the person or subject-matter, parol evidence of
collateral or extrinsic matter may be introduced for the purpose
of aiding the court in arriving at the meaning of the language
used. (intermediate ambiguity)
c. Where the ambiguity is such that a perusal of the instrument
shows plainly that something more must be added before the
reader can determine what of several things are meant, the rule
is inflexible that parol evidence cannot be admitted to supply the
deficiency.
 Mistake in the written instrument

- To justify the reformation of a written instrument upon the

ground of mistake, the concurrence of three things is necessary:
(a) that the mistake should be of fact; (b) that the mistake should
be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument; (c) that
the mistake should be alleged an proved by clear and convincing
evidence.
a. Mistake of fact The rule admitting parol evidence in case a
written instrument, through mistake, does not correctly
express the intention of the parties applies only in cases of
mistake of fact and not where a party has contracted under a
mistake of law.
b. Mistake must be mutual The parties must show that there
was a valid contract between them, which contract is not
correctly set forth in the writing to be reformed.
c. Mistake should be alleged and proved the existence of
mistake must be alleged in the pleadings and the allegations
must be sustained by proof

Imperfection in the written agreement

- Parol evidence is admissible where there is imperfection of the

writing

Written agreement does not express the true intent and

agreement of the parties

- If a written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that all

contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from a
mere inspection of the instrument, extrinsic evidence of the
subject matter of the contract, of the relations of the parties to
each other, and the facts and circumstances surrounding them
when they entered into the contract may be received to enable
the court to make a proper interpretation of the instrument.
- Parol evidence is admissible where it is offered, not for the
purpose of varying the terms of a written contract, but for the
purpose of explaining and showing that true nature and
character of the transaction evidenced thereby.

Prior Contemporaneous Distinct greement

- The rule excluding parole evidence to vary or contradict a

writing but does not extend so far as to preclude the admission
of extrinsic evidence to show prior or contemporaneous
collateral parole agreements between the parties.
 - Such evidence may be received regardless of whether or not the
written agreement contains reference to such collateral
agreement.

Inducement in Written Agreement or Contract

- Where a parole contemporaneous agreement was the inducing

and moving cause of the written contract, or where the execution
of a written agreement has been induced on the faith of which
the party executed the writing and without which he would not
have executed it, evidence of the oral agreement or stipulation
may be given although it may have effect of varying the
contract.

Proof of Fraud

- The rule which prefers written to unwritten evidence does not so

apply as to exclude the latter when its object to prove that the
writing was fraudulently obtained and thereby avoid the contract
evidenced by it.

- Furthermore, the rule does not extend to evidence offered to

show that the contract was made in furtherance of objects
forbidden by statute, by the common law or by public policy.

Validity of Written Agreement

- The prohibition does not apply where the purpose of the parole
evidence is to show that no written contract ever existed and
that there never existed any consideration upon which such an
agreement could be founded.
- Parole Evidence Rule finds no application where the validity of
the document is the very fact in dispute.

Subsequent Agreements

- The parole evidence rule does not apply so as to prohibit the

establishment by parole an agreement between the parties to a
writing entered into subsequent to the time when the written
instrument was executed regardless such agreement varies or
contradicts.

- Reason: parties cannot be presumed to have intended the written

instrument to cover all their possible subsequent agreements which
for that reason may be considered as separate transactions.
RECENTLY DECIDED CASES
Heirs of PolicronioUreta, Sr. vs. Heirs of LiberatoUreta
G.R. No. 165748. September 14, 2011
The applicability of the parol evidence rule requires that the case be
between parties to the written instrument in question and their successors-
in-interest.
Facts:
In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta (Alfonso) begot 14 children, namely,
Policronio, Liberato, Narciso, Prudencia, Vicente, Francisco, Inocensio,
Roque, Adela, Wenefreda, Merlinda, Benedicto, Jorge, and Andres. The
children of Policronio (Heirs of Policronio), are opposed to the rest of
Alfonso's children and their descendants (Heirs of Alfonso). Alfonso and
four of his children, namely, Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and
Francisco, met at the house of Liberato. He executed four (4) Deeds of
Sale covering several parcels of land in favor of his four children in
order to reduce the inheritance taxes. No monetary consideration was
given, Alfonso continued to own, possess and enjoy the lands and their
produce. Years after Alfonsos and Policronios death, the formers heirs
executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, which included all the lands
that were covered by the four (4) deeds of sale that were previously
executed by Alfonso for taxation purposes.
Believing that the six parcels of land belonged to their late
father, and as such, excluded from the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition,
the Heirs of Policronio filed a Complaint for Declaration of Ownership,
Recovery of Possession, Annulment of Documents, Partition, and
Damages against the Heirs of Alfonso. The RTC ruled in favor of the
Heirs of Alfonso. Likewise, the CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that
the Deed of Sale was void. It found the Deed of Sale to be absolutely
simulated as the parties did not intend to be legally bound by it.
Issue: Whether or not parol evidence rule may be properly invoked by either
party in the litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to
the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to the written instrument in
question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right
originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.

Held:
Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 9.Evidence of written agreements. 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,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.
 However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or
add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
(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.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) are applicable in the case at bench.
The failure of the Deed of Sale to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties was clearly put in issue in the Answer of the
Heirs of Alfonso to the Complaint. It was alleged that the Deed of Sale
was only made to lessen the payment of estate and inheritance taxes
and not meant to transfer ownership. The exception in paragraph (b) is
allowed to enable the court to ascertain the true intent of the parties,
and once the intent is clear, it shall prevail over what the document
appears to be on its face. As the true intent of the parties was duly
proven in the present case, it now prevails over what appears on the
Deed of Sale.
The validity of the Deed of Sale was also put in issue in the
Answer, and was precisely one of the issues submitted to the RTC for
resolution. The operation of the parol evidence rule requires the
existence of a valid written agreement. It is, thus, not applicable in a
proceeding where the validity of such agreement is the fact in dispute,
such as when a contract may be void for lack of consideration.
Considering that the Deed of Sale has been shown to be void for being
absolutely simulated and for lack of consideration, the Heirs of Alfonso
are not precluded from presenting evidence to modify, explain or add
to the terms of the written agreement.
Indeed, the applicability of the parol evidence rule requires that
the case be between parties and their successors-in-interest. In this
case, both the Heirs of Alfonso and the Heirs of Policronio are
successors-in-interest of the parties to the Deed of Sale as they claim
rights under Alfonso and Policronio, respectively. The parol evidence
rule excluding evidence aliunde, however, still cannot apply because
the present case falls under two exceptions to the rule, as discussed
above.

CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS

vs. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC.

G.R. No. 190515. June 6, 2011

Theparol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence, should not be strictly
applied in labor cases.

Facts:

The then Acting Secretary of Labor Manuel G. Imson ruled that

the wage increases to be given are P10 per day effective January 1,
2004 and P15 per day effective January 1, 2005. Respondent averred
that the Secretary of Labor cannot insist on a ruling beyond the
compromise agreement entered into by the parties.

Issue: Whether or not the parol evidence rule should be strictly applied in
labor cases.

Held:

In determining arbitral awards then, aside from the MOA, courts

considered other factors and documents including, as in this case, the
financial documents submitted by respondent as well as its previous
bargaining history and financial outlook and improvements as stated in
its own website.

The appellate court's ruling that giving credence to

the "Pahayag" and the minutes of the meeting which were not verified
and notarized would violate the rule on parol evidence is erroneous.
Theparol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence, should not be
strictly applied in labor cases. Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-
FFW v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc. teaches:

[R]eliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced. In

labor cases pending before the Commission or the Labor
Arbiter, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law
or equity are not controlling. Rules of procedure and
evidence are not applied in a very rigid and technical sense in
labor cases. Hence, the Labor Arbiter is not precluded from
accepting and evaluatingevidence other than, and even
contrary to, what is stated in the CBA.

MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 199430 March 21, 2012

Based on theparol evidence rule, there can generally be noevidence of the

terms other than the contents of the written agreement

Facts:

Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of violation of R.A. 3019,

Sec. 3 (e) for acting in evident bad faith in the purchase of the property
sold by Glicerio Plaza as part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
Retirement Separation and Benefit System (AFP-RSBS) Calamba Land
Banking Project, The Sandiganbayan found that the true consideration
of the sale made by Plaza to AFP-RSBS was only P227,460 as stated in
a unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale, and not the disbursed amount of
P1,531,564 as reflected in the bilateral Deed of Sale.

Issue: Whether or not the unilateral Deed of Sale should be the basis to
determine the true consideration.

Held:

In any event, the finding that the true consideration was only
P227,460 and not P1,531,564 is supported by the evidence on record.
Here, the Sandiganbayan found that the unilateral Deed of Sale was
the official document used by the buyer AFP-RSBS and seller Plaza in
the registration of the sale; as well as in the payment of the
registration fee, transfer tax, capital gains tax, and documentary
stamp tax necessary to effect transfer. This finding was not disputed
by the petitioner.

At most, petitioner relied on the testimony of Plaza, which

referred to a consideration of P1,137,300 to P1,213,120 as purchase
price of the property. However, based on the parol evidence rule, there
can generally be no evidence of the terms other than the contents of
the written agreement; and even if this were the case, it still appears
that the consideration cannot be the P1,531,564 disbursed according
to the Status Transaction Report signed by petitioner.

Neither did the seller or the buyer dispute the validity of the
unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale. The subsequent bilateral Deed of
Absolute Sale did not repeal or modify the earlier sale either. As the
deed was a valid agreement of conveyance, notwithstanding that only
 the seller signed the deed, theSandiganbayan did not err when it used
the unilateral Deed of Sale as basis to determine the true
consideration.

MODESTO LEOVERASvs. CASIMERO VALDEZ

G.R. No. 169985. June 15, 2011

To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the Rules of

Court allows a party to present evidence modifying, explaining or
adding to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading, as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the
written agreement to express the true intention of the parties is either
by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, which
nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties.

Facts:

When BenignaLimas died, she willed her share of a parcel of land

equally to her sisters Alejandra Llamas and Josefa Llamas. Thus,
Alejandra and Josefa each owned one-half (1/2) of Benigna's share. On
June 14, 1969, Alejandra's heirs sold their predecessor's one-half (1/2)
share (roughly equivalent to 10,564 square meters) to the respondent,
as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Also on June 14, 1969, Josefa
sold her own one-half (1/2) share (subject property) to the respondent
and the petitioner, as evidenced by another Deed of Absolute Sale.
Years later, the respondent filed a complaint against the
petitioner, seeking the reconveyance of the 1,004-square meter
portion (disputed property), on the ground that the petitioner is
entitled only to the 3,020 square meters identified in the parties'
Agreement. On the other hand, the petitioner claimed that the
respondent voluntarily participated in executing the Affidavit, which
corrected the mistake in the previously executed Agreement and
confirmed the petitioner's ownership over the disputed property. He
claimed that since the Agreement does not reflect the true intention of
the parties, the Affidavit was subsequently executed in order to reflect
the parties' true intention.
Issue: Whether or not the written agreement failed to express the true intent
and agreement of the parties therefore beyond the ambit of parol evidence
rule.
Held:
The petitioner's argument calls to fore the application of
the parol evidence rule, i.e., when the terms of an agreement are
reduced to writing, the written agreement is deemed to contain all the
 terms agreed upon and no evidence of these terms can be admitted
other than what is contained in the written agreement. Whatever is
not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and
abandoned.
To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the Rules of
Court allows a party to present evidence modifying, explaining or
adding to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading, as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the
written agreement to express the true intention of the parties is either
by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, which
nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties.
At the trial, the petitioner attempted to prove, by parol evidence,
the alleged true intention of the parties by presenting the Affidavit,
which allegedly corrected the mistake in the previously executed
Agreement and confirmed his ownership of the parcels of land covered
by his titles. It was the petitioner's staunch assertion that the
respondent co-executed this Affidavit supposedly to reflect the parties'
true intention. TCcIaA

In the present petition, however, the petitioner made a damaging

admission that the Benigna Deed is fabricated, thereby completely
bolstering the respondent's cause of action for reconveyance of the
disputed property on the ground of fraudulent registration of title.
Since the Affidavit merely reflects what is embodied in the Benigna
Deed, the petitioner's admission, coupled with the respondent's denial
of his purported signature in the Affidavit, placed in serious doubt the
reliability of this document, supposedly the bedrock of the petitioner's
defense.

INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Interpretation of Contracts under the CIVIL CODE:
Article 1370 Civil Code - If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no
doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulations shall control.
If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the
latter shall prevail over the former.

- It is an elementary rule of contract that the laws in force at the time

the contract was made must govern its interpretation.
- Matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation, and validity of a
contract are determined by the law of the place where the contract is
made.
- The terms of the contract where unambiguous are conclusive, in the
absence of averment and proof of mistake, the question being not
 what the intention existed in the minds of the parties but what
intention is expressed by the language used.

Article 1371, Civil Code - In order to judge the intention of the contracting
parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally
considered.

- The contemporaneous and subsequent acts that may serve as indicia

of the intention of the parties are those in which both of them
participate.

Art. 1372, Civil Code- However general the terms of a contract may be,
they shall not be understood to comprehend things that are distinct and
cases that are different from those upon which the parties intended to
agree.
- Where a specific provision in a contract is followed by a general
provision covering the same subject matter, the former will be held to
prevail over the latter when the two cannot stand together.
- Where both the general and special provisions may be given
reasonable effect, both are to be retained.
Art. 1373, Civil Code- If some stipulation of any contract should admit of
several meanings, it shall be understood as bearing that import which is
most adequate to render it effectual.

- When an agreement is susceptible of several meanings one of which

would make it effectual, it should be given such interpretation. The
terms of a contract must if possible be construed to mean something
rather than nothing.

Art. 1374, Civil Code - The various stipulations of a contract shall be

interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may
result from all of them taken jointly.
Art. 1375, Civil Code - Words which may have different significations shall
be understood in that which is most in keeping with the nature and object of
the contract.
- When a term is susceptible of different meanings, it should be
understood in that sense which is most in accord with the nature and
object of the contract in which it is used, in line with the rule that the
intention of the parties must prevail.
Art. 1376, Civil Code- The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in
mind in the interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the
omission of stipulations which are ordinarily established.
- The usage or custom of the place where the contract was entered into
may be resorted to as aids in making definite what is uncertain or in
clearing up what is doubtful or ambiguous in a contract.
Art. 1377, Civil Code- The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in
a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.
Art. 1378, Civil Code- When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by
the rules established in the preceding articles, and the doubts refer to
incidental circumstances of a gratuitous contract, the least transmission of
rights and interests shall prevail. If the contract is onerous, the doubt shall
be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests.
If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract in such a way
that it cannot be known what may have been the intention or will of the
parties, the contract shall be null and void.
- Thus if the Contract is gratuitous such interpretation should be made
which would result in the least transmission of rights and interest.
- If the doubt refers to the principal object of the contract in question
and such cannot be resolved notwithstanding the application of said
rule, the contract shall be null and void.
Art. 1379, Civil Code- The principles of interpretation stated in Rule 123 of
the Rules of Court shall likewise be observed in the construction of contracts.
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER THE REVISED RULES OF
COURT
Section 10: Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning
The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal
meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended
otherwise.
REQUISITES:
1. The court must give to the legal words or phrases the meaning they
bear in the place where the writing was executed;
2. That such meaning shall be disregarded if the contract shows that the
parties have intended to give such words or phrases a meaning
different from that they have at the place of the execution of the
writing.
Section 11: Instruments construed so as to give effect to all
provisions In the construction of an instrument where there are several
provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as
will give effect to all.
a. CONSTRUCTION AS A WHOLE- A contract must be construed as a
whole, and the intention of the parties is to be collected from the entire
instrument and not from detached portions, it being necessary to
consider all of its parts in order to determine the meaning of any
particular part as well as of the whole.
- An agreement should be interpreted as a whole and the meaning
gathered from the entire context, and not form the particular words,
phrases, or clauses.
b. INTERPRETATION OF SEVERAL INSTRUMENTS WHICH ARE PART OF ONE
TRANSACTION- Where several instruments are made as part of one
transaction, they will be read together, and each will be construed with
reference to the other.
Section 12: Interpretation according to intention; general and
particular provisions - In the construction of an instrument, the intention
of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular provision
are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent
will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
a. INTENTION OF THE PARTIES The court must ascertain the intention of
the parties only when the terms of the contract are not clear and leave
doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, otherwise, the
literal meaning of its stipulation shall control.
Section 13: Interpretation according to circumstances for the proper
construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made,
including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be
shown, so that the judge may be places in the position of those whose
language he is to interpret.
a. CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENT ACCORDING TO SURROUNDING
CIRCUSTANCES the surrounding circumstances at the time it was
made should be considered for the purpose of ascertaining its
meaning, but not for the purpose a new distinct undertaking.
b. PRELIMINARY AGREEMENTS AND NEGOTIATIONS In the interpretation
of a writing which is intended to state the entire agreement,
preliminary negotiations between the parties may, however, be
considered in order to determine their meaning and intention, but not
to vary or contradict the plain terms of the instrument.

Section 14: Peculiar signification of terms - The terms of a writing are

presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation, but
evidence is admissible to show that they have local, technical, or otherwise
peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular
instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly.
a. MEANING OF WORDS: ORDINARY SENSE - in construing a written
contract the words employed will be given their ordinary and popularly
accepted meaning, in the absence of anything to show that they were
used in a different sense.
b. TECHNICAL WORDS CONSTRUED Where technical words are
employed by parties who are obviously unfamiliar with their meaning,
they may be construed in such manner as to effectuate the true
intention of the parties.
c. IDIOMATIC USAGE PREVAILS OVER LITERAL TRANSLATION A
translation made in accordance with the idiomatic usage of the
language from which it is made will prevail over a literal translation
which, while word for word correct, is not idiomatic.
Section 15:Written words control printed- When an instrument consists
partly of written words and partly of printed forms, and the two are
inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
 a. INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN WRITTEN AND PRINTED PROVISIONS
where a part of a contract is written and part is printed, and the written
and printed parts are apparently inconsistent or there is reasonable
doubt as to the sense and meaning of the whole, the words in writing
will control.
b. DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WORDS AND FIURES In case of an
inconsistency between words and figures in a contract the words
govern.
Section 16:Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain
writings When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult
to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the
evidence of the persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who
understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the
meaning of the language.
a. ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY TO EXPLAIN THE CHARACTERS
OF AN INSTRUMENT WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO DECIPHER A person
who is skilled in the handling and inspection of documents may state
meaning of abbreviations, and of obscure or elliptical entries or figures;
and whether a set of figures, letters, marks, or writings contain an
arrangement in cipher, and, if so, what they mean.
Section 17: Of two constructions, which preferred When the terms of
an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different
parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he
supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions of a
provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most
favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made.
a. CONSTRUCTION AGAINST PARTY USING WORDS- Where a contract is
ambiguous it will be construed most strongly against the party
preparing it. The reason for the rule being that a man is responsible
for ambiguities in his own expressions and has no right to induce
another to contract with him on the supposition that his words mean
one thing, while he hopes the court will adopt a construction by
which they would mean another thing more to his advantage.
Section 18:Construction in favor of natural right When an instrument
is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and
the other against it, the former is to be adopted.
a. NATURAL RIGHT is meant those rights which are necessarily inherent,
rights which are innate and which come from the very elementary laws
of nature such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and self-
preservation.
Section 19:Interpretation according to usage An instrument may be
construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character.
a. USAGE ADMISSIBLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS DOUBTFUL Usage may be
admissible to explain what is doubtful, it is never admissible to
contradict what is plain.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Sec 20 Rule 130

Qualification of Witnesses

-Can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others.

General Rule- A disinterested person could be compelled to give his

testimony through subpoena.

Exceptions- Persons who are immune from the process of subpoena by

tradition, convention or law:

Ambassadors of foreign countries by virtue of treaty obligations

President of the Philippines or other country

Case: People Vs. De Jesus

The fact that complainant displayed difficulty in comprehending the

questions propounded on her is undisputed. However there is no showing
that she could not convey her ideas y words or signs. It appears in the
records that complainant gave sufficiently intelligent answers to the
questions propounded by the court and the counsels. The trial court is
satisfied that the complainants can perceive and transmit in her own way her
own perceptions to others. She is therefore found to be a competent witness.

Testimonial Duty of Citizens= to support the administration of justice by

attending its courts and giving his testimony whenever he is properly
summoned.

Process to enforce duty= the performance of the citizens testimonial duty

can only be invoked by the State after adequate notice is given.

Witness= a person who testifies in a case or gives evidence before a judicial

tribunal.

= a person called to be present at some transaction soa s to be able

to attest to its having taken place.

Interested persons as witnesses= while rightfully subjected to careful

scrutiny, should not be rejected on the ground of bias alone.
= if testimony is reasonable and consistent ad is not contradicted by
evidence from any reliable source, there is no reason, as a general rule, for
not accepting it.

Case: US vs. Mante 27 Phil 134

The testimony s interested witnesses should be subjected to careful

scrutiny but they should not be rejected on the ground of bias alone.

Case: People vs. Natividad (CA) 50 OG 5824

Such testimony must be judged on their own merits. If they are clear
ad convinving and are not destroyed by other evidence of record, they may
be believed. And the testimony of these witnesses fulfil the requirement.

Attorney as witness= counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is

necessary and that they should withdraw from the active management of the
case.

= except when it is essential to the ends of justice

Judge as witness= judicial conduct should not be subject to cross-

examination or comment, the peculiar duties of the judge in administering
oaths to the witnesses in case the court has no clerk, and in deciding upon
their competency, with his power to commit for contempt when his
testimony concerns merely formal or preliminary matters about which there
is no dispute, as where he testifies in a perjury prosecution that the
defendant gave testimony before him in another proceeding in another
court.

Persons convicted of crime as witness= persons ho have been convicted of

perjury are not excluded law.

=since perjury is a crime involving moral turpitude, the convict

whenever mad a co-accused in any criminal case, cannot be discharged to
become a witness for the government in that case, because under the ROC,
the court may direct the discharge of one of the several co-accusers for that
purpose when, in its judgement, such accused has ot at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

Presumption of competency of witness= means legal fitness or ability of a

witness to be heard on the trial of a case.
Objection to competency of witness= must be made before he has given any
testimony;

=If the incompetency appears on the trial, it mst be interposed as soon

as it becomes apparent.

Waiver of objection= may be done expressly or by silence.

The ff may be considered a waiver of the objection:

a. Where the witness testifies without objection, though at that time

the party knows of his incompetency.
b. Here the party who might have made the objection owns the
witness in support of his own case.

Sec 21 Rule 130

Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity

a. Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for

examination, is such that 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 truthfuly.

Case: People vs. Salomon

A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a
witness.

Case: People vs. Mendoza

Requisites of competency of a child as witness,:capacity of

observation, capacity of recollection, and capacity of communication.

Insane person as a witness= general rules is that a lunatic or a person

affected with insanity is admissible as a witness if he has sufficient
understanding to apprehend the obligation of an oath and is capable of
giving correct account of the matters which he has seen or hears with
respect to the questions at issue.

Monomanica as witness= he understand the nature and obligation of an oath

and can give correct account of what he ha seen or heard.

Deaf and Dumb = may be a competent witness although he us uneducated

in the use of signs and his capacity to convey his ideas to others is very
circumscribed and limited.

Rule 130, Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage.

During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify
for or 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.

General Rule
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse.

Reason
This is based on principles which are deemed important to preserve the
marriage relation as one of full confidence and affection, and that this is
regarded as more important to the public welfare than that the exigencies of
the lawsuits should authorize domestic peace to be disregarded, for the sake
of ferreting out facts within the knowledge of strangers.

This applies only to a lawful wife not a bigamous one, nor to a paramour,
nor to an affiance.

Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72 (Riano)

The specific reasons for the rule are the following:
a. there is identity of interests between husband and wife
b. if one were to testify for or against the other, there is a consequent
danger of perjury
 c. the policy of the law is to guard the security and confidence of
private life, even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to
prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness
d. where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is danger of
punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other

Scope
The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or against the other applies to
any form of testimony; therefore it protects against using the spouse-
witness admission, or against compelling him/her to produce documents.
However, res gestae declarations of husband and wife are admissible for or
against each other, even though each is incompetent to testify.

A husband may not testify for or against his wife without her consent; nor a
wife for or against her husband without his consent, except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed against
the other. This provision deals with two different matters which rest on
different grounds of policy: the disqualification of the husband and wife to
testify in each others behalf, as well as their privilege not to testify against
each other.
People vs. Pansensoy, 388 SCRA 669 (Riano)
Under this rule, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for
or 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 latters direct descendants
or ascendants. However, objections to the competency of a husband
and wife to testify in a criminal prosecution against the other may be
waived as in the case of other witnesses generally. The objection to the
competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first
offered as a witness. In this case, the incompetency was waived by
appellants failure to make a timely objection to the admission of his
wifes testimony.

Either Spouse Must Be a Party to the Case

As to the adverseness of the testimony, courts generally hold this to mean
that the other spouse must be a party to the cause, not a third person who
happens to be involved somehow in the case; otherwise the testimony does
not hurt the other spouses legal interests.

When Privilege Ceases

After the death or the divorce of one spouse, the privilege ceases for the
reason ceases. When the marriage is dissolved by death, there is no more
marriage and therefore, the privilege can no longer be claimed.

It has been held that no unfavorable inference may be drawn from a fact that
a party spouse invokes the privilege to prevent the witness-spouse from
testifying against him or her.

Exceptions
a. that the case in which the husband or the wife is called to testify is not
a civil case instituted by one against the other
b. that it is not a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other

Reason for the Exceptions

The identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury
based on that identity is non-existing. The security and confidence of
private life which the law aims at protecting will be nothing but ideals
which, through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home.

Ordono vs. Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270 (Riano)

The Supreme Court ruled that the wife is allowed to testify
against her husband who was accused of raping their daughter. It ruled
that the correct rule is the one laid down in Cargill vs. State which held
that, The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon
the person is too narrow. The better rule is that, when an offense
directly attacks or directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relations, it
comes within the exception to the statute

People vs. Quidato Jr., 297 SCRA 1 (Riano)

May a spouse testify in a trial where the spouse is a co-accused?
The Court ruled in the affirmative but likewise held that the testimony
of the wife in reference to her husband must be disregarded since the
husband timely objected thereto under the marital disqualification rule.
The Court explained that the disqualification is between husband and
wife, but the rule does not preclude the wife from testifying when it
involves other parties or accused. Hence, the wife could testify in the
murder case against the brothers who were jointly tried with the
husband of the witness. The Court stressed, however, that the
testimony cannot be used against accused-appellant directly or
through the guise of taking judicial notice of the proceedings in the
 murder case without violating the marital disqualification rule. What
cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

Waiver of Privilege
Wigmore asserts that the privilege of objecting to testimony concerning anti-
marital facts belongs to the spouse who is a party to the action and not to
the spouse who is being used as a witness. This seems to be the rule in this
jurisdiction. Hence, the right to object to the competency of one spouse
pertains solely to the spouse-party and not to the other spouse who is
offered as a witness.

Bar 2006 (Riano)

Leticia was estranged from her husband Paul for more than a
year due to his suspicion that she was having an affair with Manuel,
their neighbor. She was temporarily living with her sister in Pasig City.
For unknown reasons, the house of Leticias sister was burned, killing
the latter. Leticia survived. She saw her husband in the vicinity during
the incident. Later, he was charged with arson in an Information filed
with the RTC, Pasig City. During the trial, the prosecutor called Leticia
to the witness stand and offered her testimony to prove that her
husband committed the arson. Can Leticia testify over the objection of
her husband on the ground of marital privilege?

Suggested Answer
Leticia cannot testify. Section 22 of Rule 130 bars her testimony
without the consent of the husband during the marriage. The
separation of the spouses has not operated to terminate their
marriage. (Note: This is an answer based on the tenor of the Rules of
Court.)
The following answer should also be considered:
Leticia may testify over the objection of her husband. Where the
marital and domestic relations between her and the accused-husband
have become so strained that there is no more harmony, peace, or
tranquility to be preserved, there is no longer any reason to apply the
Marital Disqualification Rule. (People vs. Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504;
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
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, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring
before the death of such deceased person or before such person
became of unsound mind.

Object and Purpose of the Rule

This is to guard against the temptation to give false testimony in regard of
the transaction in question on the part of the surviving party and further, to
put the two parties to a suit upon terms of equality in regard to the
opportunity to giving testimony. If one party to the alleged transaction is
precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the
other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own
uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction. The underlying
principle of the prohibition and the reason for the same is to protect the
estate from fictitious claims and to discourage perjury.

Dead Mans Statute (Riano)

To level the playing field between the lucky survivor and the poor
deceased, our remedial law ancestors devised a rule that would seal
the lips of the survivor by declaring him incompetent to testify on the
transaction between him and the deceased. The rule is definitely one
that does not protect the survivor even at the risk of not paying a just
and valid claim because it is the survivor who has the stronger reason
to file a false claim. The rule is for the protection of the guy who died.
Hence, the name Dead Mans Statute.

Requisites of the Disqualification

a. that the witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case or of a
person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted It is only parties who
assert claims against an estate who are rendered incompetent to
testify. The word parties does not refer to the executor or
administrator who is the party defendant. The term assignor of a
party means assignor of a cause of action which has risen, and not the
assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action has arisen.
However, this rule does not operate to exclude the testimony which is
favorable to the representative of the deceased or incompetent
person.
b. that the action is against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound
mind The term representative of a deceased person has been
interpreted to include not only the executor or administrator of a
deceased person but also the person or party who has succeeded to
the right of the deceased whether by purchase or descent or operation
of law.

Razon vs. IAC, 207 SCRA 234 (Riano)

As held by the Court, the rule contemplates a suit against the
estate, its administrator or executor and not a suit filed by the
administrator or executor of the estate. A defendant who opposes the
suit filed by the administrator to recover alleged shares of stock
belonging to the deceased is not barred from testifying as to his
transaction with the deceased with respect to the shares.

Sunga-Chan vs. Chua, 363 SCRA 249 (Riano)

Also when a counterclaim is set up by the administrator of the
estate, the case is removed from the operation of the dead mans
statute, the plaintiff may testify to occurrences before the death of
the deceased to defeat the counterclaim which is not brought against
the representative of the estate but by the representative.

c. that the subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the

estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound
mind The words claim or demand mean any action or proceeding
which may affect the real or personal properties of a deceased or
insane person. They are restricted to debts or demand enforceable by
personal actions upon which money judgments can be rendered. As to
other actions against estates, no incompetency of witnesses exists. An
action for damages for breach of an agreement to devise property for
services rendered is a claim against an estate.

Bar 2001 (Riano)

Maximo filed an action against Pedro, the administrator of the
estate of the deceased Juan, for the recovery of a car which is part of
the latters estate. During the trial, Maximo presented witness Mariano
who testified that he was present when Maximo and Juan agreed that
the latter would pay a rental of P20,000 for the use of Maximos car for
one month, after which Juan should immediately return the car to
 Maximo. Pedro objected to the admission of Marianos testimony. If you
were the judge, would you sustain Pedros objection? Why?

Suggested Answer
The objection of Pedro should not be sustained. The testimony is
admissible because the witness is not disqualified to testify. Those
disqualified under the dead mans statute or the survivorship
disqualification rule are parties to a case or persons in whose behalf a
case is prosecuted. The witness is not one of those enumerated under
the rule (Sec. 23, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

d. that his testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before
the death of such deceased person or before such person became of
unsound mind This refers to testimonies which relates to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of the decedent or before the person
became of unsound mind. The phrase matter of fact is literally
interpreted to include not only facts tending to establish the claim or
demand but also incidental facts. Negative facts are not included in the
matters prohibited by law. The testimony of a plaintiff denying the
occurrence of a transaction with the deceased may be admitted on the
ground that such plaintiff does not testify to a fact occurring before
the death of the decedent but on the contrary, that such fact has not
occurred.

Waiver
A waiver occurs when plaintiffs deposition is taken by the representative of
the estate, when counsel for the representative cross-examines the plaintiff
as to matters occurring during deceased lifetime.

(Riano) The survivorship disqualification rule is intended to benefit the estate

of the deceased or insane person, hence, this protection may be waived by:
a. failing to object to the testimony
b. cross-examining the witness on the prohibited testimony (Santos vs.
Santos, 366 SCRA 395)
c. by offering evidence to rebut the testimony

Bar 2007 (Riano)

True or False
 The surviving parties rule bars Maria from testifying for the
claimant as to what the deceased Jose had said to her, in a claim filed
by Pedro against the estate of Jose.

Suggested Answer
False. The rule bars only a party plaintiff or his assignor or a
person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. Maria is merely a witness
and is not one of those enumerated as barred from testifying.

Sec. 24- Disqualification by reason of privilege communication. -

The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in
confidence in the following cases:

(a) 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;

(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be

examined as to any communication made by the client to him,
or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
which has been acquired in such capacity;

(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or

obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the
patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by
him or any information which he may have acquired in
attending such patient in a professional capacity, which
information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity,
and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;

(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the

person making the confession, be examined as to any
confession made to or any advice given by him in his
 professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by
the church to which the minister or priest belongs;

(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of

office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in
official confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)

1. Source
A. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE
2. The rule
- The husband or the wife during of after the marriage, cannot b
examined without the consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage.

3. Reason of the rule-

That the admission of such testimony would have a powerful
tendency to disturb the peace of families
To weaken, if not destroy the mutual confidence upon which the
happiness of the married state depends.

4. Requisite of the rule

a. Spouses must be legally married
- If they live together in illicit cohabitation, they are not entitled to
the privilege
- It is immaterial whether they believed in good faith that they were
married if in fact they were not.
b. The communication must be confidential and made during
the marriage
- Only those communication, whether by word or deed, as pass from
one to the other by virtue of the confidence resulting from their
intimate relation.
- Only the knowledge which the husband and the wife obtains from
the other which for the marital relation and the confidence growing
out of it, would have been communicated, or which is of such nature
or character as that to repeat the same would tend to unduly
embarrass or disturb the parties in their marital relations.
c. Form of communication
- Applies to any form of confidence disclosure.
- Maybe words or conduct.
e.i > letters from husband to the wife
 > wife saw husband counting stolen money and put it in his
pocket.

5. Communication presumed confidential

- Marital communication presumed to be confidential, but the
presumption may be overcome by proof that they were not intended
to be private.
Notwithstanding that one spouse subsequently without consent
of the other disclosed such communication to a third person.

6. When communication between husband and wife cease to be

confidential
a. When made in the presence of a third person.
XPN: if the confidential communication is overheard by a
third person still considered to be as confidential
the prohibition to testify is directed only to the wife and not
to the third person so the latter cannot be prevented from
testifying
XPN to XPN: if the third person comes into the possession
of the communication by COLLUSION and VOLUNTSRY
DISCLOSURE on either spouse, he becomes an agent of
such spouse and cannot testify without the consent of the
other.
b. Communication intended for transmission to third person.
A letter written to the defendant by his wife and seized by
the police in search of his effects on the day of his arrest is
admissible because a privilege communication from one
spouse to another comes into the hands of a third party,
whether legally or not without collusion and voluntary
disclosure on the part of either spouse , the privilege is
thereby extinguished and if competent becomes
admissible.
Statements from the notes of a stenographer to whom the
husband dictated the letter and who had transcribed it is
admissible, because normally the husband and the wife
communicate without a stenographer . here the
communications have been voluntarily revealed.
Statements in the wifes diary not shown to the husband is
admissible.
Those business and other communication not related to or
dependent on mutual trust are not privilege. But
 sometimes business transaction between husband and
wife are held privileged
Res gestae made in the presence of the spouse may be
received.
Testimony of the former wife as to the sanity of the
husband who is charged with homicide is admissible.

7. Rule not applicable to dying declaration- on the trial of the one

who killed him.
- The widow is competent to testify on behalf of the defense
regarding the dying declaration made to her by the deceased,
considering the cause of death.

8. Duration of the privilege

- Continues in effect even after the marital relation has been
terminated.
- This privilege is not affected by death of the other spouse or
absolute divorce.
But when the communication is needed in behalf of his estate,
the surviving should be entitled to waive it.
9. Exceptions
a. That the case in which the husband or the wife is called to
examined is a civil case instituted by one against the other; or
b. a criminal case for a crime omitted by one against the other

10. Anti-marital facts

- The spouse may not testify as to as to facts related to the crime she
learned before they got married.
11. Incompetency as to anti0marital facts distinguished from
incompetency as to privilege communication

Incompetency incompetency
as to anti- as to
marital facts privilege
communicatio
n
Prohibits Prohibits only
adverse as to
testimony knowledge
regardless of obtained
the source through
 confidence or
the marital
realtio
Exists only whenExists whether
a party to the the husband or
action is the wife is a party
husband or wife to the action or
not
Ceases upon Continues even
death or either after the
spouse termination of
the marriage.

12. Waiver of privilege

- This privilege may be waived if not objected to.
Objection to the admission is timely if made before the
answer to the question for its revelation.
- Privilege belongs to the communicating spouse. The prohibition
arises only when the person in whose favor the privilege exist
demands by timely objection to the testimony.

B. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT

13. The rule
- The attorney could not be compelled, nor would be allowed to
disclose the following:
a. the privilege communication made by the client to his attorney or
his advice given thereon in the course of or with a view o
professional employment
confidentiality is inferred and presumed until the contrary is
shown
there must be an existing attorney and client relation.
There must showing that the parties agreed there is an
employment ;or
At least that he had consulted the witness to that end and the
latter had not refused the employment
If a lawyer friend without express employment or hope of
compensation, was asked by the accused while visiting that
latter would plead guilty, the communication is not privilege.
Communication in the ordinary intercourse is not privilege.
b. any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired by the
attorneys secretary, stenographer or clerk, in their respective
capacity.

- It is not essential to create the privilege that any proceeding or

civil, should be pending or even in contemplation.
The attorney may testify or communication not privilege:
a. that his client did not communicate certain things to him
b. as to the residence of client
c. as to the circumstance surrounding the drawing of the will and
the conversations had with the testator at the time
d. attorney employed merely to act as scrivener
e. copying a will
f. preparing assignments or leases
g. attorney acting as attesting witness
h. notary public as agent to procure a loan
i. manager of clients property
j. acting as intermediary between members of a family
k. as to corporation affairs when the attorney is elected as a
director
l. identification of the copy of the by-laws

AS A GENERAL RULE A LAWYER MAY NOT REFUSE TO DIVULGE THE

IDENTITY OF HIS CLIENT; RATIONALE. As a matter of public policy, a
client's identity should not be shrouded in mystery. Under this premise,
the general rule in our jurisdiction as well as in the United States is that
a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name
or identity of his client. The reasons advanced for the general rule are
well established. First, the court has a right to know that the client
whose privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh and
blood. Second, the privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-
client relationship has been established. The attorney-client privilege
does not attach until there is a client. Third, the privilege generally
pertains to the subject matter of the relationship. Finally, due process
considerations require that the opposing party should, as a general
rule, know his adversary. "A party suing or sued is entitled to know who
his opponent is. He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against
unknown forces. (Regala vs. SandiganBayan, G.R. No. 105938)
EXCEPTION; WHEN THE CLIENT'S IDENTITY IS PRIVILEGED. The
general rule is, however, qualified by some important exception. 1)
Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very
 activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice. 2) Where disclosure
would open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged. 3)
Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's
client unless, by revealing the client's name, the said name would
furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary
to convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is privileged.
Apart from these principal exceptions, there exist other situations
which could qualify as exceptions to the general rule. For example, the
content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the
privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on
which the client seeks legal assistance. Moreover, where the nature of
the attorney-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is
the identity which is intended to be confidential, the identity of the
client has been held to be privileged, since such revelation would
otherwise result in disclosure and the entire transaction. Summarizing
these exceptions, information relating to the identity of a client may
fall within the ambit of the privilege when the client's name itself has
an independent significance, such that disclosure would then reveal
client confidences. (Regala vs. SandiganBayan, G.R. No. 105938)

14. Reason for the rule

- Based on upon the ground of public policy
- To encourage clients to make full disclosure of facts in the interest
of the administration of justice
- Intended to enable a client to place unrestricted and unbounded
confidence in his attoryney in matters affecting his rights and
obligations without danger of having disclosures forced from the
attorney on the witness stand.

15. Requisite of the rule

a. Professional employment
- The atty-client relationship must exist at the time the
communication is made.
- Test whether the communications are made to an attorney with a
view to obtaining professional assistance or advice- if so, then
privilege.
When is communication not privilege:
1. No professional relation exist the time the communication was
made but subsequently employs the atty in relation to such
statement
 2. those voluntarily made after the attorney refused to accept
employment
- for the claim of this privilege it is not necessary that the attorney
sought to be prevented from testifying be in active practice.
b. Communication by client to attorney
- The privilege is not confined to verbal or written communications
but extends to other means of communications.
- It is necessary that the communication is confidential and be
intended as confidential otherwise if confidence was not
contemplated then the testimony of the attorney or client may be
compelled.
- It is held that there is no privilege in cases where abstract legal
opinions are sought and obtained on general questions of law,
either civil or criminal because no facts are disclosed so nothing
confidential of character to conceal.
c. Communication must have been made to the attorney in the
course of professional employment or with a view or
professional employment or in hi professional capacity
- A communication to an attorney us said to be in his professional
capacity when the client makes the same with the purpose of
obtaining from hi a legal advice and opinion concerning his legal
rights, obligation or duties relative to the subject matter of
communication.
- It must be related to which the attorney is consulted or to put him
in possession of information to ebale him to properly and
intelligently serve the client.
- Privilege also applies to agents and a consultaion with an agent in
the attorneys office.
When privilege does not apply
1. An inquiry made of a friend who is not an attorney
2. Consultation with e.i clerk of court, deputy sheriff an
unadmitted law student
3. The attorney cannot testify to the fact the he had received
silver coin as part of his retainer from a client who is accused
for stealing a quantity of current silver coin.
4. Those information obtained by a detective posing as an
attorney of celebrity is excluded by court (PP v. Barker)
5. Sidewalk advice from attorney upon legal questions do which
no compensation is asked or expected and none given except
a luncheon should not be regarded as privilege.
6. Those communication between an attorney and witness for
the client to show that the attorney attempted to corrupt or
 influence a witness to color his testimony in favor of the
accused.
16. Privilege applicable to counsel de oficio
- A counsel de oficio cannot testify in open court without the consent
of his client as to any fact imparted by h, to his client in professional
consultation.
- Even if the consent is obtained, it is his duty to ask first to be
relieved and have another attorney take his place before testifying
and not to leave his client without proper representation

17. Privilege not applicable to attorney who is subscribing

witness to his clients will
- Attorney may testify to the attending circumstances of the
execution of his clients will.
- The testator waives privilege as to his attorneys testimony
concerning testamentary communication.

18. Communication made to judges are privilege

- The principle is not affected by the fact that the attorney in this
case was also a judge. The fact that he occupied that position gave
an increased weight to his advice.
- It is in the nature of the confidence which exist between the client
and the attorney.

19. Communications to an attorney as a public officer to

enable the latter to act in that capacity not privilege
- Because a complaint made to a prosecutor will usually be made for
the purpose of inciting public prosecution and not for the protection
of the complainants rights.

20. Communication for unlawful purpose not privilege

- Those for the purpose is to commit a crime partakes of the nature of
conspiracy or attempted conspiracy
- It is not unlawful to divulge such communication and under some
circumstances it is the duty of the attorney to do so.
- Communication is not privilege where the client seeks advice that
will enable him to pertpetrate a fraud.
- The attorneys ignorance of his clients intentions deprives the
information of a professional character as full confidence has been
withheld. But where a contemplated act is criminal only if
committed under certain circumstances or with a certain intent and
such circumstances or intent are not shown to be present, the
lawfulness of the act will be presumed and the privilege will hold.
21. Communication by a client to his attorney in the presence
of, or overheard by third persons not within the privilege
- This contemplates a situation where the third party is not an agent
of either client or attorney.
who are considered as agent, presence of which does not
negate the confidential nature of the communication
1. Interpreter
2. Agent of the client
3. Parent of the client who is a child.
4. Representative of an attorney
- The privilege exists if the client if not notice the presence of the
third person overhearing the communication
- Third person foreign to the relation are competent to testify to the
communications they overheard.
- Where the communication was made for the purpose of having the
attorney tell others, it was not a privileged communication
- An employee of a corporation who was also stenographer where
such counsel may give evidence as to corporate correspondence
where such evidence did not come from her relationship with
corporation attorney
22. When an attorney may be compelled to produce or
disclose the contents of a document entrusted to him by his
client
- If the documents are not privilege while in the hands of the client he
cannot make them privilege by placing them in possession of his
counsel
- An attorney cannot be compelled cannot order the opening of the
art metal filing cabinet it having proven that it belongs to the
attorney and that he keeps records and documents of his client
there.

23. Privilege not applicable to actions brought by client

against attorney
- Because if the attorney is not allowed in such case to disclose
confidential communications of his client he will suffer manifest
injustice.
24. To whom privilege belongs
- The privilege belongs to the client and he alone can invoke it.
- He may claim not only when his attorney is called to disclose
professional communicatios but also when he himself is asked to
make disclosure.
 - When the privilege belongs to two or more client, the consent of
each is essential to constitute waiver.
- In a criminal trial, the court may interpose of its own motion for the
protection of an accused who is entirely ignorant of his rights to
remain silent when he is called to state what he said to is attorney.

Duration of privilege: Continues even after the relation of client and

attorney is terminated,
the seal of the law once fixed upon them remains forever, unless removed by
the party himself in whose favor it is there placed.

Waiver of privilege: either be express or implied

Result: the attorney may give in evidence matters confidentially
communicated either for the purpose of giving evidence in chief or purposes
of impeachment
Implied waiver consists of:
a) Clients failure to object to attorneys testimony
b) In giving evidence on the privilege communication
c) When privilege communication falls on the hands of the adverse party
d) In calling or cross examining his attorney regarding privileged
communication

The clients representative may, waive the privilege, but only when the
application of the rule would be disadvantageous to his estate.
The waiver of the right precludes the assertion of the right upon appeal
or upon subsequent trial of the case but does not constitute a waiver
of the privilege in another independent transaction.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT (curative,

preventive or palliative treatment)
Privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe, full and confidential
disclosure by patient of all facts, circumstances and symptoms, untrammeled
by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication
on the witness stand
-to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion and be
enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient
-lend a sense of security and confidence to the relation of patient and
physician so that the patient will not be reticent about making disclosures
which may be material to his physical welfare

Requisites for the rule to apply:

a) Action in which the Advice or treatment given or any information be in
a civil case
b) Physician and patient relations existed
 c) Information was acquire while professionally attending the patient
d) Information was necessary for the performance of his
professional duty
e) Disclosure of the information would tend to blacken the
reputation of the patient

Limited to civil cases only: in criminal cases the privilege does not
apply for the maintenance of public order and the life and liberty of the
citizens are deemed more important than the purpose for which the
privilege was created
- Not conferred to shield/ weapon to be used by a person charged
with crime
Not indispensable that the patient should have actually employed
the physician, surgeon or obstetrician. May be applied in extremis
in view to a curative treatment any information obtained by him for
that reason is privilege

Privilege cannot be extended by construction to persons employing curative

processes not coming within the ordinary meaning of the term practice of
medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
Communications made by a patient to dentist, pharmacists, and nurses
who are not acting as agents of physicians, surgeons, or obstetrics
are not privileged.

Covers all facts learned by the observation and by all methods necessary to
enable the physician to prescribe, including communication by the physician
by third person on behalf of the patient to enable him to perform his
professional duty. Communications of the body, observation of
symptoms, results of the doctors examination, the patients
condition as fund by the doctor, the name of the ailment, the
nature of any operation performed, the statement of facts or
opinion given to the patient. Including opinions and prescriptions.

The attending physician may not testify even though employed as an

expert witness by the other side.

Privilege includes examination of patients employed by a third

party in order for the physician to report to his principal and to the efficacy
of certain treatment, being given by other physicians.

X-ray plates and radiographs are considered privilege including the

oral communications or observations made or had for the purpose of
enabling the physician to treat or prescribe for his patient.

Where information is clearly immaterial to the patients treatment, it cannot

be considered privilege, but if it was obtained from observation and
inspection of the patients body, privilege applies regardless of whether or
not such information was necessary for the treatment.

Tend to blacken his reputation- which might bring reproach or

disgrace upon the patient.
Privilege rests upon the person objecting and must show that
relation of physician and patient existed.

The court not the physician determines whether the physician must testify,
court may hold preliminary hearing to determine circumstances. Not the
duty of the court to require physician to testify.

After the patient has gone to his grave, the living are not permitted to
impair his name and disgrace his memory. An express waiver maybe made
by the patient himself, or the deceased persons representative or the
beneficiary of the insurance policy.
Also by giving express consent, to the testimony of the physician, or by
calling the physician to testify as to the privilege matter. The guardian of the
minor may also give his consent provided that it is not to the minors
prejudice.
Implied waiver is found when the patient himself takes the stand
to testify about his physical condition, including the sending of a
physicians certificate of a cause of death, as part of the proofs of
death required by a life insurance policy.

Once the waiver is made, such waiver is final and cannot be recalled.
Privilege is not waived by the patient in making voluntary disclosure outside
the court. Where the waiver is procured by fraud or coercion, the waiver is
not effect and the privilege may not be claimed.

Privilege not applicable where patient brings action against

physician, for is a patient makes public in a court of justice the occurrences
of the sickroom, for obtaining a judgment for damages against his
physician , he cannot shut out the physician himself not any other who was
present at the time covered by the testimony. By his voluntary act he
breaks down the barrier and the professional duty of secrecy
ceases.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MINISTER OR PRIEST OR PENITENT

REASON: To compel a minister or priest to testify to a confession to him by a

peninet is equivalent to an annulment of the confessional institution, for
many would no longer make confessions, not done by government where
religious tolerance is sanctioned by law.
The privilege covers only confessions of a penitential in their
character, confessions of sins with a view to obtaining pardon and
spiritual advice or assistance, to clergymen in obedience to some
supposed religious duty or obligation and do not embrace
communications clergymen, however, confidential, when not made in
connection with or in discharge of some such supposed religious
duty or obligation;
or when made to them while in discharge of duties other than those which
pertain to the office of a clergyman.

Communications made not in the course of religious discipline but

in the contemplation of a crime, are not privileged.
Accuse met the priest on a railroad train and with no intent to secure his
professional advice, assistance or consolation, told his story incriminating
himself, it was held that the communication was not privileged.
Prosecution for the crime of bigamy that the statements made by the
accused to a priest who was to communicate them to the first wife, to
induce are not privileged.
A communication to a priest made otherwise than in his
ecclesiastical capacity is not privileged.

Confession must be made in the profession character of the priest

and in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules of practice of
the denomination to which the priest or minister belongs.
Not including statements made by a church member in the presence of his
minister and fellow members. There can be no privilege, where a minister is
consulted, but as a notary or a friend and interpreter,
Determination through the question from the circumstances and
facts leading up to the making of the confession, disclosure should not be
required unless it appears that the claim of privilege is erroneously made.

Waiver of privilege when a penitent to the extent of giving evidence of

what took place at the confessional he cannot complaint of evidence
which goes no further to established the facts revealed by him.

Exceptions to the rule:

1) Policy of the state requires the disclosure
2) Innocent party is charged with a crime, conviction for which he can
escape only by a disclosure of facts given in the confessional
3) Clergyman receiving the confession is authorized to testify by the
person confessing
4) Disclosure is necessary in order to prevent an impending crime

Canon 1757: The following are excluded as incapable of witnessing.

Priests, in whatever concerns any knowledge they may received
through sacramental confession, eventhough they may have been
 released from the obligation of the seal, even more, anything
whatsoever heard by anyone, or in any way in the confession may not
be accepted as even an indication of the truth.

PUBLIC OFFICERS AND PUBLIC INTEREST

Reason for the rule: It is the duty of every citizen to communicate to his
government any information which he has of the commission of an offense
against the law;
and a court of justice will not compel or allow such information to be
disclosed, either by the subordinate officer to whom it is given, by the
informer himself or by any other person without the permission of the
government.

The evidence being excluded not for the protection of the witness or of the
party in the particular case, but upon general grounds of public policy,
because of the confidential nature of such communication.

Public interest means more than mere curiosity, something in which the
public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected.

COMMUNICATIONS to public officials: privilege applies to communication to

such offers only as have a responsibility or duty to investigate or to prevent
public wrongs, and not to officials in general.

The law recognizes the duty of every citizen to communicate to the

government and to its officers such information as he may have concerning
the commission of offenses against the laws.
Purpose: for encouraging the performance of their duties without
fear of consequences,
a witness cannot be compelled to disclose the names of persons by
whom and to whom information had been given which led to the discovery of
the offense.

Communications between officials: covers matters not ordinarily made public

in the course of their duties, and whom their disclosure would tend to injure
seriously the welfare of the State.

Privilege can be recognized in matters involving data upon the National

Defense or upon international negations pending.
Courts will not compel the disclosure of
state secrets by the other departments of the government in ordinary
judicial proceedings,
 or require the publication of a state document that may involve the
danger to the nation
or of communications between government of a confidential nature.

Privilege does not apply: Disclosure will be compelled

When what is asked is useful evidence to vindicate the innocence of an
accused person,
Or lessen the risk of false testimony,
Or is essential to the proper disposition of the case
Or the benefit to be gained by a correct disposition of the litigation was
greater than any injury which would inure to the relation by disclosure of the
information

Disclosure of the name of the informer maybe necessary in a case where the
accused claims
he is the victim of false accusations by an enemy
Or where he claims he is the victim of a groundless arrest or
persecution by the police

OTHER PRIVILEGED MATTERS

Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published

news-
The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine
or periodical or general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source
of any news report or information appearing in said publication unless the
court or a house of committee of congress finds that such revelation is
demanded by the security of the state.

Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted

to protect legal voters in the secrecy of ballot
The practice compelling qualified electors to disclose for whom they
voted has long been condemned as a kind of inquisitorial power unknown to
the principles of a free government. An illegal voter may decline to answer
for whom he voted, on the ground that his answer might incriminate himself,
but in such case the contents of the ballot maybe shown by other testimony.

+ TRADE SECRETS
There is a privilege not to disclose ones trade secrets. It covers usually
formulas of manufacture, but may also include price lists and customers
lists. It is not absolute; the trial court may compel disclosure where it is
indispensable for doing justice.

+Tax census returns

+Bank Deposits- all bank deposits are absolutely confidential and may not
be examined, inquired or looked into except in those cases enumerated
therein
-Anti Graft
-unexplained wealth is similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty

2. Testimonial Privilege

Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. No person may be compelled to

testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants.

Scope: The former filial privilege taken from Art. 315 of the Civil Code was
expanded to include other direct ascendants and to exempt parents from
being compelled to testify against their children or other direct descendants.

Reason of the rule: To preserve family cohesion.

When privilege may be invoked: the privilege may now be invoked in both
civil and criminal cases.

3. Admissions and Confessions

Section 26. Admission of a party. The act, declaration or omission of a

party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

1. Admission defined.
An admission is a voluntary acknowledgement in express terms or by
implication, by a party interest or by another by whose statement he is
legally bound, against his interest, of the existence or truth of a fact in
dispute material to the issue.

2. Admission Classified.
 Admission may be classified into judicial, extra-judicial, express and
implied.

Express admissions- made in express terms and of the very fact in

issue or in dispute.

Implied admissions- those which result from an act done or undone.

3. Certainty.
An admission should possess the same degree of certainty as would be
required in the evidence which it represents, and hence mere
conjectures or suggestions as to what might have happened are not
competent.

4. Admission distinguished from confession.

Admission: usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the

accused which do not directly involved an acknowledgement of the guilt
of the accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is
charged.

Confession: a declaration made at any time by a person, voluntary and

without compulsion or inducement, stating or acknowledging that he had
committed or participated in the commission of a crime.

THE UNITED STATES, vs. JOSE CORRALES G.R. No. L-9230, Nov. 10,
1914

But a distinction must be made between confessions and admissions. A

confession, as distinguished from an admission, is a declaration made at
any time by a person, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement,
stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the
commission of a crime. The term admission, on the other had, is usually
applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do
not directly involve an acknowledgment of the guilt of the accused or of
criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged. The
statutory provision excluding evidence as to confessions until and unless
the prescribed foundation is laid not applicable to admissions, which do
not amount to confessions although they may be sufficient, when taken
together with other evidence of surrounding circumstances to sustain an
inference of the guilt of the accused. The reason for the rule excluding
 evidence as to confessions unless it is first made to appear that they are
made voluntarily does not apply in cases of admissions, although, of
course, evidence of the fact that a particular statement was made under
duress would tend very strongly to destroy its evidentiary value.

5. Admission distinguished from declaration against interest.

Admission:

Primary evidence;

Receivable when declarant is available as witness;

Competent only when declarant is a party to the action.

Declaration against interest:

Secondary evidence;

Receivable only when declarant is unavailable as witness;

Competent even if declarant is not a party to the action.

6. Admission distinguished from self-contradiction.

Admission is for a party-opponent.

Self-contradiction is to witness- a statement made somewhere else, and

inconsistent with his allegations of claim or defense in the case on trial.

7. Relevancy and materiality.

In order that a statement offered as an admission may be received it
must, at the time when it is offered be relevant to, and have a material
bearing on the issues in the case.

ADMISSION BY ACT

Admission implied from conduct or utterance of a party.

GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC., vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

COMMISSION G.R. No. L-14936 July 30, 1960
The record also shows that the company has voluntarily paid a part of the
compensation, which circumstances likewise indicates admission of the
compensability of the claim, (Bachrach Motor Co. Inc. vs. Domingo Panaligan,
99 Phil., 238; 52 Off. Gaz., [7] 3583). The above facts are admissions against
interest and admissible in evidence against the respondent company (Sec. 7,
Rule 123, Rules of Court).

There may be no other evidence presented by the claimant but the

admissions of the company as above-indicated together with the causes
stated in the claim, are sufficient evidence to sustain the decision sought
herein to be set aside. The finding that the claim is compensable involves an
exercise of discretion by the Workmen's Compensation Commission and the
same should not be disturbed on appeal because there is no abuse thereof.

ADMISSION BY DECLARATION

It may be introduced in evidence in two ways: a) as independent evidence,

and b) as impeaching evidence.

a) As independent evidence- admission are original evidence and no

foundation is necessary for their introduction of evidence.
i. Oral Admissions. Admission was made orally, it may proved by any
competent witnesses who heard them.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSEFINA N. SAMSON, G.R. No. L-
14110
March 29, 1963

The appellant claims that there is no competent evidence that the victim
and the appellant were husband and wife. The claim is without merit. The
testimony of the appellant on direct examination disclosed several times
that she was married to the deceased in both Church and civil marriages.
On cross examination, she testified on the exact date of her marriage to
the deceased (4 July 1934) and the place (Pili, Camarines Sur) where they
were married. She did not only admit that the deceased was her husband
but also brought out the fact that out of the marriage they had five children
and that only three are living, namely: Glenda, Manuel and Felix. Indeed,
there could be no better proof of marriage in a parricide case than the
admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage. More, Ramon
M. Velasco, mayor of Libon, Albay, and uncle of the deceased testified that
when he saw the appellant in the afternoon of 13 October 1954 at the
municipal jail, she immediately begged for his forgiveness and told him that
 she had shot her husband Pepe (referring to the deceased) because the
latter had a mistress and she could not bear or suffer it any longer.

Admission made over telephone.

An admission made in a telephone conversion may be proved, where

the witness identified the speaker by his voice or otherwise, and there is no
doubt as to the identity of the person who made the admission.

Admissions made through interpreter.

A competent oral admission may be made through an interpreter,

where such method of conversation is, in some manner, voluntarily adopted
by the parties.

i. Written Admissions. When the admission is in a private document,

there must be some proof of the authenticity or identity of the
document in accordance with Section 20, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules
of Court, that is, the party offering it must prove its due execution and
authenticity.

Admission made in letters.

Where the statement offered against a party is in the form of a written

declaration, such admissions requires greater weight than mere verbal
admissions.

Admissions made in documents or memoranda.

MUNICIPALITY OF OAS, vs. ROA,G.R. No. L-2017 November 24, 1906

The two statements signed by Roa, one in 1892 and the other in 1893, are
competent evidence against him. They are admissions by him to the effect
that at that time the pueblo was the owner of the property in question. They
are, of course, not conclusive against him. He was entitled to, and did
present evidence to overcome the effect of these admissions. The evidence
does not make out a case of estoppel against him. (sec. 333, par. 1, Code of
Civil Procedure.)

The admissibility of these statements made by Roa do not rest upon section
278 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which relates to declarations or
admissions made by persons not a party to the suit, but it rests upon the
principle that when the defendant in a suit has himself made an admission of
any fact pertinent to issue involved, it can be received against him.

EVANGELISTA, vs. BASCOS, ET AL., G.R. No. 2332, November 10,

1905.

The evidence does not show that he has any documentary title to any of the
land. He introduced in evidence a paper, executed by the principales of the
town in 1860, which purported to give him and Leonardo Evangelista the
ownership of a certain tract of land in said barrio for the purpose of
cultivating the same. The title to this land could not have been granted by
this instrument, because the persons executing it had no power to convey it.
There is nothing in the description contained in this document which
indicates that it is the same land described in the complaint in this action.
The Plaintiff, however, testified that it was, and that he had been in
possession thereof from 1860 to 1902, when he was dispossessed by the
Defendants.
There is no other evidence in the case which relates to any of the Defendants
except to the Defendant Tranquilino Bascos. As to him the Plaintiff introduced
in evidence a document signed by Bascos in May, 1893. This document
stated that the tract of land for which Bascos had obtained the deed from the
State had been returned by him to its former owner, the Plaintiff.

It showed that the Defendant Bascos had not delivered the possession of this
land to the Plaintiff, and his claim is that he was induced to sign the
document by reason of threats made at the time by the parish priest of the
locality. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that this document operated as a
transfer of the title of the land from the Defendant Bascos to the Plaintiff. We
do not think that it can be given any such effect. It amounted, in our opinion,
only to an extrajudicial admission that the Plaintiff was the owner of the land.
It was competent for the Defendant to overcome the effect of this admission
by evidence showing that the Plaintiff was not in fact the owner of the land,
and the evidence produced by the Defendant did, in our opinion, prove that
the Plaintiff was not the owner.

ASUNCION GEFES, vs. SALVIO, ET AL., G.R. No. L-11387, February 7,

1917

The fact is indisputable that these lands did not belong to the defendant, and
if he bought them at public auction in December, 1908, for P661, he did so
with his wife Asuncions own money. This is evidenced by Exhibit A, a
document signed by the said Salvio before the notary Nicolas Tomas on
March 27, 1909, in which he clearly sets forth that the said sum of P661,
Philippine currency, which he paid for the properties above-mentioned,
belonged to the private funds of his wife Asuncion Gefes. He furthermore
declared in the said document that she was the true and absolute owner of
the said lands by him purchased out of his wifes funds and in her behalf.
This document was ratified before a notary and attests the truth of all its
contents, even against third persons. The defendants denial of its
authenticity is not supported by any reliable evidence, nor by the affidavit
(record, p. 75) presented for the purpose of obtaining a reopening of the
case. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the defendant Salvio cannot be
heard to repudiate what he solemnly declared in a notarial document.

Admissions made in previous case.

THE UNITED STATES, vs. CHING PO G.R. No. L-7707, December 6,

1912.

The procedure in criminal cases in the Philippine islands provides that a

defendant in a criminal proceeding may be a witness in his own behalf. When
he avails himself of this right, he is subject to a rigid cross-examination and
is bound by his admissions, voluntarily given, in such examination. His
admissions are presumed to be given voluntarily and when thus given on a
previous trial, they may be used against him in a subsequent cause.

In the Matter of the Estate of JOAQUINA MIJARES DE FARInAS. -

ENRIQUE DE LA VEGA, vs. VICENTE LAVIN G.R. No. L-4878 February
27, 1909

Later in the proceedings an answer was presented in her behalf. In this she
stated that what she declared when asked to recognize the authenticity of
the documents was that her deceased husband owed Lavin 1,171 pesos and
not 1,233 pesos. It does not appear that she signed this answer. It may have
been signed by her solicitor. Under these circumstances the contents of the
answer can not be considered as admissions made by her which could be
used as evidence against her in another proceeding entirely disconnected
with the subject-matter of the proceeding in which the answer was made.
There is, therefore, nothing in the proceeding of 1894 which proves either
the existence of a debt from the husband Paulino Lavin or any recognition of
such supposed indebtedness by the deceased.
 b) As impeaching evidence- if proof of the admissions is sought for
impeachment purposes, a proper foundation must be laid for the impeaching
questions, by calling the attention of such party to his former statement so
as to give him an opportunity to explain before such admissions are offered
in evidence.

JUAN YSMAEL & CO., INC., vs.NAGEEB T. HASHIM and AFIFE ABDO
CHEYBAN GORAYEB G.R. No. L-26247, March 18, 1927

The third assignment of error cannot be sustained. In offering in evidence the

testimony given by Mr. Hemady and the Hashims in the earlier case, the
defendant-appellant did not claim that said testimony contained admissions
against interest by the parties to the action or their agents; if such had been
the case, the testimony would have been admissible without the laying of a
foundation and without the witnesses having testified in the case at bar. But
the purpose of the offer of the testimony was evidently to impeach the
testimony of the same witnesses in the present case and if so, a foundation
should have been laid by calling the attention of the witnesses to the former
statements so as to give them opportunity to explain before the statements
were offered in evidence.

UNITED STATES, vs. JOSE I. BALUYOT G.R. No. L-14476, November 6,

1919

It is almost universally accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross-
examination, evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to
impeach a witness; though undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the
discretion of the court.

ADMISSION BY OMISSION

An admission may be implied from an omission.

GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, vs. DE LA RIVA January 12, 1909, G.R. No.

4604

The plaintiffs having been made it at a certain rate and having notified the
defendant thereof it was clearly his duty to object to the rate if he was not
satisfied with it. As is seen, he made no objection whatever at the time, and
as far as appears never made any objection until he filed his answer herein.
The evidence is sufficient to show that he assented to the rate at which the
change was made. The judgment of the court below with reference to this
objection must be sustained.

People v. Belendrez, et al. 47 O.G. 5134

Delay in instituting a criminal prosecution unless satisfactorily explained,

creates suspicion about the motive of the supposed offended party and gives
rise to reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant.

CONSTRUCTION, CONCLUSIVENESS AND WEIGHT OF ADMISSIONS

Construction of admissions- Every admission is to be taken as an entirety of

the fact which makes for the one side with the qualifications which limit,
modify or destroy its effect on the other side.

Admission not conclusive evidence- The general rule is that admissions are
not conclusive when proved, but maybe disproved by ordinary evidence. This
rule is not affected by the fact that the admission was made under oath as a
witness or otherwise. Weight to be given to evidence of admissions may
depend upon various matters affecting its accuracy.

SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS

Self-serving declarations are unsworn statements made by the declarant out

of the court and which are favorable to his interests.

Self-serving declarations are not admissible in evidence as proof of the facts

asserted, whether they arose by implications from acts and conduct or were
made orally or reduced in writing. Objections: hearsay character;
untrustworthy declarations, open door to fraud and perjuries.

Death does not render self-serving declarations admissible.

LIM-CHINGCO,vs. TERARIRAY, ET AL., G.R. No. 2123, October 3, 1905

Plaintiff also offered in evidence another written document, which was a

protest made by the defendants against this inventory, on the ground that it
did not include the land in question. The court refused to admit this
document, to which the plaintiff excepted. The claim of the plaintiff is that
the inventory made by the executor contained the same lands as those
described in the will of Marcelo, and consequently that the protest made by
the defendants was an admission that the will did not describe these lands. It
does not appear from the evidence in the case that the lands described in
this inventory are the same as those described in the will. There was no error
in this ruling.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. BEDIA, G.R. No. L-2252, May 31,
1949

Appellant's defense hinges on the jamming of the deceased's pistol. His

theory is that the deceased failed to fire his pistol because it jammed when
he attempted to fire the first shot against appellant. It appears, however,
upon expert testimony on record, that the jamming of the firearm was due
not to any mechanical defect but to intentional insertion of a bullet from the
outside into the pistol's barrel. The fact that the appellant had experience in
handling firearms and the fact that it took him more than the necessary
length of time from the moment he took the pistol of the deceased to the
moment when he presented it to the authorities together with his own, lay
strong grounds for the belief that appellant concocted the jamming of the
pistol so as to enable him to present in court a self-serving evidence.

THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, vs. CUSTODIO, G.R.

No. L-26170, January 27, 1969

As to the appellants' having repudiated their signatures, the same was a self-
serving act, more indicative of a belated intention to squirm out of a
disadvantageous transaction, after they entered it with open eyes, which is
no ground for setting the same aside (Noble vs. City of Manila, 67 Phil. 1).
Certainly, it should take much weightier proof to invalidate a written
instrument (cf. Mendezona vs. Phil. Sugar Estates, 41 Phil. 493; Bank of the
Phil. Is. vs. Fidelity Surety Co., 51 Phil. 57).

Persons whose unsworn declarations in behalf of a party are not admissible

in favor of the latter are: 1) agents, as regards their principal; 2) a guardian,
as regards his ward; 3) a co-defendant or co-partner, as regards the other; 4)
a principal, as regards his surety; 5) a husband or wife, as regards his or her
spouse; 6) an employee, as regards his employer; 7) officers of the
corporation, as regards the corporation; 8) a public officer, as regards a
public corporation; and 9) predecessors in title, as regards an owner of the
property.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.AURELIO ALVERO (alias RELI) G.R.
No. L-820, April 11, 1950.

As a rule, diaries are inadmissible because they are self-serving in nature,

unless they have the nature of books of account (51 L. R. A. [N.S], 813-815);
but it has also been held that an entry in a diary being in the nature of a
declaration, if it was against interest when made, is admissible. Self-serving
declarations made by a party are admissible in his own behalf in the
following cases:
1) when they form part of res gestae, including spontaneous statements,
and verbal acts;

2) when they are in the form of complaint and exclamation of pain and
suffering;

3) when they are part of a confession offered by the prosecution;

4) where the credibility of a party has been assailed on the ground that his
testimony is a recent fabrication, provided they were made at a time
when a motive to misrepresent did not exist;

5) When they are offered by the opponent.

6) When they are offered without objection, the evidence cannot afterward
be objected to as incompetent.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. DEMIAR G.R. No. L-15130, May 31,
1960

It is also contended for appellant that the trial court erred in admitting
appellant's letter to his brother-in-law Lope Mayol (Exh. A) and that there is
nothing in the letter which would show that appellant admitted his guilt.
Appellant argues that, instead of considering said letter as evidence
indicative of his guilt, the trial court should have considered it in his favor,
because he disclaimed therein asked forgiveness from his sisters and begged
them to testify that their mother died of natural illness and not of
strangulation, we fail to see why said statements could not be taken as an
admission of appellant's guilt. As to the argument that said letter should
have been considered in appellant's favor, it may stated that self-serving
statements made extra-judicially cannot be admitted as evidence in favor of
the person making them, although the incriminating statement is evidence
against him.

Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. In civil cases, an

offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible
in evidence against the offeror.

In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence)

or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromised by the
accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to

lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made
the plea or offer.

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.

Compromise defined

Compromise is an agreement made between two or more parties as a

settlement of matters in dispute.

Offer of compromise in civil cases

An offer to compromise in civil cases does not amount to an admission

of liability. It is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.

Offer of compromise in criminal cases

In criminal cases, an offer of compromise by the accused may be

received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

When offer of compromise in criminal cases not an implied

admission of guilt

Jurisprudence: U.S vs. Torres (34 Phil. 994)

In criminal cases where compromise is allowed by law, as in opium or

usury cases, no implied admission of guilt arises against the accused who
makes an offer to compromise. The Collector of Internal Revenue may
compromise any civil or other case arising under the Tax Code or other law or
part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Similarly, in criminal cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal

negligence) an offer of compromise does not constitute an implied admission
of guilt.

Civil Code provisions on compromise

No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:

The civil status of persons

The validity of a marriage or a legal separation

Any ground for legal separation

Future support

The jurisdiction of courts

Future legitime

Payment of medical and similar expenses

The traditional ground for this rule is that the payment or offer is
usually made from the humane impulses and not from an admission of
liability.

Section 28. Admission by third party. The rights of a party cannot be

prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.

General rule:

Unless he assents thereto, a party to an action cannot be affected by

the admission of a person who does not occupy toward him any relation of
privity, agency, or joint interest. The act, declaration or omission of another
is generally irrelevant and that in justice a person should not be bound by
the acts of mere unauthorized strangers.
Exceptions:

Admission by a co-partner

Admission by an agent

Admission by joint owner or debtor or one jointly interested

Admission by conspirator

Admission by privies

Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. The act or declaration

of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his 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.

Requisites for the rule

Admission by partner

That the partnership be previously proven by evidence other than the

admission itself

That the admission refers to a matter within the scope of his authority

That the admission was made during the existence of the partnership

Reason for the rule

The admissions of one partner are received against another, not on the
ground that they are parties to the record, but on the ground that they are
identified in interest, and that each is agent for the other, and that the acts
or declarations of one during the existence of the partnership, while
transacting, while transacting its business and within the scope of the
business are evidence against the other or others.

Admission by agent
 that the agency be previously proved by evidence other than the
admission itself

that the admission refers to a matter within the scope of his

authority

that the admission was made during the existence of the agency

Reason for the rule

As a general rule parties are not chargeable with the declarations of

the agents, unless such declarations or statement are made during the
transaction of business by the agent for the principal and in relation to such
business, and while within the scope of agency. In other words, what is so
done, by an agent, is done by the principal through him, as a mere
instrument.

Admission by joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly

interested with the party

that there exists a joint interest between the joint owner, joint debtor, or
other person jointly interested with the part and such party, which joint
inter must first be made to appear by evidence other than the act of
declaration itself

that the act or declaration was made while the interest was subsisting

that the act relate to the subject matter of the joint interest for otherwise
it would be immaterial and irrelevant

Person jointly interested with the party

The mere fact that several persons have a common interest, as

contradistinguished from a joint interest, in the subject matter involved in
the suit, does not render their admissions competent against each other. This
is properly true with regard to rights under will.

There may be many legatees and devisees, but, although they derive
their benefit from a common source (testator) they clearly have no rights
based on the benefit of each other. They have interest in common in that
each derives his interest form the same source; but plainly they have no joint
interest through any relation inter se.

Section 30. Admission by conspirator. The act or declaration of a

conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given
in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act of declaration.

Requisites of the rule

that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission
itself

that the admission relates to the common object

it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy

Two requisites are necessary for the existence of a conspiracy

determination or decision to act, that is, a definite purpose to commit a

crime

agreement or meeting of the minds of two or more persons

Jurisprudence:
People vs. Carbonel (43 Phil. 65, 78)

If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their
acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual
meeting among them to concert means is proved.
Radin vs. U.S., 189 Fed. 568, 570 111 CCA 6

Conspirators do not go out upon the public highways and proclaim

their intentions. They accomplish their purpose by dark and sinister methods
and must be judged by their acts.

People vs. Catao, G.R. No. L-9532 June 30, 1960

It is enough that from the individual acts of each accused, it may be

reasonably deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony.

People vs. Silvestre (56 Phil. 353)

It is well-known rule that, without the proof of conspiracy, mere passive

presence at the scene of anothers crime does not constitute complicity.

Failure to prove conspiracy

People vs. Caayao, (G.R. No. L-4035, December 16, 1949)

Where there is lack of proof of conspiracy, the responsibility of the

accused is individual and each is liable for the result of his act in the degree
and manner of participation.

Section 31. Admission by privies. Where one derives title to property

from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the
title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.

Privity and privies defined

Privity means mutual succession of relationship to the same right of

property.

Privies are those who have mutual or successive relationship to the

same right of property or subject matter, such as personal representative,
heirs, devisees, legatees, assignes, voluntary grantees or judgement
creditors or purchases from them with notice of the facts.

Reason for the rule

It is an established rule of evidence that the declarations of a person

under whom title is claimed are receivable against the successor so claiming,
on the theory that there is sufficient identity of interest to render the
statements of the former equally receivable with the admissions of the
present owner, and that the rights of the latter are those, and only those, of
the former.

The principle on which such evidence is received is that the declarant

was so situated that he probably knew the truth, and his interest were such
that he would not have made the admissions to the prejudice of his title or
possession, unless they were true. The regard which one so situated would
have to his interest is considered sufficient security against falsehood.

Limitations of rule

The most important limitations upon the admission in evidence of

admissions of a predecessor in interest, or other privy, is that such evidence
is not admissible to contradict the terms of written instrument, as for
example, to vary the tenor of a deed or destroy the record title.

It would be an anomaly in our law if by the rules of evidence, titles to

real estate can be made to depend on the mere declaration of a prior owner,
when every contact for the sale of land is required to be in writing and title
can only be conveyed by deed. Such declarations are not admissible to affect
the title to lands, although they may be admitted to explain the character of
a possession.

Hence, in as much as the basis of admissibility of the statement is

privity, it cannot be used against on who claims no under, but against the
interest derived from the grantor. Such a claim cannot be affected be the
mere declarations of the holder of an adverse title which, in that case, are
akin to self- serving statement.

Three exceptions are recognized to the rule that declarations of the

transferor, made subsequent to the transfer, are admissible:

where the declarations are made in the presence of the

transferee and he acquiesces in the statements, or asserts no
rights where he ought to speak

Where there has been a prima facie case of fraud established as

where the thing granted has a corpus and the possession of the
 thing after the sale or transfer, remains with the seller or
transferor.

Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to

defraud, which conspiracy exists between the vendor and the
vendee

Section 32. 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 to do so, may be
given in evidence against him.

Requisites of the rule

That he heard and understood the statement

That he was at liberty to interpose a denial
That the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his
rights or in which he as ten interested, and calling, naturally, for
an answer
That the facts were within his knowledge
That the facts admitted or the inference to be drawn from his
silence would be material to the issue.

Reason for the rule

The rule that the silence of a party against who a claim or a right is asserted
may be construed as an admission of the truth of the assertion rests on that
instinct of nature, which leads us to resist an unfounded demand. The rule
rests on that universal principle of human conduct which leads us to repel an
unfounded imputation or claim.

Rule applicable in criminal as well as in civil cases

The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied

admission of the truth of the allegation uttered in his presence is
applicable in criminal as well as in civil cases.

RULE 130

SECTION 33 Confession. The declaration of an accused

acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.
1. Source. Reproduction of Section 29, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
2. Confession defined. Confession is an acknowledgement by the
accused that he is guilty of the crime charged.
3. Confession distinguished from admission. A confession is a
declaration made at any time by a person voluntarily, stating or
acknowledging that he has committed or participated in the
commission of a crime. The term admission, on the other hand, is
usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused
which do not directly involve an acknowledgement of guilt of the
accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is
charged.
4. Confession classified. 2 kinds of confession:
a. Judicial confession those made in conformity to law before a
committing magistrate or in court in the course of legal proceedings
b. Extrajudicial confession those which are made by a party
elsewhere than before a magistrate or in court.
5. Form of confession. A confession is not required to be in any
particular form. It may be oral or written, formal or informal in
character.
6. Rights of a person under investigation. Under the Constitution,
any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his rights to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If
the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided
with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
7. Miranda requirements. In order to combat the pressures and to
permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-
incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effectively
apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully
honored. (Please read Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1996)
8. Warning of silence. If a person in custody is to be subjected to
interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms
that he has the right to remain silent. For those unaware of the
privilege, the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it.
The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the
explanation that anything said can and will be used against the
individual court.
9. Warning of right to counsel. An individual held for interrogation
must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer
 and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system
for protecting the privilege.
10. Waiver of rights. If the interrogation continues without the
presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden on
the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and
intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right
to retain or appointed counsel.
A valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the
accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a
confession was in fact eventually obtained.
11. United States court decision since Miranda. Please read
Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602)
(a) CUSTODY REQUIREMENT - The Miranda Court limited its holding to
situations in which a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
(b)INTERROGATION An accused may not yet be entitled to the
Miranda wanings, due to the fact that no interrogation as
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers. A statement
freely and voluntarily made without compelling influence is
admissible into evidence.
(c) WARNINGS It is the point when the accused is in custody and the
police wish to interrogate him that Miranda requires the warnings to
be given. The warnings need not be given word for word to the
accused, though substantial compliance is required.
(d)WAIVER After warnings are given, Miranda presents the accused
with three options. He can waive his right to remain silent and to an
attorney and talk to the police, prevent police questioning by
asserting his right to remain silent, or prevent questioning by asking
for an attorney.
(e) TERMINATION OF AND BREAKS IN THE INTERROGATION After
Miranda, the accused may terminate the interrogation by request.
(f) PRESENCE OF COUNSEL The presence of counsel is the adequate
protective device necessary to make the process of police
interrogation conforms to the dictates of the privilege.
(g)FURTHER DEFINING THE SCOPE OF MIRANDA The Miranda decision
did not limit its holding only to certain kinds of offenses, though
some lower courts have held that warnings are inapplicable to
misdemeanors or traffic violations.
(h)IMPACT OF MIRANDA ON OTHER STANDARDS The Miranda holding
impinged upon several court and legislatively created rules.
 (i) CONCLUSIONS The law of confessions has moved from the case-
by-case, totality of the circumstances analysis that existed under
the due process voluntariness approach to the application of the
definite standards announced in the Miranda opinion.
As the law of confessions stands now, after Miranda:
(1)Uncensored admissions are admissible if made before an
individual is in custody or if they are spontaneous in the sense
that an interrogation by the police has not yet begun.
(2)However, admissions that occur during a custodial interrogation
are not admissible to establish guilt unless the accused is given
the Miranda warnings.
(3)Waiver of the Miranda right must be voluntary and intelligent.
(4)The accused has the right to stop an interrogation at any time,
which can be accomplished merely by refusing to answer
questions or by asking to see an attorney.
(5)As a general rule, confessions that were voluntarily made under
a totality of the circumstances test.
12. Constitutional provision (Miranda doctrine) has no
retroactive effect. A confession obtained before the effectivity of
the 1973 Constitution, even if accused had not been informed of his
right to counsel, is admissible in evidence.
13. Basic test for validity of confession. The basic test for the
validity of a confession is was it voluntarily and freely made.
14. No presumption of voluntariness. The prosecution must
prove that an extrajudicial confession was voluntarily given, instead of
relying on a presumption and requiring the accused to offset it.

15. Threats, violence, torture or fear. Confessions obtained by

putting the accused in fear by means of threats of violence to the
person of the accused made to obtain his confession are generally
inadmissible in evidence since they are involuntary in character.
Threats, violence, torture or fear

- Any confession or admission by the accused obtained through

torture, force, violence, threat, intimidations, any other means
which vitiates the free will shall be inadmissible as evidence against
him.
(a) Confession secured by third-degree methods
Examples:
1. Confession secured from an accused after he had been
subjected to almost continuous examination by police officers.
 2. One secured by a protracted searching examination by public
officials accompanied by threats, invective and false
statements and profanity.
3. One secured by questioning a suspect throughout a night and
hitting him with clubs.

-Confessions extracted through these means is inadmissible in

evidence.

(b)Promise of benefit or reward

- A confession induced or influenced by promises made to the
accused which hold out a hope of benefit or a reward or a promise
of immunity is not a voluntary confession and is not admissible in
evidence
(c) What constitutes benefit
- The term benefit, when used in connection with the procurement
of a confession, means a temporal or worldly benefit. To make the
confession involuntary, the benefit which influences a confession
must not only be temporal, but have reference to the persons
escape from punishment for the crime with which he is charged or
his partial escape.
(d)Offer of reward or pardon
- A confession influenced by the promise of a pardon is involuntary
and inadmissible in evidence against the person making it.
(e) Promise of immunity or not to prosecute or to compromise
- A promise not to prosecute the accused or to compromise the
matter, made by the person personally injured by the commission of
the offense, might well be deemed to create such a hope of benefit
as would render the statement of the accused of doubtful credibility.
(f) Deception or promise of secrecy
- The employment of any artifice, deception, or fraud to obtain a
confession does not render it inadmissible, if the means employed
are not calculated to procure an untrue statement.
(g)Advice and exhortation to confess or tell the truth
- A confession is not rendered involuntary by telling the accused that
it would be better for him to speak or tell the truth nor a sufficient
inducement to render objectionable a confession thereby obtained,
unless threats or promises are applied.
(h)Effect of refusal to keep the agreement to turn states witness
- If a confession is obtained on the assurance that the accused will be
used as a states witness and he afterwards repudiates the
 agreement, such confession may be used against him as a
voluntary confession.
(i) Threats to prosecute
- A common form of threat which renders a confession involuntary is
that the accused will be prosecuted if he does not confess. But it is
clear that an unconditional threat to prosecute does not render a
resulting confession of involuntary.
(j) Force or violence need not be inflicted upon the confessor
- If within his hearing and almost in his immediate presence, physical
violence is inflicted upon his co-defendant, his confession made
thereafter should be rejected for lack of that free and voluntary
character which would otherwise give it value as evidence.
(k) Age, mental condition, or intelligence of confessor
- Upon the question whether a confession is voluntary, the age, the
character and situation of the accused at the time the confession
was made is an important consideration.
(l) Insanity
- While the mere fact that the accused is not in the full possession of
his faculties at the time of a confession does not necessarily render
it inadmissible or involuntary, evidence of insanity or mental
weakness which would be sufficient to render the defendant
incompetent to testify is sufficient to render his confession
incompetent
(m) Mental incapacity
- A confession may be involuntary because of ignorance or mental
incapacity of the accused at the time of making the confession
sought to be introduce in evidence.
(n)Intoxication
- The intoxicated condition of the accused at the time of making a
confession does not, unless such intoxication goes to the extent of
mania, affect the admissibility in evidence of such confession if it
was otherwise a voluntary one, although the fact of intoxication
may affect its weight and credibility with the court.
(o) Confession made while asleep
- Words uttered by the accused while sleeping are involuntary and
cannot be admitted in evidence against him as a confession.

16. Admonition to judges, fiscals and other officers

- Judges, fiscals and other officers to whom persons accused of a

crime are brought for swearing the truth of their statements to
adopt the practice of having the confessants physically and
 thoroughly examined by independent and qualified doctors before
administering the oath, even if it is not requested by the accused.
Purpose: Shorten and speed up criminal trials ( where the accused
persons almost invariably repudiate their confessions) by precluding
future controversies on whether the statements were obtained
through torture or not.
17. Proving confession

- An oral admission on the part of an accused indicating guilty

complicity in the commission of the crime with which he is charged
is admissible in evidence, though not reduced to writing, or if
reduced into writing, though not signed by him.

18. Burden of proof

- The heavy burden is on the prosecution because the State is

responsible for establishing the isolated circumstance under which
the interrogation takes place and has the only means of making
available corroborated evidence of warnings given during
communicado interrogation.

19. The exclusionary rule

- The constitution provides that any confession or admission

obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.

20. Confession of third persons

- A confession on the part of a third person that he committed the

crime which the defendant is charged with having committed, even
though it is made in expectation of imminent death or by a person
jointly indicted with the accused, is not admissible as substantive
evidence tending to exculpate the accused where the confession
does not constitute a part of res gestae.

21. Several confessions

 - The rule is that if one confession is obtained by such methods as to
make it involuntary, all subsequent confessions made while the
accused is under operation of the same influence are also
involuntary. However, a confession otherwise voluntary is not
affected by the fact that a previous one was obtained by improper
influences if it is shown that these influences are not operating
when the later confession is made.

22. Partial or unfinished confession

- A partial or unfinished confession which was interrupted while the

defendants was rendering it is not admissible in evidence.

23. Confession learned through an interpreter

- A confession cannot be received in evidence by the testimony of a

witness who, although present when it was made, learned its
purport through an interpreter. Such testimony is hearsay evidence
and therefore inadmissible.

24. Confession subsequent to an involuntary confession

- Where a confession has been obtained from the accused by

improper inducement, any statement made by him while under that
influence is inadmissible.

25. Confession of other crimes

- A confession of an offense different from that with which the

accused is charged is not admissible on his trial for the offense
charged unless such other offense is a part of the same scheme or
so connected with the one charged as not to be severed from it.

26. Identification and introduction of confession as evidence

- Before a confession will be admitted into evidence, the prosecution

must prove the making thereof if accused objects that the
confession was not in fact made by him. In laying a predicate for the
admission of a confession, it is proper for the prosecution, as a
preliminary question, to inquire whether a confession was made at
 the time and place of the making of the confession and the persons
present.

27. Confession must be introduced in evidence in its entirety

- The whole confession must be put in evidence by the prosecuting

officer. To allow the introduction of fragments of a confession
admitting those indicative of the prisoners criminality and
suppressing others which, by limiting or modifying the former, may
establish his innocence, is utterly inconsistent with all principles of
justice and humanity.

28. Confessions admissible against confessor alone

- While the confession of one of several co-accused may be

introduced in evidence against him, it is not competent evidence
against his co-accused.

29. When confession of an accused is admissible against his

co-accused

- The general rule that the confession of an accused may be given in

evidence against him but that it is not competent evidence against
his co-accused, recognizes various exceptions:

(1)When several accused are tried together, the confession made

by one of them during the trial implicating the others is evidence
against the latter.
(2)When one of the defendant is charged from the information and
testifies as a witness for the prosecution, the confession made in
the course of his testimony is admissible against his co-
defendants, if corroborated by indisputable proof.
(3)If a defendant, after having been apprised of the confessions of
his co-defendant, ratifies or confirms said confession, the same is
admissible against him.
(4)Where several extrajudicial confessions have been made by
several persons charged with an offense and there could have
been no collusion with reference to said several confessions, the
facts that the statements therein are in all material respects,
identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendant
and is admissible against co-defendants. This is commonly
known as Interlocking confession.
 (5)A statement made by one defendant after his arrest, in the
presence of his co-defendant, confessing his guilt and implicating
his co-defendant who failed to contradict or deny it, is admissible
against his co-defendant.
(6)When the confession is of a conspirator and made after
conspiracy and in furtherance of its object, the same is
admissible against his co-conspirator.
(7)The confession of one conspirator made after the termination of
a conspiracy, is admissible against his co-conspirator if made in
his presence and assented to by him, or admitted its truth or
failed to contradict or deny it.

30. Waiver of objection as to admissibility

- A confession offered in evidence and not objected to by the

defendant is regarded as prima facie voluntary and therefore,
admissible in evidence.

31. Determination of admissibility of confession

- The test of a confessions admissibility is not the weight of the

testimony or the credibility of the witness, but the testimonial
unworthiness of the confession.

32. Weight and sufficiency of judicial confession

- The essence of the plea of guilty in a criminal trial is that the

accused, on arraignment, admits his guilt freely, voluntarily, and
with full knowledge of the consequences and meaning of his act,
and with a clear understanding of the precise nature of the crime or
crimes charged in the complaint or information.
- Such a plea of guilty, when formally entered on arraignment, is
sufficient to sustain a conviction of any offense charged in the
information.

33. Weight and sufficiency of extrajudicial confessions

- An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be

sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti.
Section 34.Similar acts as evidence. Evidence that one did or did not
do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did
or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may
be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.

1. Source

This provision is a reproduction of Section 48, Rule 130 of the

Rules of Court with the following differences:

a. The title of the section Evidence of similar acts has been changed
to Similar acts as evidence in the present.

b. The words omitted to in the Rules of Court have been

deleted in the present provision;

c. The words did not have been added in the present

provision.

2. In general

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.

However, there is no rule of law which prevents the trial of collateral

issues, since the objection thereto is purely a practical one, and the general
rule is that the admission of evidence of similar acts or occurrences as proof
that a particular act was done or that a certain occurrence happened, rests
largely in the discretion of the trial court, provided the conditions are
substantially the same.

3. Reasons for the rule

It is improper for the court to assume that the motive of the previous
crimes is continuing and is the basis of the present crime.
If evidence of previous crimes is to be used, the accused shall face
charges which he has no information and confuses him in his defense.
Evidence of collateral matters must not be received as substantive
evidence of the offenses in the present trial.
4. Rule must be strictly enforced

The general rule is that evidence is not admissible which shows that
the accused in a criminal case has committed a crime wholly
independent of the offense of the present trial.
A man may have committed many crimes, and still be innocent of the
crime presently charged.
One who commits one crime may be more likely to commit another;
yet, logically, one crime does not prove another, nor tend to prove
another, unless there is such a relation between them that proof of one
tends to prove the other.

5. Exceptions to the general rule

Evidence of other crimes is always admissible when such evidence:

a. tends directly to establish the particular crime;
b. it is usually competent to prove the
motive and intent;
the absence of mistake or accident;
a common scheme or plan embracing two or more crime so
related to each other; or,
the identity of the person charged with the commission of the
crime on trial.
When the fact of a former crime is an element in the offense charged.

6. Prior acts showing intent

Intent is of course entirely distinct from intention (design, plan). The

latter is almost always an evidential fact only, but the former is a fact-
in-issue, being usually an element of the offense or of the evil act
done.
Intent is a specific state of mind at the very time of the act charged.
Examples:
a. In a shooting, the nature of the offense depends on the state of
mind as to aiming at a person, or just cleaning the gun, etc.;

b. In the delivery of money, the intent at that time determines whether

it is a payment, or a loan or a deposit.
The persons conduct is naturally the chief circumstantial evidence of
this intent as it is also of a plan.

7. Prior acts showing guilty knowledge

 Evidence which tends to show scienter or such knowledge on the part
of the accused as is necessary to constitute his act a crime is
admissible.

Examples:
a. On a charge against X, a clerk, of stealing from his employers
sage, the safe having been opened by manipulating the
combination lock, X denied having knowledge of such combination.
Here the fact that X had been seen on a previous instance of
surreptitiously opening the safe would be admissible to show his
knowledge.

b. On a charge against Z of uttering counterfeit money, to wit, a 100-

peso bill, the fact that Z had tried on other previous occasions, but
unsuccessfully, to pay out similar bills to A, B, and C is admissible to
evidence his knowledge of the bill in issue being counterfeit.

8. Identification of accused by proof of other crimes

General Rule: Evidence of separate and independent crimes is

inadmissible to prove the guilt of a person upon trial for a
criminal offense.

Exceptions:

When evidence tends to aid in identifying the accused as the person

who committed the particular crime under investigation.
There is a logical connection between the crimes that proof on one will
naturally tend to show that the accused is the person who committed
the other.

9. Prior acts showing plan, design, or scheme

Evidence of other crimes is competent in a criminal trial to prove the

specific crime charged when it tends to establish a common scheme, plan, or
system embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each
other than proof of one tends to establish the others, notwithstanding the
general rule excluding evidence which shows, or tends to show that the
accused has committed another crime wholly independent of that for which
he is on trial.

10. Prior acts showing habit or customs

Evidence of a course of conduct or dealing may be admitted where

pertinent to an issue in the case when it fits as deemed by the court.

Customs may, like any other facts or circumstances be shown when

their existence will increase or diminish the probability of an act having been
done or not done, which act is the subject of contest.

11. Prior acts showing negligence

Upon a criminal prosecution for injuries caused by negligence,

evidence of other acts, disconnected though similar, is irrelevant. However,
when a party is charged with the negligent use of a dangerous agency, and
the case against him is that he did not use care proportionate to the danger,
then the question becomes material whether he knew, or ought to have
known, the extent of danger.

12. Proof of subsequent offenses

According to one of the authorities, evidence of offenses committed

subsequent to the act charged is never admissible in evidence. Other
authorities favor the admissibility of such proof in certain instances, as in the
case of offenses arising out of sexual intercourse, upon the theory that
subsequent acts disclose the disposition of the parties.

13. Rule the same in civil cases as well as in criminal prosecution

In civil cases the rule as to proof of commission of an act by showing

the commission of similar acts by the same person at other times and under
other circumstances is the same as in a criminal prosecution.

Section 35. Unaccepted offer. An offer in writing to pay a particular

sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal
property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual
production and tender of the money, instrument, or property.
1. Source

This provision is a reproduction of Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of

Court with the only difference that the phrase without valid cause has been
added in the present provision.

2. Civil Code provision

If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses

without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from
responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due.

According to the above provision, tender of payment must precede

consignation, and only when such tender is refused without just cause will
the consignation of the thing or sum due release the debtor from his
obligation.

Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay

excluded. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows
of his personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his own
perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules

1. Source

The word own in the Rules of Court has been deleted in the present
provision and the word personal has been added.

2. Generally

The witness can testify only to those facts which he knows from his
personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his own perception.

3. Hearsay evidence

Hearsay evidence has been defined as evidence which derives its value,
not solely from the credit to be given to the witness upon the stand, but
in part from the veracity and competency of some other persons.
Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony. A writing may be hearsay.
Evidence is hearsay when its probative value depends in whole or in
part, on the competency and credibility of some persons other that the
witness.
Hearsay evidence is the evidence not of what the witnesses knows
himself but of what he has heard from others.
4. Reason for excluding hearsay evidence

One reason is the fact that hearsay testimony is not subject to the
tests which can ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment of the truth
of testimony, since the declarant is not present and available for cross-
examination.
The court is without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay
statements by observing the demeanor of the person who made them.

5. Independently relevant statements

The hearsay rule does not apply where, regardless of the truth or the
falsity of a statement, the fact that it has been made is relevant, the
hearsay rule does not apply, but the statement may be shown.

Groups

a. Those statements which are the very facts in issue; and,

b. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in
issue.

6. Statements which are the very facts in issue

Where the statements, or utterances of specific words, are the facts in

issue, the testimony of witnesses thereto is not hearsay.
In other words, if the fact sought to be established is, that certain
words were spoken, without reference to the truth or falsity of the
words, the testimony of any person who heard the statement is original
evidence and not hearsay.

7. Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in

issue

The statements from which the facts in issue may be inferred, may be
testified to by witnesses without violating the hearsay rule. Of this
kind are:
a. Statements of a person showing his state of mind, that is his mental
condition, knowledge, belief, intention and other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as illness
and the like;
 c. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to
the state of mind of another, that is, knowledge, belief, motive,
good or bad faith, etc. of the latter;
d. Those which may identify the date, place, and person in question;
and,
e. Those showing the lack of credibility of a witness.

8. Statements showing the speakers state of mind

A mans state of mind or feeling can only be manifested to others by

countenance, attitude or gesture, or by sounds or words, spoken or written.

9. Statements showing the speakers physical condition

Statements of a person which may fairly show his bodily condition at

the time he made the statements are admissible as circumstantial
evidence of such condition.
When the bodily or mental feelings of an individual are material to be
proved, the usual expression of such feelings are original and
competent evidence.

10. Statements of a person from which the state of mind of another

may be inferred

Pertains to knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the

latter may be testified to by a witness without violating the hearsay rule.

11. Statements identifying the time, date, place, or person in

question

May be validly testified to by the witness.

12. Statements of a witness impeaching his credibility

Statements made out of court are admitted for the purpose of

contradicting or impeaching a witness.
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was
called . . . by evidence that he had made at other times statements,
inconsistent with present testimony . . .

13. Evidence of acting upon a statement, not hearsay

If the statement is introduced for the purpose of establishing the fact

that a party relied and acted thereon, it is not objectionable on the ground of
hearsay.
 14. Statements made through interpreter, not hearsay

Reason: Both the original witness and the interpreter are under oath and
subject to cross-examination.

Exceptions:

a. The interpreter had been selected by common consent of the parties

endeavoring to converse; or,
b. By the party against whom the statements of the interpreter were
offered in evidence.

15. Presumption that testimony is not hearsay

In the absence of any showing to the contrary, a witness is presumed

to be testifying of his own knowledge.

16. Objection to hearsay cannot be raised for the first time on

appeal

The failure of a party to object to the admission of hearsay evidence

constitutes a waiver of his right to make such objection, and, consequently,
the evidence offered may be admitted. Objection to its admission made for
the first time on appeal is too late.

17. Weight of hearsay evidence admitted without objection

The Supreme Court held that although the question of admissibility of

evidence cannot raised for the first time on appeal, yet if the evidence is
hearsay, it has no probative value and should be disregarded whether
objected or not.

18. Multiple hearsay

There is no good reason why a hearsay declaration, which within itself

contains a hearsay statement, should not be admissible to prove the truth of
the included statement, if both the statement and the included statement
meet the tests of an exception to the hearsay rule.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

Section 37. Dying declaration. 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.
1. Dying declaration defined

A dying declaration is a statement made by the victim of homicide,

referring to the material facts which concern the cause and circumstances of
the killing and which is uttered under a belief of an impending death.

2. Reasons for admissibility

a. Necessity because the declarants death renders impossible his

taking the witness stand; and it happens often that there is o other equally
satisfactory proof of the crime.

b. Trustworthiness since the declaration is made in extremity,

when the party is at the point of death and every hope of this world is gone;
when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by the
most powerful considerations to speak the truth.

3. Admission of dying declarations not unconstitutional

It does not violate the constitutional right of the accused to confront

and cross-examine the witness against him, because the person who testifies
to the dying declarations is the witness against the accused and the witness
with whom the accused is entitled to be confronted.

4. Scope

Only in homicide cases for the killing of the declarant and now its
extended to civil cases.

5. Conditions of admission of dying declarations

The conditions are as follows:

a. That death be imminent and that declarant be conscious of that

fact;
b. That the preliminary facts which bring the declaration within its
scope be made to appear;
c. That the declaration relate to the facts or circumstances pertaining
to the fatal injury or death; and,
d. That declarant would have been competent to testify had he
survived.

6. Form of dying declarations

No particular form is required.

 A dying declaration may be a communication by means of signs, an
oral statement or ejaculation, a mere formal statement, or answers to
questions put by the person to whom the declaration is made, a writing
signed by the declarant, or an affidavit.

7. Introduction of dying declaration in evidence by the prosecution

A proper predicate must be laid for the introduction of dying

declaration. The proper predicate is the proof that the declarant has
made his declaration under a consciousness of impending death.
It is generally a sufficient predicate to show, by the repeated assertions
of the declarant, that he was about to die; it may be laid by showing
that the surrounding circumstances were of such a character as to
satisfy the court that the declarant believed that he would die.

8. Introduction of dying declarations in evidence by the accused

It is settled by a long line of decisions that dying declarations, when

they tend to exculpate or exonerate the defendant, may be introduced
by him.
If such declarations are competent evidence to prove facts, it does not
matter if such proof tends to acquit the defendant, rather than convict
him.

9. When declaration of a dying man may be admissible not as a

dying declaration but as part of res gestae

Where a man after having been seriously wounded was taken to a

municipal building and there he told a person in authority that he had been
wounded by the accused that statement, although not admissible as dying
declaration because it was not made in the belief that the declarant was
about to die, yet it is admissible as part of the res gestae.

10. Impeachment of dying declarations

Dying declarations, when admitted, are subject to impeachment in the

same manner and for the same causes that the testimony of a witness given
on the witness stand may be impeached.

11. Weight of dying declarations

 Dying declarations are given great weight since it is made at the point
of death.
Courts, however, must not be unmindful of the fact that men on the
very threshold of death had sometimes been swayed by a spirit of
vindictive revenge or heated passion or by a desire to shield
themselves or others even in making ante-mortem statements.

Section 38. 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 declarants own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration
unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.

1. Source

This is a reproduction of Section 33, Rule 130 of the Rules with the
difference that the phrase or outside the Philippines and the words
pecuniary or moral have been deleted in the present provision.

2. Reasons for the rule

The necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such evidence

advisable and, further that the reliability of such declarations asserts facts
which are against his own pecuniary or moral interest.

3. Declaration against interest distinguished from admission

a. The admission is not necessarily against the interest of the person

who made the admission, while the present exception must be a declaration
against interest;

b. An admission may be used although the admitter is still alive, while

the present exception refers to a declaration against interest of a deceased
person; and,
 c. An admission may be used only against the admitter and those
identified with him in legal interest while a declaration against interest
admissible against third persons.

4. Declaration against interest distinguished from self-serving

declaration

A self-serving declaration is a statement favorable to that interest of

the declarant and not admissible while a declaration against the interest is
admissible in evidence, notwithstanding its hearsay character, only if the
declarant has died, become insane, or for some other reason is not available
as a witness.

5. Scope

It is safe to assume that the declaration against interest under the

present provision has been expanded to include all kinds, i.e., pecuniary,
proprietary, moral or penal interests.

6. Requisites for the admissibility of declarations against interest

a. Declarant must not be available to testify.

As in the case when he is dead, mentally incapacitated,

physically incompetent, of advanced age, or other irremediable
cause.

b. The declaration must concern a fact cognizable by declarant

It is essential to relevancy in the declaration that the declarant

should have adequate knowledge with respect to the subject
covered by his statement.

c. The circumstances must render it improbable that a motive

to falsify existed.

To be admissible, there should be a circumstantial guaranty of

the trustworthiness of the declaration.

7. Declarations against pecuniary interest

 Pertains to those which may bar in whole or in part the declarants
money claim, or which may give rise to a monetary claim against him, as for
instance, where he acknowledges that his credit is already paid or that he is
indebted to some person.

8. Declarations against proprietary interest

Those which are at variance with the declarants property rights, as for
instance, where he, being in possession of a chattel or a piece of land,
declares that he is not the owner thereof, or that he is holding it as a mere
trustee, or that he has already sold it, and the like.

9. Declarations against moral interest

Moral interest should not be confused with moral obligation, which is a

duty which one owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not
legally bound to fulfill. For instance, where a man owes a debt barred by the
statute of limitations, this cannot be recovered by law, though it subsists in
morality and conscience.

10. Declarations against penal interest

This cannot be justified on grounds of policy. The only plausible reason

of policy that has ever been advanced for such a limitation is the
possibility of procuring fabricated testimony to such an admission if
oral.
The inclusion of declarations against penal interest in the exception for
declarations against interest has raised a host of intertwined
constitutional and evidentiary problems in the United States.
See People v. Toledo (51 Phils. 825).

11. Contrary to interest

3 Methods in Handling Declaration containing both self-serving and

disserving facts:

1. Admit the entire declaration because part is disserving and hence

by a kind of contagion of truthfulness, all will be trustworthy.
2. Compare the strength of the self-serving interest and the disserving
interest in making the statement as a whole, and admit it all if the
self-serving interest is greater.
3. Admit the disserving parts of the declaration, and exclude the self-
serving facts.
The third solution seems the most realistic method.

12. Form of declaration against interest

May be oral or written.

Form is immaterial provided all the essential requisites for its
admissibility are present.

Sec. 39 .
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 by birth or
marriage, 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 fast occurred, and the names
of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.

Pedigree defined.
- It is the history of the family descent which is transmitted from one
generation to another by both oral and written declarations and by
traditions.
- May includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and places where these facts occurred, the names of the
relatives, and the facts of family history intimately connected.
- Includes also paternity and legitimacy.

Reason of Admissibility
To avoid a failure of justice, as greater evils are apprehended from the
rejection of such proof than from its admission and that individuals are
generally supposed to know and to be interested in those facts of family
history about which they converse, and that they are generally under little
temptation to state untruths in respect to such matter.

Requisites for Admissibility

a) Declarant is dead or unable to testify
 - Declarations will not be received when better evidence is available, in
case his alive and able his direct testimony is considered a better
evidence.
- The fact that there are living members of the family who could be
examined on the same point does not exclude the declaration.
- Declarations are admissible when the declarant is dead, outside of the
Philippines, or when his testimony is unobtainable, like when he
becomes insane, declarations made before his insanity are admissible.

b) Necessity that pedigree be in issue

- Generally, declarations as to pedigree can be received only where
pedigree itself is directly in issue.
- However, in many cases the fact that pedigree is relevant to the issue
is sufficient to admit in evidence and as to matters of genealogy or
facts incidentally or inferentially connected therewith, such as the
dates of genealogical importance, such as births, deaths, and
marriage, took places, names, number, residence of a branch of the
family, or their ownership of property, regardless of whether pedigree
is separately in issue.

c) Declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in

question
- Generally, declarations as to pedigree to be admissible, it must have
been made by someone related to the family concerned, it is enough
if some relationship is shown, although the declarations of very
remote relatives entitled to very little weight.
- Relationship of declarant to the family may be by birth or by affinity.
Hence, the declaration of the husband regarding the pedigree of his
wife and his wifes relatives and vice versa, is admissible. But
declarations of the husbands relatives regarding the pedigree of the
wifes relatives, or vice versa, are not admissible.
- If it appears that the evidence offered does not emanate from
someone related to the family concerned, the presumption of the
reliability of the source of information is rebutted and the evidence
becomes inadmissible.
- Courts will not receive declarations as to pedigree made by intimate
friends or neighbors, or even by persons living in the family or by
servants, however trustworthy or long he has been employed by the
family.
d) Declarant must be made before the controversy occurred
 - Generally, declarations to be received in proof of pedigree requires
that the declarations must have been made ante litem motam (before
suit brought), before the controversy, and under such circumstances
that the person making them could have no motive to misrepresent
the facts. It is necessary that the declarant should have been
disinterested to the extent of having no motive which can fairly be
assumed to be such as would induce him to state the facts otherwise
than as he understood it.
- Declarations made after a controversy has originated, are excluded,
on the ground that the bias under which they were uttered suffices to
render them untrustworthy.
- Controversy as used in this provision is not meant mere idle rumors,
or doubts of curious scandalmongers whose discussions of the family
matters of their neighbors are made without reverence for sanctity,
morality, privacy or religion.

e) The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is
in question must be shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration
- Generally, the relationship of declarant to the family concerned must
be established by evidence other than the statement of declarant
himself.
- Exception, where the subject of the declaration is the declarants own
relationship to another person it seems absurd to require, as a
foundation for the admission of the declaration, proof of the very facts
which the declaration is offered to establish.
- Evidence to prove relationship may either direct or circumstantial,
such as declarants bearing the family name or a name identical with
that of the subject of declaration, recognition of declarant by the
family, or mention of him in family conveyance and other dispositions
of property.

Proof concerning Pedigree

a) oral declaration of declarant
- May be proved by the testimony of any person who is a competent
witness and who has heard such declarations of the declarant.
b) written acts or declarations of the declarant
- May be proved by the statement in writing relating to pedigree made
or recognized by the declarant, or made under his direction.
 - Exception, where the writing is in the form of an entry in a family Bible
or testament which is produced from the proper custody, in which
event the assent of the family is presumed.
c) Acts or conduct of a person deceased or outside of the country or unable
to testify
- May consist of proof of acts or conduct of relatives and the mode of
treatment in the family of one whose parentage or decent is in
question.

Relationship must be legitimate

- In order to render a declaration as to pedigree admissible it is necessary
that the relationship of declarant to the family should be of a legitimate
character.
- A bastards declarations as to the pedigree of his putative family, or
conversely, and vice versa, are not admissible, but in some cases the
courts have shown a tendency to relax the rule.
Subject matter of declaration of pedigree
- The facts regarded as those of genealogy or pedigree, take a wide range,
and embrace any notable fact in the life of a member of the family or in
the family history, or his own relationship to the family.
Age
- Naturally, the testimony of a witness concerning his own age is based
upon hearsay, but according to the general rule, this circumstances does
not render such testimony inadmissible.
- It is based on statements of his parents, records recognized as family
records, reputations in the family, and, according to some authorities,
general reputation in the community.
- Testimony of a priest concerning the age of a person, whom he had
baptized at the time of baptism based upon statement made at the time
by a parent of such person is not admissible where it appears that the
parent is available.

Paternity and Legitimacy

- Declarations of deceased members of a family that he was the father or
mother of a child are admissible on the question of paternity or parentage
of the child, with or without accompanying proof of marriage.
- Declaration of deceased relatives other than the parents are admissible as
proof of paternity if made ante litem motam (before the controversy).
- There is authority which permits declarations of persons not related by
blood may, under some circumstances, be admissible to establish the
parentage of an illegitimate.
Marriage
- Declarations and general repute are admissible as proof of a marriage,
whether or not members of the family.
- Reason: The public interest is taken in question of the existence of a
marital relation.
- Where a formal marriage is proved, repute is not admissible to establish
that there was no marriage.
Death
- The fact of death is a matter of pedigree within the rule which permits the
admission of hearsay evidence, such as reputation in proof of matters of
pedigree.
- Slight proof of relationship of the declarant is sufficient to warrant
admission of the declaration.
- A newspaper announcement of the death of an individual is not
admissible to prove the fact of such persons death.
-
Form of Declaration
- Declaration may be in any form capable of conveying thought, provided
the authenticity of the vehicle conveying the statement is established to
the satisfaction of the court by evidence as by recognition in the family or
production from proper custody.
- Must be a statement of fact, and not opinion.
- May be oral or in writing; the oral statement is as competent as written
evidence on the same point.

Sec. 40
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 or affinity. Entries in
family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings,
family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
Reputation or Tradition in matters of pedigree
- meant such declaration and statements as have come down from
generation to generation from deceased relatives in such a way even
 though it cannot be said or determined which of the deceased relatives
originally made them, or was personally cognizant of the facts therein
stated.
- It appears that such declarations and statement were made as family
history, ante litem motam (before the controversy), by a deceased person
connected by blood or marriage with the person whose pedigree is to be
established.
Reason for Admissibility
- Family affairs are constantly talked over in the family, and the members
who know what happened tell what they know, with spontaneous
sincerity, to those who did not know.
- Declaration as to pedigree made by deceased although based upon
hearsay within the family, and that, having been made before any
controversy had arisen, there is no motive to speak other than the truth.
Requisites for Admissibility
a) There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any members of a
family
- Reputation in the family gives rise to an inference to the existence of
such facts as birth, descent, failure of issue, heirship, identity,
marriage, celibacy, parentage, or relationship; or facts incidentally
connected with genealogy, such as residence or the dates of events of
family history; and evidence of such reputations will be received on an
issue of pedigree concerning any member of any branch of the family
- Tradition in the family, being a form of family history or reputation is
admissible to prove facts of genealogy

Age
- Members of the family of the person in question, or others having an
intimate acquaintance with the family, may testify as to age,
although their testimony is based on family tradition or reputation
Death
- Evidence of reputation in the family or in the community or family
tradition, has been held admissible to establish the fact of death,
provided there has been a considerable lapse of time.
- Hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove the manner or cause of
death.
b) The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person, concerned
existed previous to the controversy
 - Common reputation or tradition arising after the controversy is
supposed to be tainted with bias and therefore unreliable.
c) The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the
pedigree of the person concerned must be a member of the family of
said person, either by consanguinity or affinity.
- Relationship between the witness and the family need not be proved
by independent evidence; it may be shown by the witness own
testimony.

Form of Declaration Relating to Pedigree

- Any form capable of conveying thought, provided the authenticity of the
vehicle conveying the statement is established to the satisfaction of the
court by evidence as by recognition in the family or production from
proper custody.

Sec. 41
Common reputation
Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting
facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, 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.

Matters of public interest vs. matters of general interest

- Matters of public interest are common to all the citizens of the state or to
the entire people,
- matters of general interest are common only to a single community or to
a considerable number of persons forming part of the community.
Matters which may be established by common reputation
a) Facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old;
b) Marriage and related facts; and
c) Individual moral character.
Common Reputation Respecting Facts of Public or General Interest more than
Thirty Years Old
- Reputation must have been formed among a class of people of persons
who were in a position to have sound sources of information and to
contribute intelligently to the formation of the opinion.
Common Reputation vs. Rumor
- Rumor is a story current without known authority for its truth, and,
therefore, by its nature, does not yet represent the prevailing belief in the
community
- Common Reputation presupposes the existence of a general or undivided
belief already formed on which the general opinion is founded.
Common Reputation Respecting Marriage
a) The common reputation must have been formed previous to the
controversy.
b) The common reputation must have been formed in the community or
among the class of persons who are in a position to have sources of
information and to contribute intelligently to the formation of the opinion.

Sec. 42
Part of res gestae
Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking
place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of 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.

Res Gestae Defined

- Comprehends a situation which presents a startling or unusual occurrence
sufficient to produce a spontaneous and instinctive reaction, during which
interval, certain statements are made under such circumstance as to
show lack of forethought or deliberate design in the formulation of their
contents.
Res Gestae vs. Dying Declaration
- In dying declaration there is a sense of impending death which takes the
place of an oath and the law regards the declarant as testifying .
- While in res gestae it is the event itself which speaks, the actual facts
expressing themselves through the mouth of a witness, which may
precede, or accompany, or follow, as events occurring as a part of the
principal act.
Reason of Admissibility
- It is a well-founded belief that statements made instinctively at the time
of a specific transaction or events, without opportunity for formulation of
statements favorable to ones own cause, are likely to cast important light
upon the matter in issue; as to such statements, the law creates a
presumption of their truthfulness.
Test of Admissibility
- Whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven
or connected with the principal factor event which it characterizes as to
be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly
negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
Statements and Acts Constituting Part of Res Gestae
a) Statement made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place
or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof.
b) Acts and circumstances which are incidents of a particular litigated act
and which are illustrative of such act;
c) Statement accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and
giving it a legal significance, and are called by writers as verbal facts or
verbal acts
Examples:
- Declaration of the parties made with regard to matters of business, if
contemporaneous with the acts they tend to explain and qualify, are
admissible
- Declarations by a party relating to ownership of property made by a
person in possession thereof, may be admitted when uttered under such
circumstances as satisfy the requirements applicable to other statements
sought to be admitted under this exception to hearsay rule.
- Declaration made at the time of a transaction which are pertinent to the
question of fraud are generally viewed as admissible.
- Statements made by an injured person relating to present pain and
suffering or at the time of an accident or so shortly thereafter as to form
part of one event or transaction are viewed in some decisions as part of
the res gestae.

Spontaneous Statement Defined

- A statement or exclamation made immediately after some exciting
occasion by a participant or spectator and asserting the circumstances of
that occasion as it is observed by him.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Trustworthiness the statements are made instinctively, while the
declarants mental powers for deliberation in concocting matters are
controlled and stilled by the shocking influence of a startling
occurrence, they are but pure emanation of the occurrence itself.
 b) Necessity said natural and spontaneous utterances are more
convincing than the testimony of the same person on the stand.
Elements of the statement or declaration to be admissible as part of res
gestae Corpus Juris Secumdum
a) must relate to the main event and must explain, elucidate, or in some
manner characterize that event
b) must be a natural declaration or statement growing out of the event, and
not a mere narrative of a past, completed affair
c) must be a statement of fact, and not the mere expression of an opinion
d) must be a spontaneous or instinctive utterance of thought, dominated or
evoked by the transaction or occurrence itself, and not the product of
premeditation, reflection, or design
e) the declaration or statement need not be coincident or contemporaneous
with the occurrence of the event, it must be made at such time and
under such circumstances as will exclude the presumption that it is the
result of deliberation
f) must appear that the declaration or statement was made by one who
either participated in the transaction or witnessed the act or fact
concerning which the declaration or statement was made.
Startling Occurrence Necessary
- it is essential that the spontaneous exclamation should have been caused
by something startling enough to produce nervous excitement and to
keep the will dormant so far as any deliberation in concocting matters for
speech or selecting words is concerned.
Statement must relate to the circumstances of the startling occurrence
- the range of events must be kept in view for it is largely the explanatory
and illustrative character of the declaration as applied to the principal
transaction that admits them as evidence.
Interval of time between the startling occurrence and the spontaneous
statement
- Since startling occurrence may extend its exciting influence over a
subsequent period of time which may be long or short, the rule is that the
statements, to be admissible, should have been made before there had
been time or opportunity to devise or contrive anything contrary to the
real facts that occurred.
- What the law altogether distrusts is not the afterspeech but the
afterthought.

When expression of opinion admissible as part of the res gestae

- When a spontaneous exclamation of an injured person that it involves the
expression of an opinion as to the legal or physical effects of his injury,
and it has also been held that the opinions or conclusions of competent
physicians, stated while examining a patient, may be admissible as part
of the res gestae.
Place Where the Statement was made
- It is not unreasonable to suppose that a statement made, or an act done,
at a place some distance from the place where the principal transaction
occurred will not ordinarily possess such spontaneity as would render it
admissible.
Condition of the Declarant at the Time he made the Declaration
- A statement will ordinarily be deemed spontaneous if, at the time when it
was made, the condition of declarant was such as to raise an inference
that the effect of the occurrence on his mind still continued, as where he
had just received a serious injury, was suffering severe pain, or was just
under intense excitement.
Province of the Court to Determine Whether or not Statement is Spontaneous
- It is for the trial court to decide the preliminary question as to whether or
not the declarations were made without deliberation and reflection or
were the spontaneous utterance of the declarant
- Trial courts decision of above mention question will not be disturbed on
appeal unless it appears that his conclusion was arbitrary or unreasonable
Declarations of Bystanders and Third Persons
- If the act of a third party is relevant and is in evidence, his statement
accompanying and explanatory of it, which is the natural concomitant of
the act, and is prompted by the identical motive should be admitted.
- But if the declarations of a third persons are merely narrative and
unconnected with the relevant act, so that by no proper extension of the
rule can they be included among the res gestae.
Acts and Circumstances which are Incidents of a Particular Litigated Act
- Statements, acts or conduct accompanying or so nearly connected with
the main transaction as to form a part of it, and which illustrate, elucidate,
qualify, or characterize the act, are admissible as part of res gestae.
- Writings may become part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence
where they are incidents of a transaction and a part thereof.
Verbal Acts Defined
- Are utterances which accompany some acts has intrinsically no definite
legal significance, or only an ambiguous one, its legal purport or tenor
 may be ascertained by considering the words accompanying it, and these
utterances thus enter merely as a verbal part of the act.
Reason for Admissibility
- The motive, character, and object of an act are frequently indicated
by what was said by the person engaged in the act, such statement
are in the nature of verbal acts and are admissible in evidence with
the remainder of the transaction which they illustrate.
Requisites for Admissibility
a) The act characterized by the verbal acts must be equivocal or
ambiguous in tenor;
b) That the verbal acts must characterize or explain the equivocal or
ambiguous act;
c) That the equivocal or ambiguous act must be material to the issue;
and
d) That the verbal act must be contemporaneous with and accompany
the equivocal or ambiguous act
Verbal Acts vs. Spontaneous Statements
- In spontaneous exclamations, the res gestae is the startling occurrence;
while in verbal acts, the res gestae is the equivocal act.
- The verbal act must be contemporaneous with or must accompany the
equivocal act to be admissible; whereas a spontaneous exclamation may
be prior to, simultaneous with, or subsequent to the startling.
Act or Occurrence Characterized must be Equivocal
- It is only when the thing done is equivocal that it is competent to prove
declarations accompanying it as falling within the class of res gestae.
Verbal Acts must Characterize or Explain the Equivocal Act
- The statement that are admissible are only those necessary to understand
the meaning of the equivocal act, other statements not necessary for that
purpose are not admissible.
Equivocal Act Must be Relevant to the Issue
- The general rule is that a declaration sought to be proved under the res
gestae must have been contemporaneous with the event established as
the principal act; it must spring at a time so near it as to preclude the idea
of deliberate design, they may be regarded as contemporaneous and are
admissible in evidence.
Equivocal Act may Cover a Long Period of Time
- The equivocal act may extend over a long period of time, and during that
period, those statements that are necessary for an understanding of the
meaning of said equivocal act, are admissible as verbal acts.

Sec. 43
Entries in the course of business
Entries made at, or near the time of transactions to which they refer,
by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to
know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie
evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity
or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty.
General Rule
- Books of account of a party or entries therein, are admissible in his favor
to show the recorded transactions when a proper foundation is laid and
the requisites to admissibility have been met.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Necessity is given as a ground for admitting entries in that they are the
best available evidence
b) Trustworthiness
Requisites for Admissibility
a) Entries must have been made at or near the time of the transaction to
which they refer
- It is sufficient if they are made within a reasonable time thereafter, in
the ordinary course of the business of the party making them
b) Entrant must have been in a position to know the facts stated in the
entries
- If the entry is based on reports, oral or written, numerous persons
cooperating, who had personal knowledge of their own items but did
not themselves make the entries, the entries may be received, either
by calling the entrant alone to the stand or by the testimony of one
who can verify the method of compiling them.
c) Entries must have been made by entrant in his professional capacity or in
the performance of his duty
- To constitute a profession, the employment or vocation must be such
as exacts the use or application of special learning or attainment of
some kind.
- Where the entry was made in the a professional capacity and in the
course of professional conduct, or in the performance of duty and in
 the ordinary or regular course of business or duty, there are three
guarantees of their trustworthiness.
i. Habit and system of making record with regularity result in accuracy;
ii. Errors may easily be detected because the entries are made in the
regular course of professional conduct, performance of duty, or the
ordinary and regular duties of the person making the entries; and
iii. If the entries are made in pursuance of his duty, legal or to a superior,
the additional risk of censure and disgrace to the entrant makes them
presumably correct.
d) Entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty
- Hence, such entries made constitute only one of a variety of
circumstances, sanctioned by judiciary practice, acceptable as
presumptive evidence of the accuracy and truthfulness of the entry
and as a practical substitute for the conventional test of cross-
examination.
e) Entrant must be deceased or unable to testify
- In order to qualify an entry, there must be a necessity for its
admission as evidence and this is satisfied by proof of the death of
the entrant.
- When declarant is alive, entries may be used as memorandum to
refresh his memory as witness.
Mode of Proving Entries
- It is required that the entries be properly identified or authenticated, and
generally, their completeness, and correctness, regularly, and fairly as
well as the method of making them, must be established

Sec. 44
Entries in official records
Entries in official records made in the performance of his 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.
General Rule
- The division of documentary evidence embracing public or official records
and reports includes acts of the legislature, judicial records, and records
and reports of administrative officers.
- Any such record or document or a properly authenticated copy or
transcript thereof is admissible in the trial of an action, subject to the
same requirements of relevancy and materiality as apply to private
writings.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Necessity consists in the practical impossibility of requiring the
officials attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable
transactions occurring in the course of his duty and requiring to be
evidence.
b) Trustworthiness
i. in the sense of official duty which has led to the making of the
statement;
ii. in the penalty which usually is affixed to a breach of that duty;
iii. in the routine and disinterested origin of most of such statements;
and
iv. I the publicity of record, which makes more likely the prior exposure
of such errors as might have occurred
Requisites for Admissibility
a) That the written statement was made by public officer or by another
person specially enjoined by law to do so;
b) That it was made by the public officer in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law; and
c) That the public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of
the facts by him state, which must have been acquired by him personally
or through official information
Public Officer
- It is not necessary that the record, should be kept by the chief public
officer himself, it is sufficient if the entries are made under his direction by
person authorized by him.
Performance of Duty by Public Officer
- It is essential that the official statement should have been made by a
public officer in the performance of his duty, or by another person in the
performance of his duty, specially enjoined by law.
Unavailability of Entrant Need not be Shown
- His absence is being excused from appearing in court in order that public
business be not deranged.
Proof of Official Entries
- Entries may be proved by the production of the books or records
themselves or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof.
Authentication
- The extraordinary degree of confidence reposed in documents of a public
nature is founded principally upon the circumstance that they have been
made by authorized and accredited agents appointed for the purpose.
Probative value
- Entries in public records made by a public officer in the performance of
the duty specially enjoined by law are only prima facie evidence of the
fact therein stated, and their probative value may be either substantiated
or nullified by other competent evidence.
SECTION 45, RULE 130

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.

Reason for Admissibility

The admissibility of commercial lists and the like as evidence even though
the authors, compilers or publishers thereof cannot be cross-examined as
witness is based on necessity and trustworthiness; necessary to because of
the inaccessibility of the authors, computers, or publisher in other jurisdiction
but also because the great practical inconvenience in summoning each
individual whose personal knowledge has gone to make up the final result.

Market reports or quotations, trade journals, trade circulars, price

lists and the like

Admissible as evidence; Such reports, being based upon a general survey of

the whole market and constantly received and acted upon by dealers, are far
more satisfactory and reliable than individual entries or individual sales or
inquiries.

Authentication

As a prerequisite to the introduction in evidence of a newspaper, trade

journal, trade circular, or price list, giving the quotations of the market value
of a commodity, that a preliminary foundation be laid for such evidence, as
by showing that such publications have been regularly prepared by a person
in touch with the market, and that they are generally regarded as
trustworthy and relied upon.

SECTION 46, RULE 130

Learned treaties.-- 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 profession or calling as expert in the subject.

Learned treaties are admissible in evidence to prove the truth of a matter

stated therein, (a) if the court takes judicial notice that the writer of the
statement in the treatise, periodical, or pamphlet, is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject, (b) o a witness, expert in the
subject testifies that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or
pamphlet, is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject.

Reason for admissibility

Necessity and Trustworthiness. Necessity because of the unavailability of the

expert witness to testify on the matter or if available, because of the
tremendous expense in hiring them. Trustworthiness because the learned
witness in writing his work or article has no motive to misrepresent . Another
reason is that the writer of a learned treatise is more careful of what he
writes because he knows that every statement he makes will be subject to
criticism and open to refutation. Still another reason is that writers of learned
treatise with no view to litigation and not for a free as expert witness.

Historical Works

Historical facts of general and public notoriety may be proved by reputation;

and that reputation may be established by historical works of known
character and accuracy. But evidence of this sort is confined in a measure to
ancient facts, the assumption being that better evidence is not in existence.

Scientific Treatise

Much of the scientific knowledge of experts in medicine, surgery, mechanics,

chemistry, and other fields of specialized learning is derived from scientific
books and treatises; their knowledge would, in general, be small had they
got availed themselves of the fruits of the research and experience of their
predecessors as taught in books. This opinion of expert witnesses must be
founded in some degree upon such books; in fact, they may, as a general
rule, in support of their professional opinions, read in evidence from standard
scientific works which are recognized as such by the profession in which they
are engaged.

General exception: When they contain statements of ascertained facts rather

than of opinions, or which, by long use in the practical affairs of life, have
come to be accepted as standard and unvarying authority in determining the
action of those who use them.

Law
When the law involved in a controversy is a domestic law, the court is bound
to take judicial notice thereof, and no proof is necessary whatever. Foreign
law, a distinction as to proof is laid down between written and unwritten law.
Written law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
attested to by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and must be accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. In Unwritten law, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is
admissible, as are printed and published books of reports of decisions of the
courts of the country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such
courts.

Under our rules of private international law, foreign law is considered as any
other matter of fact, which must be properly pleaded and proved. If not
properly proved, the presumption arises that foreign law is the same as
domestic law.
Philippine Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign law. Failure to
prove foreign law whether unwritten under rule 130, sec. 46 or written under
rule 132, sec. 24, raises the presumption that the law is the same as ours.
(Yao kee v. Sy Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736)

SECTION 47, RULE 130

Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.-- The testimony or

deposition of a witness deceased or 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.

Generally, the mere fact that testimony has been given in the course of a
former proceeding between the parties to a case on trial is no ground for its
admission in evidence. The law recognizes, however, that it is sometimes
impossible to produce a witness who has testified at a former trial, as where
he dies or become insane before the later trial. In such cases, where the
second action is between the same parties or their privies and involves the
same issues, the testimony of the witness as taken at the former hearing or
trial is, according to practically all decisions, admissible in later one as one of
the exceptions to the rule excluding hearsay testimony.

Unable to testify refers to an inability proceeding from a grave

cause almost amounting to death as when the witness is old and has
lost the power of speech (Tan v. CA, 1967)

Reason for admissibility

Necessity for the testimony and its Trustworthiness. Inasmuch as the former
witness could no longer testify, his former testimony having been given in a
former action under the solemnity of an oath is admissible to prevent failure
of justice.

Requisites

a. The witness whose testimony is offered in evidence is dead or unable

to testify
1. Insanity or mental incapacity, or the former witness loss of memory
through old age or disease;
2. Physical disability by reason of sickness or advanced age;
3. The fact that the witness has been kept away by contrivance of the
opposite party; and
4. The fact that after diligent search the former witness cannot be
found.
b. Identity of parties
c. Identity of issues
d. Opportunity of cross-examination of witness

Proof of former testimony

If testimony at a former trial is reduced to writing, such writing is the primary

evidence thereof and should be used. E.g. stenographic note

SECTION 48, RULE 140

General rule.The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as indicated

in the following sections.

Opinion defined

An inference or conclusion drawn by a witness from facts, some of which are

known to him and others assumed, or drawn from facts, which although
leading probability to the inference, do not evolve it by a process of
absolutely necessary reasoning.

Rule of exclusion

Under ordinary circumstances a witness in testifying is to be restricted to the

facts within his knowledge, and his opinion or conclusion with respect to the
matters in issue or relevant to the issue may not be received in evidence.
However, when the conclusion to be drawn from the facts stated depends on
scientific knowledge or skill, not within the range of ordinary training or
intelligence, the conclusion may be stated by qualified expert.

There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which skill or

experience shall have been acquired. Scientific study and training are
not always essential to the competency of witness as an expert.
 Knowledge acquired by doing is no less valuable than that acquired by
study. (Dilag Co. v. Merced, 1949)

Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the sense that

they must be accepted as true on the subjrct of their testimony, but
are generally regarded as purely advisory; the courts may place
whatever weight they choose upon such testimony and may reject it, if
they find that it is inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise
unreasonable.

Testimony of handwriting expert is not indispensible to

COMELEC. Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not
indispensible in examining or comparing handwriting; this can be done
by the COMELEC itself. It was ruled by the SC that evidence aliunde is
not allowed to prove that a ballot is marked, an inspection of the ballot
itself being sufficient. (Punzalan v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 126669)

Sec. 49, Rule 130

I. IN GENERAL

* Opinion evidence defined. Opinion evidence, as the term is used in

law, means the testimony of a witness, given in the trial of an action, that
the witness is of the opinion that some facts pertinent to the case exist or
does not exist, offered as proof of the existence or non-existence of that fact.

* Expert evidence defined. Expert evidence is the testimony of persons

who are particularly skilled, or experienced in a particular art, science, trade,
business, profession, or vocation, a thorough knowledge of which is not
possessed by man in general, in regard to matters connected therewith.

* Expert defined. An expert may be defined as a person who is so

qualified, either by actual experience or by careful study, as to enable him to
form a definite opinion of his own respecting any decision of science, branch
of art, or department of trade about which persons having no particular
training or special study are incapable of forming accurate opinions or of
deducing correct conclusions.

* Expert witness distinguished from skilled witness. -- Ordinarily, a

witness is said to testify as an expert when a state of facts, observed by
someone else, is hypothetically submitted to the witness, and he is asked in
view of those facts, to state what his opinion is, whereas a man skilled in a
particular business, who makes his own observations, and testifies to what
he has observed and his conclusions therefrom, is regarded as a skilled
witness.

* Classes of cases in which opinion evidence is admissible. -- There

are two distinct classes of cases in which expert testimony is admissible.

1) In one class are those cases in which conclusions to be drawn by the

judge depend on the existence of facts which are not common
knowledge and which are peculiarly within the knowledge of men
whose experience or study enables them to speak with authority upon
the subjects in question.

2) In the other class are those cases, in which the conclusions to be

drawn from the facts stated, as well as knowledge of the facts
themselves, depend on professional or scientific knowledge not within
the range of ordinary training or intelligence.

* Qualifications of experts. A witness, to qualify as an expert, must have

acquired such special knowledge of the subject-matter about which he is to
testify, either by study of the recognized authorities on the subject, or by
practical experience, that he can give the court assistance and guidance in
solving a problem to which its equipment of good judgment and average
knowledge is inadequate.

* Determination of qualification of expert to testify. The question of

the qualification of an expert witness rests largely in the discretion of the
trial court, and the test of qualification is necessarily a relative one,
depending upon the subject under investigation and the fitness of the
particular witness.

* Requisites for the admissibility of expert testimony. -- Three things

must concur to justify the admission of the testimony of an expert witness.

First, the subject under examination must be one that requires that
the court has the aid of knowledge or experience such as men not
especially skilled do not have, and such therefore as cannot be
obtained from the ordinary witnesses.

Second, the witness called as an expert must possess the knowledge,

skill, or experience needed to inform the court in the particular case
under consideration.
 Third, like other evidence, expert testimony is not admissible as
to a matter not in issue.

II. EXAMINATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES

* Generally. Before an expert witness may be required to give an opinion,

the party presenting him must first establish that he is an expert on the
subject upon which he is called to testify.

* Direct examination.

(a) Opinion based on facts known personally by the expert. - Where the
expert witness is required to give an opinion based upon facts upon
which he knows personally, he must first state those facts before
giving an opinion thereon.

(b) Opinion based on facts of which he has no personal knowledge. If

the expert has no personal knowledge of the facts on which his opinion
is based, they should be given to him hypothetically, that is, they must
assume the state of facts upon which his opinion is desired.

* Hypothetical question. Hypothetical questions must include only facts

that are supported by evidence and should embody substantially all facts
relating to the particular matter upon which an expert opinion is sought to be
elicited, but they need not include all facts pertinent to the ultimate issue.

* Form of hypothetical question. Generally speaking a hypothetical

question should state all the facts relevant to the formation of an opinion,
and then, assuming the facts stated to be true, ask the witness whether he is
able to form an opinion therefrom, and, if so, to state such opinion.

Hypothetical question involves two distinct elements, namely, premise

and inference or conclusion based on premise.

* When abstract questions permissible. Purely abstract questions,

assuming facts or theories for which there is no foundation in the evidence,
are not admissible as a matter of right, although such questions may be
permitted on cross-examination for the purpose of testing the knowledge of
the witness as to the subject on which he has testified.

* Opinion of expert based on hearsay inadmissible. The rule is well

established that hearsay in the form of information gained from the
statements of others outside the courtroom may not be the basis of an
expert opinion.
* Opinion of expert cannot be based on other opinions. It is not
proper in asking hypothetical questions to incorporate in them the opinions
of other expert witnesses. An opinion of an expert witness cannot be based
upon opinions expressed by other experts.

* Opinion based on conjecture inadmissible. Expert testimony should

not be allowed to extend to the field of baseless conjecture concerning
matters not susceptible of reasonable accurate conclusions.

* Opinion involving questions of law inadmissible. It may be laid

down as a general rule that a witness is never permitted to give his opinion
on a question of domestic law or upon matters, which involve questions of
law.

* Opinion on the ultimate fact in issue inadmissible. While an expert

may be permitted to express his opinion, or even his belief, he cannot give
his opinion upon the precise or ultimate fact in issue before the court, which
must be determined by it.

* Impeachment of expert witness. The weight to be given the judgment

of a skilled witness may be impaired by the various methods employed in the
case of other testimony. He may be contradicted by others in his own class
or by any competent witness or by use of exhibits; or the weight of his
testimony may be impaired by showing that he is interested or biased; that
others have at a prior time refused to accept the opinion expressed; that he
made inconsistent statements at another time, provided a proper foundation
is laid therefore; that he formed a different opinion at another time; that he
did not express the opinion testified to at a time when such an expression
might reasonably have been expected, or that he changed sides in the case.

* Courts not bound by testimony of expert. Expert opinions are not

ordinarily conclusive in the sense that they must be accepted as true on the
subject of their testimony, but are generally regarded as purely advisory in
character; the courts may place whatever weight they choose upon such
testimony and may reject it, if they find that it is consistent with the facts in
the case or otherwise unreasonable.

2009 JURISPRUDENCE

G.R. No. 150897. April 11, 2005

TURADIO C. DOMINGO, Petitioners,
vs.
JOSE C. DOMINGO, LEONORA DOMINGO-CASTRO and her spouse JUANITO
CASTRO, NUNCIA DOMINGO-BALABIS, ABELLA DOMINGO VALENCERINA and
the REGISTER OF DEEDS, QUEZON CITY, Respondents.
FACTS:

F (father) sold his property to his children A, B, C, and D (excluding E,

the eldest) due to failing health. Indeed, a deed of absolute sale was signed
by the former conveying the said property and was witnessed by two
persons and notarized by a notary public.
E learned of such sale when an ejectment suit was filed against him.
Upon the advice of his counsel, he had the documents examined by the PNP.
As a result, the PNP came up with the conclusion that the signatures were
written by two different people.

Hence, E assailed the contract for being a forgery.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the court is bound to give evidentiary value of the

opinion of the PNP.

RULING:

Under the Rules of Court, the following may prove the genuineness of
handwriting:

(1) A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument;
(2) A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion
thereon, such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule;
(3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted
genuine specimen thereof; and
(4) Expert evidence. (Sec. 49 Rule 130) - The law makes no preference,
much less distinction among and between the different means stated above
in proving the handwriting of a person. It is likewise clear from the foregoing
that courts are not bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the
opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not
mandatory.
* Weight of expert testimony. Under the usual circumstances expert
opinion evidence is to be considered or weighed by the court like other
testimony, in the light of their own general knowledge and experience in the
subject of inquiry; the court cannot arbitrarily disregard the testimony of
experts or skilled witnesses, and make an unsupported finding contrary to
the opinion.

III. SUBJECTS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY

* Generally. The most common subjects of expert testimony are

handwriting, including typewritten documents, ballistic, mental condition,
cause of death or injury and value of real property including market value.

A. HANDWRITING

* Handwriting expert. There is no test by which one can determine with

precision how much experience or knowledge of handwriting a witness must
have in order to qualify as an expert for comparison.

It is not essential to qualify one as an expert to testify to comparisons

of handwritings that he has professional knowledge or that he has made
such work a specialty. It is enough that he has been engaged in some
business which called for frequent comparisons of handwritings and that he
has in fact been in the habit for a length of time of making such
comparisons.

*Function of handwriting expert. No handwriting expert should wish for

his testimony to be received as unquestionable authority, the idea being
rather that it is the function of the expert to place before the court data upon
which the court can form its own opinion.

An expert on handwriting may give not only an opinion upon the

authenticity of writing, but also, in his examination in chief, the reasons
for his opinion.

* Court may order examination of questioned document by National

Bureau of Investigation. When a party is too poor to pay the fees of a
handwriting expert, the court, upon its own initiative, may, for the sake of
justice, require the National Bureau of Investigation to make an examination
of the signature in a questioned document.

* Two problems in handwriting identification. There are two main

problems in handwriting identification.
 1) To determine whether a signature, a line of writing, or a page or
more of writing was written by the one who is alleged to have written
it.

2) Determining whether a certain writer wrote an anonymous or other

writing.

Both of these handwriting problems must be solved by a study of the

inherent qualities in the writings themselves and by a comparison of their
elements, qualities, and characteristics with other writing.

* General appearance or pictorial effect. The first test applied to a

disputed writing by nearly every examiner is the test of general appearance
or pictorial effect as compared with the genuine standard of writing.

* Method of testing genuineness of disputed handwriting by

comparison. One of the first steps in the investigation of a suspected or
disputed writing should be the seeking out of suitable genuine handwriting
with which it is to be compared.

The qualities and characteristics of any handwriting as determined and

classified in a thorough examination are;

1) Permanent and fixed

2) Usual or common
3) Occasional and,
4) Exceptional or accidental

It therefore follows that handwriting has a certain field of possible and

expected variation and without a sufficient quantity of standard writing
significant habits cannot be determined, and the value and force of
characteristics cannot be definitely known.

* Proof of genuineness of standard handwriting. Generally, where

writings are admitted to serve as a basis for comparison, the genuineness
thereof must be proved to the satisfaction of the judge as a preliminary
question. His decision on such preliminary question is conclusive, unless it
appears to have been based on some erroneous view of law, or was clearly
not justified by state of the evidence at that time.

* Use of writings other than those in issue. There is a direct conflict of

authority on the question of whether an expert handwriting witness may be
tested as to the accuracy of his knowledge by the use of writings others than
those in issue. The majority rule is that submitting to him may not test such
a witness, and eliciting his opinion as to the genuineness of other writings
not admitted or proved to be genuine. But in at least two jurisdictions it has
been held that writings neither admitted nor proved to be genuine, and even
though otherwise irrelevant, may be used to test an expert handwriting
witness.

* Characteristics of handwriting; general principles.

No set of infallible rules can be formulated but some general principles can
be stated that apply in most cases.

1) Identifying or differentiating characteristics. One of the principles

by which the force and significance of characteristics are measured is that
those identifying or differentiating characteristics are of the most force which
are most divergent from the regular system or national features of a
particular handwriting under examination.

2) Inconspicuous characteristics. Repeated characteristics which are

inconspicuous should first be sought and should be given the most weight,
for these are likely to be so unconscious that they would not intentionally be
omitted when an attempt is made to disguise, and would not be successfully
copied from the writing of another when simulation is attempted.

3) General characteristics or national features and elements are not

alone sufficient on which to have a judgment of identity of two writings,
although these characteristics necessarily have as evidence of identity, as
stated above, if present in sufficient number and in combination with
individual qualities and characteristics.

* Exact coincidence between two signatures. It is a first principle in

writing that exact coincidence between two signatures is absolute proof that
one or the other is a forgery. There must be some difference before
authentically can be admitted; and the general rule is that authenticity
reposes upon a general characteristics resemblance, coupled with specific
differences, such as naturally result from the infinite variety of conditions
controlling the muscles of the writer at each separate effort in forming his
signature.

* Test for determining identity or non-identity. In order to reach the

conclusion that two writings are by the same hand there must not only be
present general characteristics but also individual characteristics or dents
and scratches, in sufficient quantity to exclude the theory of accidental
coincidence; to reach the conclusion that writings are by different hands we
may find numerous likenesses in general characteristics but divergence in
individual characteristics, or we may find divergences in both, but the
divergence must be something more than mere superficial differences.

* A favorite defense of forgery. One of the favorite defenses of forgery

is the argument that the numerous damaging divergences in a disputed
signature, which in combination are highly significant as evidence that it is
not genuine, can each be found separately in one signature out of a great
number of signatures, and that this proves that the disputed signature is
genuine. Even if they could be found, this would not be proof of genuineness.
The incompetent or the insincere witness, or the advocate, who is defending
forgery, will often laboriously seek out these separated and only partially
exemplified qualities, and then argue that the disputed signature and the
genuine writing are just alike.

* Circumstances that may induce expert to give erroneous opinion.

Identity is proved when two handwritings both contain a sufficient number of
significant characteristics; qualities and elements so that it is unreasonable
to say that they would all accidentally coincide in two different handwritings.

* Errors are due to:

(1) Basing opinion on inadequate amount of disputed writings

(2) Inadequate amount of standard writing
(3) Basing conclusion on common qualities alone
(4) Basing conclusion on system or national characteristics
(5) Basing conclusion partly on outside facts or statements of
interested party
(6) Ignoring difference in the writings
(7) Interpreting all differences as disguises
(8) Allowing prejudice, sympathy or antipathy to affect a conclusion
(9) Haste or superficial examination
(10) Inability to weigh and interpret characteristics or qualities
(11) Basing opinion on undeveloped writing from school teachers or
pupils or young writers
(12) The attempt to identify the actual writer of a forged signature that
is a simulated or traced writing

* Osborns suggestion in presenting expert testimony. There are

certain preliminary details in connection with the presentation of testimony
of a technical character that deserve some attention. Before an expert or
opinion witness is allowed to testify the law requires that he be qualified in
a legal way to give expert testimony. This qualifying process consists in
showing that the witness has had such preparation and experience as to
legally qualify him to give an opinion in court on the subject in dispute.

B. TYPEWRITTEN DOCUMENTS

* Identification of typewritten documents. The principles applicable to

handwriting apply equally to typewritten documents.

Expert testimony identifying typewriting, printing and other mechanical

impressions as prepared on a particular machine is now considered an
integral part of the science of questioned documents. Two types of experts
appear in this field, the examiner of documents and the typewriter mechanic
or engineer. Qualifications are the same for both, that is anyone may testify,
as an expert whose training and experience have developed knowledge
above that of the average person in the features of a typewriter or printing
press, subject to the sound discretion of the court.

* Typewriting questions. Typewriting questions are presented in a great

variety of ways. In the first place, if often is desirable simply to ascertain the
date of a typewritten document. It may also be a matter of great importance
to learn whether a document was all written continuously or written at
different times on the same machine or at different times on different
machines.

* Skilled typist. Skilled typist may be permitted to state inference that

two pages of minute book of corporation were written by different typists
using different machines.

* Identification of operator. The question of identification of the

typewriter operator is primarily predicated upon the physical arrangement,
the manner of punctuation, the length of line, the depth of indentation, and
the method of spelling, although some authorities discuss the question from
the point of view that operators of typewriters have different touches.

* Habits of operator. Different habits of touch, spacing, speed,

arrangement, punctuation, or incorrect use of any letters, figures, or other
characters may also show that a document was not all written by one
operator, or may show that a collection of documents was produced by
several different operators.

* Typewriting characteristics.
 The first fact to be considered in investigating the date of a typewriting
is to find when a certain kind of machine, the work of which is in question,
first came into use, and then it is important to learn, and to be able to prove,
when any changes in the machine were made that affected the written
record.

* The most important typewriting inquiry. Perhaps the most important

typewriting inquiry is the determination whether a typewritten document is
the work of a particular individual machine. There usually are two steps in an
inquiry of this kind;

1) The first being the determination of the fact that the document was
written on a certain particular kind of machine,

2) And the second that it was written on a certain individual

machine of that particular kind

* Comparison of typewriting or printing. The authorities dealing with

the question whether typewritten instruments can be identified as to
genuineness by the peculiarity of the writing in much the same manner as
handwriting has been identified appear to agree that typewriting possesses
such individuality that it can be identified in much the same manner as
handwriting, by comparison with other typewriting and by expert testimony.
The theory underlying this rule is that where an impression is made on paper
y an instrument, which possesses a defect or peculiarity, the identity of the
instrument may be proved by the similarity of the defects, which it impresses
on different papers.

C. FINGERPRINTS

* Fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, tracks. Authenticated

fingerprints, palm prints or footprints or photographs thereof of any person
may be introduced in evidence and compared with other fingerprints, palm
prints or footprints found at or near the scene of the crime. This comparison
is usually made by experts who may be permitted to use projectoscopes and
photographic enlargements for the purpose of displaying such photographic
impression to the court.

* Fingerprint experts. He must have knowledge of fingerprint from

study, training, or experience as to make him a specialist in the subject.

* Admissibility of fingerprints expert testimony. Expert testimony as

to the identity of thumbmarks or fingerprints is admissible. However, the
court is justified in refusing to accept opinions of alleged experts where
thumb impressions are blurred and many of the characteristic marks far from
clear, thus rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated by experts
as showing the identity or lack of identity of the impressions. The court may
substitute the opinion of experts by its own opinion that a distinct similarity
in some respects between the admittedly genuine thumbmark and the
questioned thumbmarks is evident.

* Weight of fingerprint. The weight to be given evidence of

correspondence of fingerprints, where offered to prove identity of the
accused as the person committing the crime, is for the determination of the
court in the light of all surrounding facts and circumstances. To warrant a
conviction, however, the fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused
must have been found in the place where the crime was committed, under
such circumstances that they could only have been impressed at the time
when the crime was committed. When it appears that there were
fingerprints other than those identified as the defendants who are neither
identified nor explained, the proof of the defendants prints is not sufficient
to support a conviction.

D. BALLISTICS

* Ballistics expert. He is one who is qualified to give expert opinion on

firearms and ammunition. No witness should be permitted to testify
regarding the identification of firearms and bullets by the use of this science
unless he has clearly shown that he is qualified to give such testimony. In a
trial, it is necessary that the instrument, such as a weapon involved in a
crime, be tested and demonstrated.

* The problem of determining whether or not a given bullet was

fired from a suspected firearm. This problem can be solved only if it is
possible to establish: (a) that the signature on the given bullet was engraved
by a firearm with the same class characteristics as those if the suspected
firearm; (b) that the same combination of identifying elements exists in the
signature on all bullets (except those undersize) fired from the suspected
firearms at the time, and all variations found in these signatures can be
reconciled; (c) that the same combination of identifying elements exists in
the signature on the given bullet; (d) that all variations existing in the
signature on the given bullet and the signatures of the suspected firearm can
be reconciled; and (e) that the identifying elements determined from a
combination the coexistence of which is highly improbable in the signatures
of other firearms with the same class characteristics.

* The problem of determining whether or not a fired cartridge case

was fired in a suspected firearm. The first step in the solution of this
problem is to compare the signature on the given cartridge case with the
signature on a test cartridge case to determine whether or not the given
cartridge case was fired in a firearm with the same class characteristics as
those of the suspected firearm. If the requisite agreement in class
characteristics is found to exist and the reference point is established on the
given cartridge case, the next step is to compare the signature on two or
more test cartridge cases to determine the identities and to reconcile the
diversities.

* Admissibility of ballistics expert testimony. A witness skilled in

ballistics may be permitted to testify to the effect that he identified the pistol
from which a bullet found at the scene of the homicide was fired, as a result
of comparison of marking on that bullet and on shells also found at the scene
of the homicide, with those found on bullets and shells fired by the witness
through the pistol, the test upon which he passed his observations and
formed his opinion being minutely described to the court.

* Weight of ballistics experts opinion. A ballistics expert conclusion

that bullets were fired from a particular gun does not invade the province of
the court. Testimony that he was convinced, as a result of the test made by
him, that a bullet found at the scene of the homicide was fired through the
pistol in evidence, which admittedly belonging to defendant, is an expression
of an opinion based on his observations, and not objectionable as stating a
fact, and thus invading the province of the court.

E. PARAFFIN OR NITRATE TEST

* Method to determine whether a person has recently fired a gun.

It is usual in criminal investigations of cased of murder or homicide to apply
nitrate test commonly known as paraffin test on the hands of the suspected
person to determine whether or not such person has recently fired a gun.
(People vs. Timbol, G.R. Nos. 47471, 47472 and 47473).
F. CAUSE OF DEATH NATURE AND CAUSE OF WOUNDS

* Cause of death. Where a body had been found but the cause of death is
unknown, opinions of experts are generally indispensable to assist the court
in determining whether the death was caused by accident, disease or
violence. The cause of death of a person is considered so within the range of
scientific knowledge that medical expert testimony is admissible as to such
cause; or as to the different ways in which the death might have been
caused, that death did or did not result from a given wound or injury, which
of several bullet wounds was the most fatal where a person died after being
shot several times or how long a person had been dead. Such testimony is
not proper to contradict eyewitnesses.

* Manner and cause of death. In all cases where cause of death is not
one common observation or knowledge, physicians and surgeons medical
experts may give opinion testimony, derived from their own observations of
the body of the deceased or from scientific deductions from given facts, as to
the probable causes of death, provided there are sufficient facts in evidence
upon which to base the conclusion.

* Character of weapon inflicting wound. A competent expert may

testify from the nature of a wound as to the character of the weapon which
caused it, and even non-expert testimony is sometimes accepted in this
connection.

* Whether wound or other injuries were self-inflicted. The general

rule seems to be that opinions as to whether wounds and injuries were or
were not self inflicted and not admissible where the facts are fully
presentable to the court and are such that special knowledge or skill is not
an essential to the formation of an intelligent opinion upon the question; but
where such knowledge or skill is necessary or where the facts cannot be fully
represented, the opinions of witnesses having such knowledge or skill are
admissible as an aid to the court.

* Basis of opinion. To be admissible, it must be based on facts observed

by the physician in the course of his attendance upon, or examination of, the
subject. Facts proved in the case by direct testimony overheard by the
witness, or facts hypothetically stated, mere guesses or speculative opinions
are inadmissible.
G. SANITY OR INSANITY

* General rule. Mental incapacity is a field in which the opinions of

experts are frequently to for the purpose of aiding the court in drawing
inferences from facts, which have been detailed to it. Medical experts and
experts with relation to mental diseases may give an opinion upon the
mental condition of the witness, based upon facts and circumstances within
their own observations; upon hypothetical questions based upon facts and
circumstances in evidence; and upon facts detailed by the witnesses.

* Expert witness. He should have a general knowledge as a medical man

or with scientific training upon the subject. Those who have had the care of
insane persons are generally received as competent including physicians in
general practice and trained nurses who are accustomed to attend upon the
sick.

H. VALUE OF PERSONAL OR REAL PROPERTY

* Opinion evidence on the value of personal and real property.

Opinion evidence is usually admitted from persons, who are not strictly
experts, but who from residing and doing business in the vicinity have
familiarized themselves with land values and are more able to form and
opinion on the subject at issue.

* Expert evidence on the value of land taken by eminent domain. A

person engaged in a business of holding a public office, which required the
knowledge of real estate values is a competent witness as to the value of
land with which he is familiar. The opinions of experts as to value, however,
are not to be passively received and blindly followed, but are to be weighed
by the court and judged in view of all testimony in the case and the judge
own personal knowledge of affairs.

* Market value. The price fixed by the buyer and the seller in the open
market in the usual and ordinary course of legal trade and competition; the
price and value established or shown by sale, public or private, in the
ordinary course of business; the fair value of the property as between one
who desires to sell and one who desires to purchase; and the general or
ordinary price at which property may be bought and sold in a given locality.

* Assessed value. Assessed value may be admitted as evidence but it is

of little value ina judicial investigation to determine the market value of the
property.
H. OTHER SUBJECTS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY

* Subjects that may be proved by experts. This includes the following:

1. Age
2. Bloodstains
3. Hair
4. X-ray, pictures
5. Characters in certain writings which needs to be deciphered
6. Language in certain writings not understood by the court
7. Unwritten law
8. Proof of unwritten foreign laws

* Qualification of witness. The witness must be shown to the

satisfaction of the court to possess sufficient knowledge to render his
evidence of value.

* Opinions of courts of foreign states and nations. Judicial opinions

offered as proof of the unwritten law of a foreign state or nation have been
held admissible in evidence, even in the absence of a statutory provision
authorizing the admission thereof in evidence. However, the fact that a
purported decision does not appear in the original reports has been held
sufficient ground for disregarding it, although it does appear in an unofficial
publication.

Section 50. 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 has adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted.

The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person. (44a)

1. Source. This provision is a reproduction of Section 44, Rule 130 of the

Rules of Court.

2. In general. Well-settled is the rule that a witness can testify to those

facts only which he knows of his own knowledge; he should not be
allowed to state conclusions or inferences which are for the court to make.

3. Proper basis or predicate for witness opinion. Before an ordinary

witness may be allowed to give his opinion on the identity, handwriting,
the mental sanity of a person, or to give his impressions of the emotion,
 behavior, condition or appearance of a person, the proper basis or
predicate upon which he bases his opinion must first be laid.

4. Opinion of ordinary witness as to identity of a person. An

ordinary witness may give his opinion regarding the identity of a person
when he has adequate knowledge of his identity. Because of the difficulty
of describing the circumstances which established identity in terms
conveying the idea of identification, witnesses who are shown to be
qualified by their opportunities for observation are permitted to testify as
to the identity of persons or things. The rule applies to criminal
prosecutions as well as to civil actions. There are, however, instances in
which opinions have been excluded usually, it seems, because of the
facts of the particular case.

Under the present rule, the statements of the witness as to identity are
not to be rejected because he is unable to describe the features of the
person in question, or the latters clothing or other particulars on which
the witness conclusion depends. Identification may be based upon voice
alone; and it is obviously impossible for a witness to describe tones of
voice in such a manner that from the description alone the court can
arrive at any satisfactory conclusion.

5. Physical condition A witness need not be an expert in medical matters

in order to be competent to express an opinion as to the physical
condition of another. And it is clear that in describing such a condition the
witness is not required to state all the evidentiary facts on which his
opinion is based; his statement may partake largely of the nature of a
summary of, or conclusion from, such facts. A witness may testify that in
his judgment the defendant was about the size of one of the robbers.

6. Opinion of ordinary witness as to the handwriting of a person.

An ordinary witness may give his opinion regarding the handwriting of a
person, with which he has sufficient familiarity. This subject is well
covered by Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, which provides that
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes
it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person
write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has
acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting 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.

The evidence frequently offered on a question of the authenticity of a

disputed writing or signature is that of persons who are familiar with the
handwriting of the alleged writer; the opinion of such a person is
 universally recognized to be admissible, even though he is in no sense a
handwriting expert.

Non-expert witnesses may not express an opinion on the genuineness of a

writing solely from comparison, but they may express an opinion based on
the knowledge received from the handwriting of the party whom they saw
write.

The testimony of the notary public, who was not only an instrumental
witness himself but also an officer of the court, and whose act of
notarization impressed upon the disputed Deed of Absolute Sale, the full
faith and credit which attaches to a public instrument, explicitly
identifying the signatures of the parties to the instrument and expressly
and forthrightly stating that both had appeared before him and affixed
their signatures to the said document, must be held to control and prevail
over the opinion or conclusion of petitioners expert witness. Alcos, et.
al vs. Intermediate Appeallate Court.

7. Opinion of ordinary witness as to the mental sanity or insanity of

a person. An ordinary witness may give his opinion regarding the
mental sanity of the person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.

An ordinary witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of an

individual, if such opinion is drawn from the conduct of the latter, since
there can be no doubt that persons of common sense, conversant with
mankind, and having a practical knowledge of the world, if brought into
the presence of a lunatic would, in a short time, be enabled to form an
accurate and reliable opinion, not, perhaps, of the specific and precise
character of the insanity as referable to a particular class of the insane
malady, but certainly, in a general way, of his mental unsoundness.

8. Reason for the rule. Reasons for this rule are found in the
considerations that the facts showing insanity, in their entirety, frequently
elude accurate, complete and detailed statement and consequently
render it difficult to afford a satisfactory basis for the judgment of an
expert; that many witnesses can make a correct inference more readily
than they can make a detailed statement; that as commonly presented to
observation, insanity is really detected, if carried beyond a certain point;
that an unskilled observer may be quite as able as an expert to make a
clear mental comparison between the acts and conduct of a sane person
and those of one who is laboring under mental disability; and that to
reject the inference of an observer with suitable opportunities and faculty
for observation is to refuse to consider evidence which is frequently of the
highest possible value.
9. Opinion of a subscribing witness to a writing as to the mental
sanity or insanity of a signer. In will cases, a special qualification to
testify exists on the part of the attesting witnesses to the will. It is
commonly held that they may testify to their opinion of the testators
soundness of mind without proof of their having had the opportunity of
observing him except at the time of executing the will. Moreover, the rule
supported by the overwhelming weight of authority is that no foundation
need be laid for receiving the opinion of a subscribing witness to a will as
to the soundness of the testators mind at the time of executing the will,
other than to show his status as a subscribing witness. Many courts have
reached such conclusion on the theory that it may be presumed that the
attesting witness performed his duty to observe the mental condition of
the testators mind at the time of executing the will.

10. Negativing testamentary capacity. The testimony of an attesting

witness to a will tending to show that the testator was of unsound mind or
lacked testamentary capacity is admissible. Such is held to be the rule,
notwithstanding the view is taken that a person requested to witness a
will should observe the testator and be satisfied of his mental capacity
before signing as a witness. Although a person who attaches his name as
a witness to a testamentary instrument impliedly certifies that the
testator is of sound mind and competent to make a will, he will be
permitted to contradict the attestation clause and testify as to the actual
facts. That the witness may deserve censure for having attested a will of
a person whom he is ready to declare of unsound mind when the validity
of the instrument is later brought into question is not a sufficient reason
for refusing to hear such testimony.

11. Impressions as to emotion, behavior, condition or appearance.

A witness may testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person.

It is usually competent for a witness to state his impression of anothers

manner or appearance, such as that the latter was nervous or excited,
that he was mad. But a witness cannot testify to uncommunicated
motive or intention of a party, such as he thought the deceased intended
to kill someone or be killed, that two people were antagonistic, that
defendant laughed because she cut deceased, whether defendant was
joking in what he said, that the accused looked pretty vigorous or that
one was jealous, as an opinion or impression is a mere guess or
speculation and inadmissible.

12. Opinion limited to expressions of his own impressions. While

one may testify in opinion form as to impression made upon his own
senses, he cannot go further and testify as to the impression such facts
 would have had upon others. In a case decided by the Supreme Court of
Washington, the trial court refused to permit a witness shown to be
acquainted with the locale, to give his opinion as to whether a stranger
driving over a certain street at night would reasonably believe he was on
a through street.

13. Hypothetical question not permissible. A non-expert witness

cannot give an opinion as to the sanity or insanity of the accused based in
whole or in part upon an abstract hypothetical question, but must base
his opinion solely upon his own personal knowledge, observation,
acquaintance, etc., with the accused.

14. Witness must give reason for his opinion. In giving his opinion,
the non-expert must state facts upon which his opinion was based. It is
indisputable that it should appear somewhere in the testimony of the
witness that he had the testimonial qualification of previous observation
of the person whose sanity he undertakes to give evidence. It must
appear, as a preliminary to the expression of his opinion that he has had
the means of observation. He must give the facts of his knowledge and
acquaintanceship with the person concerning whose sanity he is called to
testify. After giving these facts, he may express his opinion. The weight
of the opinion, or its value, is then developed further by evidence of the
particular facts coming under his observation, and on which he bases his
opinion.

15. Examination of non-expert witnesses. The general rules as to

the examination of witnesses, with such modification as the character of
the testimony renders necessary, apply to the examination of witnesses
giving evidence. A witness who has stated that he has no opinion should
not be pressed to give an opinion. A question which is misleading or
indefinite should not be permitted, and a question as to whether
accuseds demeanor on the witness stand was different from that when
the witness met him at a certain time has been excluded as unfair.

16. Cross-examination of non-expert witnesses. A witness testifying

as to his opinion may be cross-examined as to the facts and grounds upon
which his opinion is based, and generally cross-examination legitimately
tending to test the accuracy and truthfulness of the witness and the value
of his testimony should be permitted. The cross-examination must be
confined to the scope of the examination in chief, and a question based
on an assumption not warranted by the evidence is inadmissible. It has
been held that on cross-examination of a witness who has testified to
sanity or insanity of testator, he may be asked as to testators capacity to
make a will in order to test the witness, but not to establish the fact; but
on the other hand, it has been considered that testimony of attesting
witnesses, that testatrix at the time of the execution of the will was of
 disposing memory, received without objection, gave contestant no right to
ask, on cross-examination of a non-expert for proponent, for his opinion
whether testatrix was of a disposing mind.

17. Latest Jurisprudence.

People of the Philippines, vs. Efren Castillo, GR No. 186533,

August 9, 2010

The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be

received in evidence regarding the mental sanity of a person with
whom he is sufficiently acquainted.

Appellant anchors his argument for acquittal on the alleged failure of the
prosecution to establish AAAs mental retardation to make him guilty of
rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant
concludes that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court rejected the said argument.

Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence explicitly provides
that the opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be
received in evidence regarding the mental sanity of a person with whom
he is sufficiently acquainted.

Accordingly, it is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as

to the sanity or mental condition of a person, provided the witness has
had sufficient opportunity to observe the speech, manner, habits, and
conduct of the person in question. Commonly, it is required that the
witness details the factors and reasons upon which he bases his opinion
before he can testify as to what it is.

In the case at bench, BBB testified that AAA has been suffering from
epilepsy since she was nine years old, which is one of the reasons why
AAA was not able to finish her Grade I level. AAA also had to stop
schooling because she had difficulties understanding her lessons in
school, she cannot write well, she had poor memory and she had difficulty
answering even the simplest question asked of her. BBB further stated
that AAA is the eldest of her four children; however, compared to her
younger siblings, AAA had a hard time comprehending the instructions
given to her at home and in school.

It bears stressing that the deprivation of reason contemplated by law

need not be complete; mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient.
Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that AAAs impaired learning capacity,
lack of personal hygiene and difficulty in answering simple questions, as
testified to by her mother and the Guidance Psychologist who had an
 opportunity to observe her appearance, manner, habits and behavior, are
indicative that she is truly suffering from some degree of mental
retardation.
Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad
moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in
the offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral 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.

(b) In Civil Cases:

Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible
only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)

1. Source. This provision is a reproduction of Sections 46 and 47, Rule 130

of the Rules of Court.

A. IN GENERAL

2. Character defined. Character is defined to be the possession by a

person of certain qualities of mind or morals, distinguishing him from
others. The opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the
common report of the people who are acquainted with him; his reputation.

3. Character distinguished from reputation. Character strictly

speaking, means that which a person or thing really is, while reputation
means what a person is estimated, said, supposed, or thought, to be by
others. Character is internal, reputation is external; one is the substance,
the other is the shadow.

4. Good moral character defined. Good moral character means a

character that measures up as good among the people of the community
in which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average
citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright
conduct.

5. Ways of proving good or bad character of a party. The rule is that

testimony to prove the good or bad character of a party to a civil action or
of the defendant in a criminal prosecution must relate and be confined to
 the general reputation which such person sustains in the community or
neighborhood in which he lives or has lived.

B. CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL CASES

6. Accused may prove his good moral character. Proof of the good
moral character of the accused strengthens the presumption of his
innocence; and by establishing good character a presumption is created
that the accused did not commit the crime. This view proceeds upon the
theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not likely to
have committed the act charged against him.

7. When accused may introduce evidence of his good moral

character. It is always relevant for the defendant to offer affirmative
evidence of good moral character, when the same is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.

8. Time and place of accused character. Evidence of the defendants

character should be confined to a time not very remote from the date of
the commission of the crime. It should relate to the time of the act in
question and before. Generally speaking, it is the reputation up to the
time of the commission of the offense only which is admissible.

9. Accused cannot prove the good moral character of his co-

accused; exception. Though the accused may prove his own
character, he will not be permitted to prove that others conspiring with
him and jointly indicted, or who are suspected of complicity in the crime,
are men of good character. This evidence is not in the last relevant to
show his innocence, as the fact that the friends or acquaintances of the
accused are men of unimpeachable character, in no way proves that he is
a person of good character.

10. Negative evidence of good character or reputation. It is well

settled that the testimony of a witness to the effect that he has never
heard anything against the character or reputation of a person is
admissible to prove the good character of such person, provided the
witness is shown to have been in such position that he would have heard
anything that was said concerning the persons character or reputation.
Negative evidence is viewed as the most cogent evidence of a persons
good character and reputation, because in the absence of any discussion
about character, it may reasonably be presumed that the persons
reputation is good.

11. No presumption may be inferred where defendant offers no

evidence of his good character. If the defendant offers no evidence
of his good character, no legal presumption can be drawn from such
 omission prejudicial to the defendant, or that, his character is bad.
However, if he desires to put his character in issue, he has the right to the
benefit of his previous good character or reputation, so far as it is at
variance with the crime charged.

12. Right of state to introduce evidence of bad moral character. It

is generally recognized that the state cannot, in a criminal prosecution,
introduce evidence attacking the character of the accused, unless the
accused first puts his good character in issue by introducing evidence to
sustain his good character or reputation or has become a witness in his
own behalf.

13. Evidence of specific acts not admissible to prove bad character.

Evidence of specific acts or conduct of a person upon particular
occasions bearing upon his character, is usually held to be admissible.
The admission of such evidence would raise collateral issues and divert
the mind of the judge from the matter at hand. Thus, the state in
rebutting the evidence of the defendants good character is confined to
evidence showing his general reputation as to having a bad character,
and not to specific acts derogatory to his good character. One accused of
a crime cannot testify in defense that he has never before been accused
of, or arrested for, crime.

14. When evidence of specific acts admissible. The reasons of

practical policy affecting the rule excluding proof of specific conduct of a
party do not apply with the same force where the character of third
persons is involved.

15. When character is in issue in criminal cases. Character may

itself be a fact-in-issue. In numerous offenses against social morality, as
defined by the criminal law, the character of a person may be an element
in the offense.

Whether it is actual character or reputed character depends upon the

policy and the words of the local statute, as interpreted by the courts.

16. Moral character of the offended party. The good or bad moral
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. This rule is applied with frequency in cases of homicide and sex
offenses.

17. Character of offended party in rape and seduction cases. In

any prosecution involving the unchaste act by a man against a woman,
where the willingness of the woman is material, such as rape and acts of
lasciviousness, the womans character as to chastity is admissible to show
 whether or not she consented to the mans act. Thus, in the prosecution
for rape, or for enticement to prostitution, or in an action or prosecution
for indecent assault (acts of lasciviousness), the womans character as to
chastity is admissible; but not in a prosecution for rape under the age of
consent.

18. Character of offended party in homicide cases. On prosecution

for homicide, evidence of the bad character of the deceased is irrelevant,
for as frequently said, the law protects everyone from unlawful violence,
regardless of character, and the service done the community in ridding it
of a violent and dangerous man is, in the eyes of the law, no justification
of the act.

19. Character of offended party in murder cases. While the good or

bad moral character of the victim may be availed of as an aid to
determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an
offense, such is not necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is
committed with treachery or premeditation.

C. CHARACTER IN CIVIL CASES

20. Character evidence in civil cases. Of character evidence in

ordinary civil actions, even those wherein fraud is imputed, it has been
well observed that if such evidence is proper, then a person may screen
himself from the punishment due to fraudulent conduct till his character
becomes bad. Every man must be answerable for every improper act,
and the character of every transaction must be ascertained by its own
circumstances, and not by the character of the parties.

21. Distinction between the rule on character evidence in criminal

and civil cases. In criminal cases, evidence of the good character of
the accused is most properly and with good reason admissible in
evidence, because there is a fair and just presumption that a person of
good character would not commit a crime; but in civil cases, such
evidence is with equal good reason not admitted, because no
presumption would fairly arise, in the very great proportion of such cases,
from the good character of the defendant, that he did not commit the
breach of contract or of civil duty alleged against him.

22. Where evidence of moral character admissible in civil cases.

As a general rule, the character of a party to a civil action is not a proper
subject of inquiry, for, while it is recognized that ground for an inference
of some logically probative force as to whether or not a person did a
certain act may be furnished by the fact that his character is such as
might reasonably be expected to predispose him toward or against such
 an act, this consideration is outweighed by the practical objections to
opening the door to this class of evidence.

23. Putting character in issue or character involved in the

issue construed. Putting character in issue or character involved
in the issue is a technical expression, which does not mean simply that
the character may be affected by the result, but that it is of particular
importance in the suit itself, as the character of the plaintiff in an action of
slander, or that of a woman in an action on the case for seduction.

24. Evidence of moral character of a third person. An issue in a civil

case sometimes involves a third persons act having a moral quality. On
such an issue, the third persons moral trait would have probative value,
and there is no practical policy against it. Court sometimes admit it, and
sometimes exclude it.

25. Character in mitigation of damages or in excuse or defense to

the action. In some civil actions, the measure of compensation may be
affected by the plaintiffs character.

D. CHARACTER OF WITNESS

26. Evidence of good character of witness. Evidence of the good

character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been
impeached. The character or reputation of a witness must be attacked or
impeached before testimony sustaining his character or reputation can be
admitted, but it is not necessary that character witnesses for
impeachment purposes should first be introduced if the veracity or
character of the witness been substantially impeached in other ways,
especially if he is a stranger in the county where the trial is being
conducted. Evidence in rebuttal to sustain a witness character or
reputation has been assailed in order to discredit him, or when the
opposite party brings out matters, which, if true, tend to diminish the
credibility of the witness by disparaging his character.

27. Latest jurisprudence.

Civil Service Commission vs. Allyson Belagan, GR No. 132164,

October 19, 2004

Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party

may be proved under this provision. Only those which would
establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
This means that the character evidence must be limited to the
traits and characteristics involved in the type of offense
charged.

Generally, the character of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in

determining a controversy. One statutory exception is that relied upon by
respondent, i.e., Section 51 (a) 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, which we quote here:
"SEC. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions.

(a) In Criminal Cases:

xxx xxx

(3) The good or bad moral 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."

It will be readily observed that the above provision pertains only to

criminal cases, not to administrative offenses. And even assuming that
this technical rule of evidence can be applied here, still, we cannot sustain
respondents posture.

Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be
proved under this provision. Only those which would establish the
probability or improbability of the offense charged. This means that the
character evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics
involved in the type of offense charged.

In the present administrative case for sexual harassment, respondent did

not offer evidence that has a bearing on Magdalenas chastity. What he
presented are charges for grave oral defamation, grave threats, unjust
vexation, physical injuries, malicious mischief, etc. filed against her.
Certainly, these pieces of evidence are inadmissible under the above
provision because they do not establish the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.

Obviously, in invoking the above provision, what respondent was trying to

establish is Magdalenas lack of credibility and not the probability or the
improbability of the charge. In this regard, a different provision applies.