EVIDENCE PRIMER Incompetent evidence - offered evidence is
not qualified under the rules of testimonial
BASIC CONCEPTS
Evidence - It is the means, sanctioned by the
Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact.
2 Kinds of Facts:
1. Ultimate fact (factum probandum)-
principal, determinate and constitutive
facts upon the existence of which the
plaintiff’s cause of action rests.
 does not refer to the details of probative
matter or particulars of evidence by which
these material elements are to be
established
 proposition to be established, necessarily
hypothetical
2. Evidentiary facts (factum probans) – facts
which are necessary for the determination
of the ultimate facts
 Premises upon which conclusions of
ultimate facts are based.
 Brought forward as a reality to convince
the tribunal that the factum probandum is
also real
Factum probandum Factum probans
"ultimate facts" "intermediate facts"
Proposition to be Material evidencing
established the proposition
Hypothetical Existent
Corroborative evidence - It is additional
evidence of a different kind and character
tending to prove the same point.
Cumulative evidence - It is additional evidence
of the same kind and character tending to
prove the same proposition.
Irrelevant evidence - offered piece of evidence
has no probative value
Inadmissible evidence - offered evidence is
excluded by some rule of evidence
evidence
Immaterial evidence – the offered evidential
fact is directed to prove some probandum
which is not proper in issue. The rule of
substantive law and of pleading are what
determines immateriality
Conditional Admissibility – evidence is
admissible only in dependence upon other
facts. It is received on the express assurance
of counsel, when objection is manifested, that
other facts will be duly presented at a suitable
opportunity before the case is closed.
Multiple Admissibility - 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 offered for another purpose does not
exclude it.
Curative Admissibility - A party has the right to
introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf
where the court has admitted the same kind of
evidence adduced by the adverse party. This
is to prevent manifest injustice.
Collateral Matters – matters other than the
facts in issue and which are offered as a basis
merely for inference as to the existence or
non-existence of the facts in issue.
2 axioms of admissibility
1. Only those facts which have rational
probative value are admissibile
2. All facts having rational probative value are
admissibile unless prohibited by some specific
rule.
INSTANCES WHEN PROOF CAN BE
DISPENSED WITH
Instances when proofs can be dispensed with:
1. Res ipsa loquitur
2. Presumptions
3. Judicial notice
4. Judicial admissions
Kinds of presumptions:
1. Conclusive - which the law does not allow
to be controverted
2. Disputable - which are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but which may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence
Judicial Notice – cognizance of certain facts
by the court w/o proof because they are facts,
which, by common experience, are of
universal knowledge among intelligent
persons w/in a country or community
Requisites of Judicial notice
1. matter of common knowledge
2. well & authoritatively settled and not
doubted or uncertain
3. known to be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of
the court
Matters that are judicially noticed (mandatory)
1. existence & territorial extent of states
2. forms of gov’t and symbols of nationality
3. law of nations
4. admiralty & maritime courts of the world &
their seals
5. political constitution & history of the
Philippines
6. laws of nature
7. measure of time
8. geographical divisions and political history
of the world
9. facts which are of public knowledge
10. facts which are capable of unquestionable
demonstration
11. facts which ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions
Discretionary Judicial Notice
1. matters of pubic knowledge
2. capable of unquestionable demonstration
3. ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions
Occidental Land Transportation v CA
FACTS : A Ford Fiera and a Carina passenger
bus collided. The driver of the Ford died and
2 passengers were injured. The owner of the
bus sued the owner of the Ford. CFI found
the driver of the bus negligent. Nine years
later, in a separate civil case, the CFI ordered
the bus owner to pay damages based on facts
of the earlier case “as adopted by reference.”
HELD : As a general rule, courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice, in
adjudication of cases pending before them, of
the contents of the records of other cases.
Exception > in the absence of objection, with
the knowledge of the opposing party, or at the
request or with the consent of the parties,
records of previous case may be admitted as
part of the present case.
State Prosecutors v Muro
Facts: Judge dismissed 11 cases against Mrs.
Marcos for violation of CB Circular 960 or the
CB Foreign Exchange Restrictions. The
dismissal was based solely on newspaper
reports concerning the announcement of the
president of the Philippines of the lifting of all
foreign exchange restrictions as embodied in
the circular. Judge said that the
announcement had the effect of repealing CB
960.
HELD: Matters of judicial notice have 3
requisites: matter of common knowledge; it
must be authoritatively settled; and known to
be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of the court.
Judicial notice is not equivalent to judicial
knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of
the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the
court, and he is not authorized to make his
individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or
professionally known, the basis of his action.
Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute
before it becomes effective. A law not yet in
force and hence still inexistent, cannot be of
common knowledge capable of
unquestionable demonstration.
Judicial Admission – admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case; does not
require proof.
Atillo v CA
FACTS : Petitioner filed a collection case
against L Petitioner claims that L made a
judicial admission of his personal liability in
the answer.
HELD : Petitioner took the admissions out of
context. The general rule is that judicial
admissions are conclusive upon the party
making it and does not require proof.
Exception to the rule is when there is palpable
mistake or when no such admission was in
fact made. “Such” means that the statement is
not in the sense in which the admission is
made to appear.
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
Object Evidence
Object (Real) Evidence – that which is
addressed directly to the sense of the court
without the intervention of a witness, as by
actual sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch.
A.K.A autoptic proference.
Documentary Evidence
Documentary Evidence – documents as
evidence consist of writings or any material
containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents
Original of a document
1. the contents of which are the subject of
the inquiry
2. when a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time with
identical contents
3. when an entry is repeated in the regular
course of the business
Exceptions to the rule that only original
documents may be admissible:
1. when the original has been lost or
destroyed
2. when the original is in the custody or
control of the party against whom it is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it
3. when the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in
a public office
4. when the original consists of numerous
accounts or cannot be examined by the
court without great loss of time
Best Evidence Rule
 only original of the document is
admissible.
 Merely assures presentation of the original
document and bars non-original
documents, etc.. BUT not evidence
aliunde or parol evidence
 Refers only to the factum probandum but
not to the interpretation of the document.
 Original must be presented first before
evidence aliunde may be presented
 Secondary Evidence- that which shows
that better or primary evidence exists as to
the proof of the fact in question.
 It is that class of evidence which is
relevant to the fact in issue, it being
first shown that the primary evidence
of the fact is not obtainable
When Secondary Evidence is Admissible
1. original has been lost or destroyed
2. prove the existence or execution of the
original
3. prove the cause of the unavailability of the
original, is not due to the bad faith of the
offeror.
3 Kinds of Secondary Evidence that may be
presented:
1. copy of the writing
2. recital of its contents in some authentic
document
3. recollection of witnesses in the order
stated
 Authentic document – merely means that
the document should be genuine. It need
not be a public document
Parol Evidence Rule
 Forbids any addition to or contradiction of
the terms of a written instrument by
testimony purporting to show that, at or
before the signing, of the document, other
or different terms were orally agreed upon
by the parties
Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule
(must be alleged in the pleadings) [F-I-V-E]
1. Failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent & agreement of the
parties
2. Intrinsic ambiguity
3. Validity of the written agreement
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties
To justify the reformation of a written contempora-
instrument upon the ground of mistake, the neous with the
concurrence of three things is necessary: contract
1. mistake should be one of fact What is Only originals
2. mistake should be mutual or common to included
both parties to the instrument Exceptio Lost or Ambiguity;
3. mistake should be alleged and proved by ns destroyed; Does not
clear and convincing evidence in the express the
possession of true intent of
2 kinds of ambiguities the adverse the parties;
1. patent (extrinsic) where the instrument on party; or Validity is in
its face is unintelligible in the question;
2. latent (intrinsic) where the words of the possession of Subsequent
instrument are clear but their application to a public changes
the circumstances is doubtful officer
Procedur Existence Exception must
 the rule permits parol evidence to explain e Execution be put in issue
an intrinsic ambiguity Loss in the
Contents complaint or
Rules governing admissibility of parol *objection answer ( as an
evidence to explain ambiguity should be affirmative
1. where the instrument itself seems clear made ASAP defense)
and certain on its face, and the ambiguity Purpose To compel To preserve
arises from some extrinsic or collateral litigants to agreements
matter, the ambiguity may be helped by present only
parol evidence (latent ambiguity) the originals. Draft the
2. where the ambiguity consists in the use of contract
equivocal words designing the person or For the carefully
subject-matter, parol evidence of collateral parties to
or extrinsic matter may be introduced for always keep Go into the
the purpose of aiding the court in arriving the originals interpretation
at the meaning of the language used of the contents
(intermediate ambiguity) of the contract
3. where the ambiguity is such that a perusal Issue Contents of No issue as to
of the instrument shows plainly that the writing the contents of
something more must be added before the the writing
reader can determine what of several Secondary The purpose of
things is meant, the rule is inflexible that evidence is the offer of
parol evidence cannot be admitted to offered to parol evidence
supply the deficiency (patent ambiguity) prove the is to change,
contents of a vary, modify,
Difference between best evidence rule and writing which qualify or
parol evidence rule is not allowed contradict the
Best Parol Evidence unless the terms of a
Evidence case falls complete
Docume All kinds Agreements, under any of written
nts contracts, wills the agreement
exceptions which is not
What is Secondary Any oral, allowed unless
excluded evidence; written the case falls
copies evidence to under any of
prove contents; the exceptions
prior/

Mactan Cebu Int’l Airport Authority v CA (263
SCRA 736)
Facts : In 1949, the officers of the National
Airport Corporation informed the owners of
various lots surrounding Lahug Airport that the
government will purchase their lands or
expropriate it. They assured the owners that
the properties will be returned when it is no
longer being used by the airport. O hesitantly
sold her lot and she was reassured that it will
be returned. V, before signing the deed of
sale, asked for a rider or certification that the
land will be returned to him. The rider was
issued. Later, O’s grandchildren wanted to
repurchase their grandmother’s property. Their
request on the ground that the deed of sale to
O did not contain any condition relating to the
right to repurchase (no rider like that of V.)
Held : The Os can repurchase. The right to
repurchase can be sufficiently established by
parol evidence. Where a parol
contemporaneous agreement was the moving
cause of the written contract, and it appears
that the written contract was executed on the
faith of the parol contract or representation,
such evidence is admissible. Proof is
admissible if any collateral parol agreement
that is not consistent with the terms of the
written contract although it may relate to the
same subject matter. The rule excluding parol
evidence to vary or contradict a writing does
not extend so far as to preclude the admission
of existing evidence to show prior or
contemporaneous collateral parol agreements
between the parties, but such evidence may
be received regardless of WON the written
agreement contains any reference to such
collateral agreement and WON the action is at
law or equity. Besides the petitioner made no
objection when the respondent introduced
evidence to show the right to repurchase.
Classes of Documents
(1) Public, consisting of:
(2) Private, consisting of all other writings.
(a) The written official acts, or records of
the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
Note: These documents are evidenced
by either:
(1) official publication thereof; or
(2) a copy attested by the officer
having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy. The
attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a
correct copy of the original copy,
or a specific part thereof, and must
be under the official seal of the
attesting officer or his court.
If the record is not kept in the
Philippines, in addition to the foregoing
requirements, there must be a
certificate that such officer has the
custody.
(b) Documents acknowledged before a
notary public, except last wills and
testaments; and
Note: Notarial documents may be
presented in evidence without further
proof. The certificate of
acknowledgement is prima facie
evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved.
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines,
of private documents required by law
to be entered therein.
Note: These documents may be
proved by:
(a) the original record, or
(b) a copy thereof attested by the
legal custodian of the record, with
an appropriate certificate that such
officer has the custody.
Note: Before any private document
offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either by:
 (1) Anyone who saw the document
executed or written; or
(2) Evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be
identified as that which it is claimed to be.
A judicial record may be impeached by
evidence of:
(1) Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
officer;
(2) Collusion between the parties; or
(3) Fraud in the party offering the record, in
respect to the proceedings
Documents that do not need to be
authenticated:
(1) Public documents;
(2) Notarial documents;
(3) Ancient documents
Ancient Document Rule - Where a private
document is:
(1) more than 30 years old,
(2) is produced from a custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine, and
(3) is unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion
no other evidence of its authenticity need be
given. (Rule 132, Sec. 21)
In what Instances must alterations in
documents be accounted for by the
producing party?
(1) The document being produced as genuine
has been altered;
(2) The alteration appears to have been done
after the execution of the document;
(3) The alteration appears to have been in a
part material to the question in dispute.
What explanations are satisfactory so as to
make the altered document
admissible in evidence?
The producing party must show that the
alteration was:
(1) made by another;
(2) made without his (the producing party’s)
concurrence;
(3) made with the consent of the parties
affected by it;
(4) otherwise properly or innocently made; or
(5) such that it did not change the meaning or
language of the instrument.
Interpretation of Documents
 Construction is the process or the art of
determining the sense, real meaning, or
proper explanation of obscure or
ambiguous terms or provisions in a
statute, written instrument or oral
agreement, or the application of such
subject to the case in question
 Interpretation is the art or process of
discovering and expounding the meaning
of a statute, will, contract or other written
document
Rules in the interpretation of documents
(1) legal meaning the writing bears in the
place of its execution;
(2) all provisions must be given effect;
(3) intention of the parties must be pursued;
(4) a particular intent will control a general
intent inconsistent with it;
(5) circumstances of execution may be
shown;
(6) terms are presumed to have been used in
their primary and general acceptation; but
evidence is admissible to show an
otherwise peculiar signification;
(7) written words control printed;
(8) experts & interpreters can be used to
explain characters difficult to be
deciphered or language not understood by
the court;
(9) when terms were intended in different
senses, that sense is to prevail against
either party in which he supposed the
other understood it;
(10) when different constructions are
otherwise equally proper, the one most
favorable to the party in whose favor the
provision was made will be taken;
(11) construction in favor of natural right;
(12) instrument may be construed according
to usage
Testimonial Evidence of the rule death of even after the
either termination of
GENERAL RULE: The following are not spouse, or the marriage.
grounds for disqualification: termination
of the
(1) Religious belief; marriage.
(2) Political belief;
(3) Interest in the outcome of the
case; and Privileged Communications
(4) Conviction of a crime
1. Marital Confidential communication
Exception: When provided for by law. Requisites:
a. spouses are legally married
Grounds for disqualification enumerated in the b. privilege is claims with regard to a
Rules on Evidence: communication, oral or written, made
Disqualification by reason of: during the marriage
(1) Mental incapacity c. said communication was made
(2) Immaturity confidentially
(3) Marriage d. action or proceeding where the privilege is
(4) Death or insanity of adverse party claimed is not by one against the other
(5) Privileged communication
3. Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
Distinguish between the marital Requisites:
disqualification rule and the privileged marital a. legal advice of any kind is sought
communication rule. b. from a professional legal adviser in his
capacity as such
Marital Privileged c. the communications relating to that
Disqualificati Marital purpose
on Disqualification d. made in confidence
e. by the client
Extent of Total. All Only f. are at his instance permanently protected
prohibition testimony, confidential g. from disclosure by himself or by the legal
whether communication adviser
adverse or . h. except that the protection may be waived
not,
regardless of 4. Physicians and clients
source. Requisites:
a. civil case
Should YES. Not b. person against whom the privilege is
either necessarily. claimed is one duly authorized to practice
spouse be medicine, surgery or obstetrics
a party? c. such information was acquired while he
was attending to the patient in his
Marriage YES. Not professional capacity
subsisting necessarily. d. the information was necessary to enable
at time of him to act in that capacity, and if disclosed,
testimony shall blacken the reputation of the patient
?
5. Priest and penitent
Who can The affected The other Requisites:
invoke spouse spouse a. clergyman or priest and a penitent
b. confession of a penitential character
Operability Ceases upon Continues
c. made to the priest in his professional (1) the testimony is favorable to the
character declarant;
d. confession is sanctioned by the church to (2) it is made extrajudicially; and
which the priest or religious officer belongs (3) it is made in anticipation of litigation.

6. Public officers Self-serving declarations are not admissible.

Requisites:
a. confidential communication Requisites for the admissibility of an
b. made to or obtained by a public officer admission:
c. obtained in the exercise of his public (1) must involve matters of fact and not of
function law;
d. disclosure of the communication would be (2) must be categorical and definite;
detrimental to the public interest (3) must be knowingly and voluntarily
made;
Parental and Filial privilege - No person may (4) must be adverse to the admitter’s
be compelled to testify against his parents, interest
other direct ascendants, children, or other
direct descendants. Confession - It is the declaration of an
Notes: accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
 This provision does not apply to spouses. charged, or of any offense necessarily
 This provision means that you may testify included therein.
if you want, but you may not be compelled
to testify. Differentiate an admission from a confession.
 This provision is subject to the
qualification in Sec. 215 of the Family Admission Confession
Code, i.e. a descendant may be
compelled to testify against parents and Definition Statement of Declaration
fact which does acknowledging
grandparents IF the testimony is
not involve an one’s guilt of the
indispensable in a crime against the acknowledge- offense charged
descendant or by one parent against the ment of guilt or
other. liability

Admissions and Confessions Form May be express Must be express

or tacit
Admission - It is an act, declaration or
omission as to a relevant fact. It may be given Made by Party or 3rd Party himself
by a party (in which case Rule 130, Sec. 26 person
will be applicable) or by a third-party.
Cases in Both criminal Usually criminal
which and civil cases cases
Gen. Rule: Confessions of a defendant made applicabl
to witnesses are admissible against him, but e
are inadmissible against his co-defendant
Exception:
a. confessions on the stand
b. confessions not objected to
c. adopted confession
d. identical confession
e. corroborated confession Differentiate an admission and confession in
criminal cases.
f. confession by conspirator (after
conspiracy has been shown & proven)
Admission Confession
Self-serving declaration - a declaration Definition Statement by Acknowledgmen
wherein: the accused, t in express
 direct or implied, terms by a party confirmatory of the other (People v.
of facts pertinent in a criminal Encipido);
to the issue and case of his guilt
tending, in of the crime (2) If the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in
connection with charged or adopted said confession by not
proof of other
facts, to prove
questioning its truthfulness (People v.
his guilt Orenciada);

Sufficienc Insufficient. Sufficient
y to Tends only to
autho- establish the
rize a ultimate fact of
convictio guilt.
n (4) If the accused are charged as co-
Differentiate the effects of judicial and
extrajudicial confessions.
A judicial confession is sufficient in itself to
sustain a conviction, even in capital offenses.
On the other hand, an extrajudicial confession
is insufficient in itself to sustain a conviction. It
must be corroborated by evidence of the
corpus delicti
Requisites for the admissibility of extrajudicial
confessions?
(1) Must involve an express and categorical
acknowledgment of guilt (US v. Corales);
(2) The facts admitted must be constitutive of
a criminal offense (US v. Flores);
(3) Must have been given voluntarily (People
v. Nishishima);
(4) Must have been made intelligently (Bilaan
v. Cusi)
(5) Must have been made with the assistance
of competent and independent counsel
(Art III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution)
Rules governing extrajudicial confessions:
General Rule: :The extrajudicial confession of
an accused is binding only upon himself and
is not admissible against his co-accused.
Exceptions:
(1) Interlocking confessions, i.e. extrajudicial
confessions independently made without
collusion which are identical with each
other in their material respects and
(3) Where the accused admitted the facts
stated by the confessant after being
apprised of such confession (People v.
Narciso);
conspirators of the crime which was
confessed by one of the accused and said
confession is used only as corroborative
evidence (People v. Linde);
(5) Where the confession is used as
circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation by the co-
conspirator (People v. Condemena);
(6) Where the confessant testified for his co-
defendant (People v. Villanueva);
(7) Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial
confession is corroborated by other
evidence of record (People v. Paz)
Rules on offer of compromise
Civil cases: Not admission of liability; not
admissible in evidence against
offeror
Criminal cases: Admissible against
accused as implied admission
of guilt
Exceptions:
(1) Quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence)
(2) Those offenses allowed by law to
be compromised (e.g., Sec. 204,
NIRC of 1977)
The following are not admissions of liability or
guilt and are therefore not admissible in
evidence:
(1) Plea of guilty later withdrawn;
 (2) Unaccepted offer of plea of guilty (5) Facts admitted or the inference to be
to a lesser offense; drawn from his silence would be material
(3) Offer to pay or payment of to the issue (Regalado)
medical, hospital or other
expenses occasioned by an injury Distinguish :
Self-serving Declaration against
declaration interest
res inter alios acta rule - the rights of a party Not admissible Admissible
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or since introduction notwithstanding its
omission of another (i.e. a non-party), except would open door to hearsay character
in the following instances: frauds and perjuries

1. by partner, agent or other person jointly Admission Declaration against

interested with the party interest
Requisites: Not necessarily Always a declaration
a. the partnership, agency or joint interest is against the interest against self-interest
proven by evidence other than the act or of person who made
declaration sought to be admitted the admission
b. the admission is within the scope of the May be used Refers to declaration
partnership, agency or joint interest although person made by a deceased
c. admission was made while the agency, making the person
p’ship or joint interest was in existence admission is still
alive
2. by conspirator May be used only Admissible against
Requisites: against the admitter 3rd persons
a. conspiracy is first proved by evidence & those identified
other than the admission itself with him in legal
b. admission relates to the common object interest
c. that it has been made while the declarant
was engaged in carrying out the Hearsay Evidence rule - A witness can testify
conspiracy only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge.
3. by privies
Requisites: Independently relevant statement - It is a
1. Relation of privity between party and statement whose probative value is
declarant; independent of its truth or falsity. The mere
2. Admission was made by the declarant as fact of its utterance is relevant,
predecessor-in-interest, while holding title to
the property; 2 kinds of independently relevant statements:
3. The admission was in relation to said (1) Statements which are the very facts in
property. issue;
(2) Statements which are circumstantial
Requisites for admission by silence: evidence of the facts in issue (Francisco)
(1) Hearing and understanding of the
statement by the party; Reasons for Excluding Hearsay
(2) Opportunity and necessity of denying the 1. irresponsibility of the original declarant
statements; 2. depreciation of truth in the process of
(3) Statement must refer to a matter affecting repetition
his right; 3. opportunities for fraud would open
(4) Facts were within the knowledge of the 4. tendency of such evidence to protect legal
party; inquiries, and encourage the substitution
of weaker for stronger proofs.
Exceptions to Hearsay Rule Requisites:
1. Dying declaration 1) the principal fact, the res gestae, must be
Requisites: a startling occurrence
a. death is imminent 2) statements must have been made before
b. declarant is conscious of his impending the declarant had time to contrive or
death devise
c. declaration refers to material facts which 3) statements must concern the occurrence
concern the identity of the deceased or the in question and its immediately attending
accused, the cause & circumstances of circumstances
the killing
d. declarant would be competent to testify b. Contemporaneous statements or verbal
had he survived acts
e. any case wherein the subject is his death Requisites:
1) conduct characterized by the words must
2. Declaration against interest be independently material to the issue
Requisites: 2) conduct must be equivocal
a. declarant would not be available to testify 3) words must aid in giving legal significance
(dead, mentally incapacitated incompetent to the conduct
etc..) 4) words must accompany the conduct
b. declaration must concern a fact cognizable
by declarant Spontaneous Contemporaneous
c. circumstances must render it improbable exclamations or verbal act
that a motive to falsify existed Res gestae is the Res gestae is the
startling occurrence equivocal act
3. Act or declaration against pedigree Exclamation may be Verbal act must be
Requisites: prior to, contemporaneous
a. declarant is dead or unable to testify simultaneous with or with or must
b. pedigree must be in issue subsequent to the accompany the
c. declarant must be a relative of the person startling occurrence equivocal act
whose pedigree is in question 7. entries in the course of business
d. declaration must be made before the Requisites:
controversy occurred – ante-litem motam a. entrant made the entries in his
4. family reputation or tradition regarding professional capacity or in the
pedigree performance of a duty
Requisites: b. entrant is dead, outside of the Phils. or
a. tradition or reputation is one existing in the unable to testify
family c. entries were made in the ordinary course
b. reputation or tradition was formed ante- of business or duty
litem motam d. entries were made at or near the time of
c. witness testifying to the reputation or the transaction to which it relates
tradition is a member of the family e. entrant was in a position to know the facts
stated in the entry
5. Common reputation f. there must be more than one entry
Requisites:
a. that the matter to which the reputation 8. Entries in official records
refers to is of public or general interest and Requisites:
more than 30 years old a. entry was made by a public officer or by
b. that the reputation is one formed in the another person specially enjoined by law
community interested to do so
c. it existed ante litem motam b. made in the performance of his duties or
by another person in the performance of a
6. Part of the res gestae duty specially enjoined by law
a. spontaneous exclamations
c. the public officer or the other person had
sufficient knowledge of the facts by him
stated, acquired by him either personally
or thru official channels connected with the
exercise of his public functions
9. Commercial lists and the like
10. Learned treatises
11. Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding
Requisites:
a. testimony was rendered in a former case
b. identity of parties
c. identity of subject matter
d. adverse party had opportunity to cross-
examine the witness
e. witness is dead, outside of the Phils., pr
unable to testify in the subsequent trial
The Opinion Rule
The opinion of a witness is not admissible,
except in the following cases:
(1) On a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience or training which he
possesses, that is, when he is an expert
thereon;
(2) Regarding the identity or the handwriting
of a person, when he has knowledge of
the person or handwriting, whether he is
an ordinary or expert witness;
(3) On the mental sanity of a person, if the
witness is sufficiently acquainted with the
former or if the latter is an expert
witness;
(4) On the emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance of a person which he has
observed; and
(5) On ordinary matters known to all men of
common perception, such as the value of
ordinary household articles (Galian v.
State Assurance Co., Ltd.)
Rules on Character Evidence
GENERAL RULE: Not admissible.
Exceptions:
(a) In criminal cases:
(1) Accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
(2) Prosecution may only prove
accused’s bad moral character
pertinent to the moral trait involved
in the offense charged during
rebuttal.
(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 is admissible only when pertinent
to the issue of character involved in the
case.
(c) Evidence of a witness’ good moral
character is admissible only once such
character has been impeached.
Burden of Proof and Presumptions
 matters which need not be proved by a
party to an action are:
1. allegations contained in the complaint or
answer immaterial to the issues
2. facts which are admitted or which are not
denied in the answer, provided they have
been sufficiently alleged
3. those which are the subject of an agreed
statement of facts between parties, as
well as those admitted by the party in the
course of the proceedings in the same
case
4. those subject to judicial notice
5. facts which are legally presumed
6. facts peculiarly w/in the knowledge of the
opposite party
What are the rules on impeachment of
witnesses?
GENERAL RULE: The party producing a
witness is not allowed to impeach his
credibility.
Exceptions:
(1) Unwilling or hostile witness;
A witness may be considered as
unwilling or hostile only if so
declared by the court upon
adequate showing of:
(a) his adverse interest,
(b) unjustified reluctance to
testify; or
(c) his having misled the party
into calling him to the
witness stand. (Rule 132,
Sec. 12)
(2) Witness who is an adverse party;
(3) Officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse
party.
In these instances, such witnesses may be
impeached by the party presenting him in
all respects as if he had been called by the
adverse party, except by evidence of his
bad character.
How may an adverse party’s witness be
impeached?
(1) By contradictory evidence;
(2) By evidence that his general reputation
for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad;
(3) By evidence that he has made at other
times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony (a.k.a. “prior
inconsistent statements”)
Laying the predicate -
(a) Confronting the witness with the
prior inconsistent statements with
the circumstances under which they
were made;
(b) Asking him whether he made such
statements; and
(c) Giving him a chance to explain the
inconsistency. (Rule 132, Sec. 13)
A witness may not be impeached by
evidence of particular wrongful acts.
Except that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the
record of the judgment, that he has
been convicted of an offense.
Leading question - It is a question which
suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires.
It is not allowed, except:
1. On cross-examination;
2. On preliminary matters;
3. When there is difficulty is getting direct and
intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of
feeble-mind, or a deaf-mute
4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
5. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an
officer, director, or managing agent of a public
or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party
Misleading question - A misleading question is
one which assumes as true a fact not yet
testified to by the witness, or contrary to that
which he has previously stated. It is not
allowed.
What are the rights of a witness?
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper,
or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the
interests of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it be to the
very fact at issue or to a fact from which
the fact in issue would be presumed. But
a witness must answer to the fact of his
previous final conviction for an offense.
Exceptions to the rule against repetition of
objections
1. where the question has not been
answered, it is necessary to repeat the
objection when the evidence is again
offered or the question again asked
2. evidence of the same kind as that
previously admitted over objection
3. incompetency is shown later
4. objection refers to preliminary question it
must be repeated when the same question
is again asked during the introduction of
actual evidence
5. objection to evidence was sustained but
reoffered at a later stage of the trial
6. evidence is admitted on condition that its
competency or relevance be shown by
further evidence and the condition is not
fulfilled, the objection formerly interposed
must be repeated or a motion to strike out
the evidence must be made
7. where the court reserves the ruling on
objection, the objecting party must request
a ruling or repeat the objection
Distinction between presumption of innocence
and reasonable doubt
Presumption of Reasonable Doubt
Innocence
Conclusion drawn by Condition of mind
law in favor of produced by proof
citizens resulting from
evidence in the case
Evidence introduced Result of insufficient
by law to be proof
considered by the
court
OFFER AND OBJECTION
Offer of evidence. - The court shall consider
no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified.
When to make offer:
Testimony of a witness - at the time the
witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence - after the
presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.
Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed
by the court to be done in writing.
Objections:
- Objection to evidence offered orally must be
made immediately after the offer is made.
- Objection to a question propounded in the
course of the oral examination of a witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
- An offer of evidence in writing shall be
objected to within three (3) days after notice of
the offer unless a different period is allowed by
the court.
- The grounds for the objections must be
specified.
When repetition of objection unnecessary. -
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the
course of the examination that the questions
asked are of the same class as those to which
objection has been made (whether sustained
or overruled), it shall not be necessary to
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the
adverse party to record his continuing
objection to such class of questions.
Ruling:
The ruling of the court must be given
immediately after the objection is made,
unless the court desires to take a reasonable
time to inform itself on the question presented;
but the ruling shall always be made during the
trial and at such time as will give the party
against whom it is made an opportunity to
meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an
objection need not be stated. If the objection
is based on two or more grounds, a ruling
sustaining the objection on one or some of
them must specify the ground or grounds
relied upon.
Striking out answer. - Should a witness conviction - unless corroborated by evidence
answer the question before the adverse party of corpus delicti.
had the opportunity to voice fully its objection
to the same, and such objection is found to be Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
meritorious, the court shall sustain the conviction if:
objection and order the answer given to be (a) There is more than one circumstance;
stricken off the record. (b) The facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and
On motion, the court may also order the (c) The combination of all the
striking out of answers which are incompetent, circumstances' is such as to produce a
irrelevant, or otherwise improper. conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Tender of excluded evidence: Substantial evidence - that amount of relevant

- If documents or things offered are excluded
by the court, the offeror may have the same
attached to or made part of the record.
- If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror
may state for the record the name and other
personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony.
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
Preponderance of evidence - In determining
where the preponderance or superior weight
of evidence on the issues involved lies, the
court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the witnesses'
manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to
which they are testifying, the nature of the
facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their interest
or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately
appear upon the trial. The court may also
consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the
greater number.
evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Power of the court to stop further evidence. -
The court may stop the introduction of further
testimony upon any particular point when the
evidence upon it is already so full that more
witnesses to the same point cannot be
reasonably expected to be additionally
persuasive. But this power should be
exercised with caution.
Evidence on motion. - When a motion is
based on facts not appearing of record the
court may hear the matter on affidavits or
depositions presented by the respective
parties, but the court may direct that the
matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
testimony or depositions.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt - does not

mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or
that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

An extrajudicial confession made by an

accused, shall not be sufficient ground for