RULE 128 • That kind of evidence which in a trial is presented by

witnesses verbally. Evidence is the generic term and

EVIDENCE defined- testimony that of the species.
• Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth ARGUMENT-
respecting a matter of fact.
Sources of Rules of Evidence • Argument and evidence, taken together, represent
the means by which the tribunal is sought to be
• The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines persuaded as to some fact-in-issue.
• 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
FACTUM PROBANDUM distinguished from
on August 31, 1987
FACTUM PROBANS:
• Rule 115, Section 1, Formerly Rule III, Section 1 of
the Rules of Court (Right of defendant at the trial); FACTUM PROBANDUM (Fact in issue)-
• Substantive and Remedial Statutes;
• Judicial decisions • The ultimate fact or the fact sought to be
established
• Refers to proposition
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE SPECIFICALLY
APPLICABLE ONLY IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
FACTUM PROBANS-
“The means of ascertaining in a JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact.” • Is the evidentiary fact or the fact by which
the factum probandum is to be established
The decision of a barrio council, respecting the • Materials which establish the proposition
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. – KINDS AND DEGREES OF EVIDENCE
Miguel v Catalino,20 SCRA 234
Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence:

• DIRECT EVIDENCE – that which proves the

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
• CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – is the
TRUTH IS BEST ASCERTAINED UNDER AN
ADVERSARY SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. –Republic v
Valencia, 141 SCRA 462
EVIDENCE distinguished from:
PROOF-
fact in dispute without the aid of any
interference or presumption (Lake County
vs. Nellon.)
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)

• 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-
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 victimsdied 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 must be ad are the same in all
Evidence which will limit the field of matters cases and in all civilized countries
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
DIFFERENCE IN THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN
rules for the exclusion of evidence that is
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES:
logically probative, which but for such
exclusionary rules would be legal evidence, CIVIL CRIMINAL
and a further set of exceptions to these Parties attend by The accused
rules. accord attends by
compulsion
• To facilitate the ascertainment of truth. There is no Presumption of
presumption as to innocence attends
either party the accused
GOOD COMMAND OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE throughout the trial
ESSENTIAL: until the same has
been overcome by
• Cases are not always won by the prima facie evidence
righteousness of the client’s cause but by of his guilt
the evidence which his counsel presents in An offer to It is an implied
compromise does admission of guilt
court to support his claim or defense
not, as a general
rule, amount to an
admission of liability
RULES OF EVIDENCE NOT STATIC:
Must prove by Guilt beyond
preponderance of reasonable doubt
• Rules of Evidence…are not static. They are evidence: Reason is
constantly undergoing change, in the that there is no
interest of the successful development of the presumption ad due
truth. The changes are sometimes made by to the fact that the
the legislatures, sometimes by the Courts. proof will only result
in a judgment of
pecuniary damages
Section 2. Scope- The Rules of Evidence shall be
the same in all courts and in all trials and
APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF EVIDENCE:
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law
or these rules. • The rules of evidence are not strictly applied
in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and
(Sec. 2, Revised Rules of Court, hereinafter, RROC)
the National Labor Relations Commission
REASONS FOR THE RULE: (Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprises,
Inc. vs. NLRC, 136 SCRA 669); Employees’
• The Rules of Evidence must be applied in all Compensation Commission (Philippine
courts and in all trials and hearings for the Overseas Drilling and Oil Development
following: Corporation vs. Minister of Labor, 146 SCRA
79); Securities and Exchange Commission;
 The relation between the evidentiary Commission on Elections (Geromo v.
fact and a particular proposition is COMELEC, et al., 118 SCRA 165); Agrarian
always the same, without regard to Cases (Bagsican v. CA, 141 SCRA 226);
the kind of litigation in which that Immigration Proceedings (Moy Yoke Shue v.
proposition becomes material to be Johnson, 290 Fed. 621); Court of Tax
proved; Appeals (Celestino Co. & Company v.
Collector of Internal Revenue, BTA Case
 If the rules of evidence prescribe the No. 195, Oct. 4, 1954, affirmed by the
best course to arrive at the truth that 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 Men’s Ass’n,
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
them…xxx” (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 The admissibility of The weight of evidence
and is not excluded by the law or these evidence is has to do with the effect
rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there determined by its of evidence admitted,
relevance and its tendency to
should be a law or rule which forbids its
competence. convince and persuade.
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the
evidence must be admitted subject only to
the evidentiary weight that will be accorded The admissibility of The weight of evidence
it by the courts. evidence does not is not determined
depend on its weight mathematically by
and sufficiency; numerical superiority of
 BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. credibility and weight witnesses testifying to a
being questions of given fact, but depends
168644 February 16, 2010). The testimony
fact. upon its practical effect
of Marasigan on the particulars of in inducing belief on the
respondent’s supposed bank account with part of the judge trying
Security Bank and the documentary the case.
evidence represented by the checks
adduced in support thereof, are not only
incompetent for being excluded by operation It involves credibility of
witnesses and all
of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise
inherent probabilities
irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do and improbabilities
not appear to have any logical and deducible from the
reasonable connection to the prosecution of evidence as a whole.
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
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.

Admissibility of Weight of Evidence 4. Types of Admissibility

Evidence
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 Evidence excluded by
of evidence 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 Requires a higher
must be absolutely standard of evidentiary
essential to the fact in force and includes
issue. logical relevancy.
The main condition of All rules excluding
admissibility evidence which
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 Facts from the
or existence of which existence of which
the right or liability to inference as to the
be ascertained in the truth or existence of
is proceeding depends 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 according to the prevailing standards of
general experience of mankind. reasoning, to effect rational persuasion.

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
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.

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 8. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from
photographing of the drugs confiscated weight of evidence
and/or seized, will not render the drugs
inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Admissibility of Weight of Evidence
Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is Evidence
admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law or these The admissibility of The weight of evidence
rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there evidence is has to do with the effect
determined by its of evidence admitted,
should be a law or rule which forbids its
relevance and its tendency to
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the competence. convince and persuade.
evidence must be admitted subject only to
the evidentiary weight that will be accorded
it by the courts. The admissibility of The weight of evidence
evidence does not is not determined
depend on its weight mathematically by
 BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. and sufficiency; numerical superiority of
168644 February 16, 2010). The testimony credibility and weight witnesses testifying to a
being questions of given fact, but depends
of Marasigan on the particulars of
fact. upon its practical effect
respondent’s supposed bank account with in inducing belief on the
Security Bank and the documentary part of the judge trying
evidence represented by the checks the case.
adduced in support thereof, are not only
incompetent for being excluded by operation
of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise It involves credibility of
witnesses and all
irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do
inherent probabilities
not appear to have any logical and and improbabilities
reasonable connection to the prosecution of deducible from the
respondent for qualified theft. evidence as a whole.
ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by
7. Two axioms of Admissibility way of defense, he attempts to establish an
alibi.
a. None but facts having rational 1. His mother testifies that he was
probative value are admissible. – It at home in bed at the time the
murder was committed; or
prescribes that whatever is presented as
2. A distinguished physician
evidence shall be presented on the testifies that he was attending
hypothesis that it is calculated,
 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 Evidence excluded by
of evidence 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.
 Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112.The
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)
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 Requires a higher
must be absolutely standard of evidentiary
essential to the fact in force and includes
issue. logical relevancy.
The main condition of All rules excluding
admissibility 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 Facts from
or existence of which existence of which
the right or liability to inference as to the
be ascertained in the truth or existence of
proceeding depends 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:
the 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
Marasigan’s 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 respondent’s 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
petitioner’s 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 respondent’s 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
respondent’s 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 respondent’s 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 Editha’s 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 Editha’s 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 person’s
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 respondent’s
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 respondent’s 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, appellant’s 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
victim’s lips by stabbing her repeatedly, thereby
causing her untimely demise.
 RULE 129

What Need Not Be Proved

Section 1.Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A -it is mandatory as - Under Sec. 2, on

court shall take judicial notice, without the far as those matters which are of
introduction of evidence of the: matters public knowledge, or
are capable of
enumerated in
a. the existence and territorial extent of states; unquestionable
Sec. 1, Rule 129; demonstration, ought
b. their political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationality; to be known to
judges because of
c. the law of nations; their judicial
functions.
d. the admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals;

e. the political constitution and history of the

Philippines the official acts of legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines;
f. the laws of nature;
g. the measure of time;
h. and the geographical divisions.
Judicial Notice, defined:
-It is the cognizance of certain facts which
judges may properly take and act on without proof
because they already know them.
-It is the notice taken by the court, without
the production of evidence, of facts, which are within
common knowledge and experience.
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;

KINDS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE c. The rule must be taken with the qualification
that it relates only to such governments as have
MANDATORY DISCRETIONARY been recognized by the home government. The
recognition of a foreign government is a political
rather than a judicial matter and therefore courts conduct of the litigant
follow the determination of the executive department or witness in a similar
of the forum; matter.

d. In conformity to the law of nations all courts in a General Rule: Courts

government, where that government has recognized are not authorized to
take judicial knowledge
the existence of a foreign nation, but not in the of contents of the other
absence of such recognition will take cognizance of cases, in the
the flag and great seal of that nation or provinces; adjudication of cases
pending before them,
e. Foreign law must be proved as facts, those even though the trial
rules which by common consent of mankind have judge in fact knows or
been acquiesced in as las stand upon an entirely remember the contents
different footing; thereof;

Note: It is well settled that foreign laws do not prove

themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not i. Courts judicially recognize all public matters
which will affect the government of the
authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any country. On this principle, the accession and
other fact, they must be alleged and proved. death of the sovereign and principal officers
of the state are recognized;
f. No proof need be given of the seals of foreign j. Judicial Notice is taken of the familiar and
maritime and admiralty courts. By common consent unquestionable laws of nature and of the
and general usage, the seal of a court of admiralty existence of fact which happened according
has been considered as sufficiently authenticating its to the course of nature;
records; k. Courts will judicially notice the things
belonging to the almanac. Calendar of the
periods within the calendar.
l. Judicial Notice is taken of the fact that the
g. Philippines is divided into provinces,
municipalities, cities, and cities is divided
Matters relating to: into lots, blocks, streets;
1. Legislative Courts are bound to
Department take judicial notice, as JURISPRUDENCE
a matter of law, of
dates when Congress Judicial notice may be taken of petitioner's oath
begins and closes its taking as evidenced by a certification from the
session, the number, Records Officer of the office of the Provincial
function, privileges of Governor. The oath taking partakes of an official
its members; act, while the certification is an official act of an
official of the Executive Department of the
2. Executive Courts judicially government.( Lopez v. Sandiganbayan, GR No.
Department recognize all public 103911)
matters which will
affect the government We uphold the submission that the factual
of the country. On this defenses of petitioner are matters within the
principle, the concept of mandatory judicial notice. While it is
accession and death of true that, as pontificated by the Court a quo,
the sovereign and factual defenses on the part of the accused are
principal officers of the evidentiary matters which may be presented
state are recognized; only during trial on the merits, the facts alleged
by the accused are facts admitted, whether
directly or impliedly, in pleadings of the
prosecution.( Lopez v. Sandiganbayan, GR No.
103911)
3. Judiciary The Supreme Court
Department has taken judicial Section 2.Judicial notice, when discretionary,
notice of its record in a generally:
previous case in
connection with the
a. Matters which are of public knowledge;
 - Judicial knowledge of facts is measured by
general knowledge of the same fact. A fact is
generally known when its existence or operation
when it is accepted by public without
qualification or contention.
The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the
wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power
to take judicial notice is to be exercised by
courts with caution; care must be taken that the
requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable
doubt on the subject should be promptly
resolved in the negative. Generally speaking,
matters of judicial notice have three material
requisites: (1) the matter must be one of
common and general knowledge; (2) it must be
well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful
or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be
within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
The principal guide in determining what facts
may be assumed to be judicially known is that of
notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial
notice is limited to facts evidenced by public
records and facts of general notoriety. (Latip vs.
Chua)
Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take
judicial notice, may be matters coming to the
knowledge of men generally in the course of the
ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters
which are generally accepted by mankind as true
and are capable of ready and unquestioned
demonstration. Thus, facts which are universally
known, and which may be found in encyclopedias,
dictionaries or other publications, are judicially
noticed, provided they are of such universal notoriety
and so generally understood that they may be
regarded as forming part of the common knowledge
of every person.( Latip vs. Chua, GR NO. 177809)
b. Matters capable of Unquestionable
Demonstration
- This refers o facts, theories and conclusions
which have come to be established and
accepted by the specialists in the areas of
natural science, natural phenomena,
technology, history, geography, scientifically
facts and other fields of scientific knowledge.
c. Matters ought to be known by judges by
reason of their judicial function
Judicial Notice of Proceedings in Another Case.
GENERAL RULE: Court is not authorized to take
judicial notice of the contents of another case even if
said case was heard by he same judge.
Exception:
1. When in the absence of any objection, with
the knowledge of the opposing party, the
contents of said other case are clearly referred
to by title and number in a pending action and
adopted or read into the record of the latter;
2. when the original record of the other case or
any part of it is actually withdrawn from the
archives at the court’s discretion upon the
request, or with the consent of the parties and
admitted as part of the record of the pending
case.
Note: Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge.
The mere personal knowledge of the judge is
not judicial knowledge of the court; judicial
cognizance is taken only of those matters which
are “commonly” known.
SECTION 3 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN
HEARING NECESSARY
During the trial, the court on its own
initiative, or on request of a party, may
announce its intention to take judicial notice
of any matter and allow the parties to be
heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on
appeal, the proper court, or its own initiative
or on the request of a party, may take
judicial notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue or in the case.
 PURPOSE OF HEARING
• To afford the parties reasonable
opportunity to present information
relevant to the propriety of taking such
judicial notice or to the tenor of the
matter to be noticed.
 TIME WHEN JUDICIAL NOTICE MAY
BE TAKEN:
• During trial
• After trial and before judgment
• On appeal
• In all instances, the court may act on its
own initiative or on request of a party.
 1. Oral as a verbal waiver of proof
 JUDICIAL NOTICE TAKEN DURING made in open court
TRIAL DISTINGUISHED FROM THAT
TAKEN AFTER BUT BEFORE 2. A withdrawal of a contention
JUDGMENT OR ON APPEAL
3. A disclosure made before a court

4. Admission made by a witness in the

• DURING TRIAL – any matter
course of testimony or deposition
• AFTER TRIAL BUT BEFORE 5. In writing as in pleadings
JUDGMENT OR ON APPEAL – Any
matter if such decisive of a material 6. Bill of particulars
issue in the case.
7. Stipulation of facts

8. Request for admission

 DETERMINATION OF FACTS
SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE – 9. Judicial admission contained in an
affidavit used in a case.

The court may refer to appropriate and

reliable sources of information. Where  CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDICIAL
judicial notice must be taken of a fact, ADMISSION
the court is required to pursue inquiries
sufficient to make that knowledge real
Cannot be contradicted unless
as far as possible.
previously shown to have been made
SECTION 4 – An admission, verbal or written, made through a palpable mistake or that no
by or a party in the course of the proceedings in the such admission was made.
same case, does not require proof of the admission
may be contradicted only by showing that it was
 ADMISSION IN PLEADINGS –
made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made.
• May be made by an express
 JUDICIAL AND EXTRA JUDICIAL
acknowledgement of some fact or facts
ADMISSIONS DEFINED.
set forth in the pleading of the opposite
party.
JUDICIAL – is one made in the
pleadings filed or in the progress of a
trial. It is conclusive upon the party • By failure to deny or otherwise
making them. controvert the truth of such fact or facts.

EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION – one

 NO ADMISSION ARISES WHEN
made out of court. As a rule, is
DEFENDANT IS ADJUDGED IN
disputable except on estoppel.
DEFAULT.

 FORM OF JUDICIAL ADMISSION – Such failure to answer does not amount

to an admission of the facts alleged in
the complaint.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS MAY BE:

 BILL OF PARTICULARS –
Written statements in nature of bill of
particulars, purporting to be signed by a
party’s attorney, and which the opposing
party claims was delivered to his
counsel as a bill of particular was been
held admissible.
 VERIFIED AND UNVERIFIED
PLEADINGS –
Verification is considered essential to
the admission of statements in a
pleading against the pleader. If a party
does not verify, authorize or adopt a
pleading, allegations thereof are not
admissible against him.
 ADMISSIONS BY ATTORNEY –
Admissions by counsel made in the trial
of a cause may be conclusive on the
party unless withdrawn or set aside by
the court for good cause shown as
mistake or lack of authority.
 ADMISSIONS IN WITHDRAWN,
SUPERSEDED OR AMENDED
PLEADING
The pleading which has been withdrawn
or stricken out or superseded by
amendment, still remain as statements
seriously made and are admissible in
evidence, on behalf of the opposite
party as admissions by the pleader,
where he is a party to the subsequent
litigation, where the statements are
material and relevant to the issues in
connection with which they are sought
to be introduced, and where, in case of
a pleading withdrawn by leave of court,
no order is made relieving the 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 –
Stipulations of facts in a case are
agreements or admissions regarding
certain facts included in the litigation
and are conclusive between the parties.
Acts or facts admitted do not require
proof and cannot be contradicted,
unless it be shown that the admission
was made through a palpable mistake,
for parties are not allowed to gain say
their own acts or deny rights which they
have previously recognized. A party
may not withdraw from an agreement of
facts without the consent of the other
party or without leave of court on
justifiable reasons.
 BINDING EFFECT OF STIPULATION
OF FACTS –
A concession or stipulation as to a fact
made for the purpose of trial has the
force and effect of an established fact
binding on the party making the same,
as well as on the court, unless the court
in its reasonable discretion allows the
concession to be later withdrawn,
explained, or modified if it appears to
have been made by improvidence or
mistake.
 AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS AND
TESTIMONY –
A judicial admission in an affidavit used
in the case is admissible against the
party making or adopting the affidavit,
and it may also be admitted in another
action to which he is a party.
Statements made in a deposition,
relevant to the issues, may be admitted
 against the deponent as admissions
against the interest in the same or
another action to which he is a party,
even though he is present in court and
able to testify, or has testified
The testimony given by or for a party at
the trial of a case may be used against
him as an admission in the same, or on
a subsequent trial, or even in another
action, provided such testimony is
material and relevant.
 PROOF OF ADMISSION IN
PLEADING, AFFIDAVIT OR
DEPOSITION –
Where a pleading, affidavit or
depositionis offered in evidence, the
statements relied on as admissions and
the qualifying statements must be
construed together. The party offering
written admissions is not stopped to
disprove them.
 COMPROMISE AGREEMENT -
A judicial admission in a compromise
agreement submitted to the court cannot
be contradicted unless previously shown
to have been made through palpable
mistake.
 STIPULATION OF FACTS IN
CRIMINAL CASES –
It is not proper to consider a case
closed, or to render judgment therein, by
virtue of an agreement entered into
between the fiscal and counsel for the
accused with reference to facts some of
which are favorable to the defense, and
others related to the prosecution,
without any evidence being adduced or
testimony taken from the witnesses
mentioned in the agreement; such
practice is not authorized and defeats
the purposes of the criminal law.
 JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF A FACT
DISTINGUISHED FROM AN
ADMISSION THAT A CERTAIN
WITNESS, IF CALLED, WOULD SO
TESTIFY.
In the first case, there is a judicial
admission of the facts, and they cannot
be contradicted. In the second case, it
will only have the same effect as if the
witness had testified to the facts. Such
testimony of the party is free to
contradict.
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 consideration by the curt
in determining the issues in the case.
Order denying or granting view not reviewable
when it appears that the condition of the premises or
property has changed since the time of occurrence
in issue and before the demand for a view, or that
the facts involved are such that they can be
accurately described to the court by oral testimony,
or by the use of maps or diagrams with proper
explanations, or view would be unreasonable
expensive or cause unreasonable delay, or serve no
useful purpose, unless here appears a clear abuse
of discretion.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 Documentary evidence
DOCUMENT – any substance having any matter
expressed or described upon it by marks capable of
being read. If it is produced without regard to the
message which it contains, it is treated as real
evidence.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- evidence supplied by
written instruments, or derived from the conventional
symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are
represented on material substances; documents;
documents produced for the inspection of the court
or judge.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUEMNTARY EVIDENCE-
subject to the same basic rules on relevancy,
materiality, exclusionary rules and court discretion
as determined by the issues in the particular case.
Identity and authenticity of the document must be
reasonably established as a pre-requisite to its
admission.
IMPORTANT RULES ON DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE-
1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Rule on Secondary Evidence
3. Parol Evidence Rule
4. Rule on Authentication and Proof of
Documents
5. Inadmissibility of written document in an
unofficial language unless translated in
English and Filipino
1. Best Evidence Rule
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 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 to 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:
(a) The original of the 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 for another
>Whenever a document is executed in
several parts, each part is a primary evidence
> Whenever a document is executed in
counterpart, each part executed by one or
more of the parties only, each counterpart is
primary evidence as against the parties who
executed it
People vs Sto. Tomas
138 SCRA 206
The trial court correctly rejected the xerox copy of
the marriage certificate, since the admission would
violate the best evidence rule.
For the application of the best evidence, it is
essential that:
the original writing or if it is a private document, be
first duly identified, and a sufficient and a sufficient
foundation be laid, so as to entitle the writing to be
admitted in evidence, and it must be available to the
opposite party for cross-examination.
Best Evidence Rule in Criminal Cases- In criminal
cases, where the issue is not only with respect to the
contents of the document but also as to whether
such document actually existed, the original itself
must be presented.
US vs Gregorio
17 Phil 522
For only only presenting the Xerox copy of the
falsified documents, prosecution failed to prove the
corpus delicti of the crime charged. In the absence
of the original document, it Is improper to conclude,
with only 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 case,
even the existence of such document may be
doubted.
Non-production of the original document unless
justified in Section 3, gives rise to the presumption of
suppression of evidence.

Amended Documents- where a duplicate or copy is
amended or altered by the party or parties, it
becomes the original.
Document executed in two or more identical
contents each one of the parts is primary evidence
and the other need not be proved.
Mechanically reproduced copies:
a) Carbon copy- admissible as duplicate
original when executed at the same
time or about the same time. Imperfect
carbon copies, although made at the
same time as the original but if there is
something else to be done for it to be
binding or there is incomplete signature,
it’s not the best evidence.
b) Reproduction from the same matrix i.e.
mimeograph, hectograph- admissible as
duplicate original when produced from
the same matrix as original
c) Blueprints and vellum tracings- have
been held to be originals rather than
copies
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;
• as sent by the sender- the original is
the message delivered
if the issue is the inaccuracy of
transmission,
• both telegrams as sent and received
are originals
e) Letter press copies- merely secondary
evidence as its prone to improper
reproduction and are not produced
simultaneously as the original
f) Thermofax- merely secondary evidence
as it lacks satisfactory reproduction as
some portions are not clearly printed
g) Photographs and Xerox- merely
secondary evidence since they are
reproduced at a latter time but if
authenticated photostatic copy of
income tax returns, public and business
records are allowed as evidence
People vs Mangulabnan
52 OG 6532
At the trial, presented as evidence a post-mortem
report of the injuries received by the deceased. This
was admitted over the objection of the accused, who
contend that a mere carbon copy is inadmissible.
The court ruled that the fact the post-mortem report
is a mere carbon copy is also of no moment for it
has been signed by the physician who executed the
same and his signature was identified b him at the
witness stand.
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs
Reyes
August 5, 1931
The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed two
informations for libel against Guevarra. The
informations alleged that the defendant, with
malicious intent, published on page 9 of the weekly
paper Ing Magumasid. The defendant demurred on
the ground of duplicity of informations, he having
published only one libelous article in the Ing
Magumasid for July 13, 1930. The fiscal attempted
to present as evidence for the prosecution Exhibits
A, B, C, and D, which are copies of the Ing
Magumasid containing the libelous article with the
innuendo. Counsel for the defendant objected to this
evidence, which objection was sustained. Petitioner
contends that the exhibits in question are the best
evidence of the libel, the subject matter of the
information, and should therefore be admitted.
Issue: Whether the exhibits are admissible.
Ruling: The rule of procedure which requires the
production of the best evidence, is applicable to the
present case. And certainly the copies of the weekly
where the libelous article was published, and its
translation, constitute the best evidence of the libel
charged. The newspaper itself is the best evidence
of an article published in it.
Thus if the issue is the contents of the articles sent
for publication, the best evidence is the manuscript.
But is if issue is on what was actually published,
then the best evidence is the copy of the news
paper.
Respondent judge of the CFI was required to admit
Exhibits A, B, C, and D, in question.
Manchester & Lawrence vs Fisk
(1856)
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 worker’s inefficiency and that the
Company suffered financial losses due to such
service. To ascertain its annual losses, CM’s
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 Company’s 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” 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 not limited to that
which may be 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
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 burned objects;
c. In any case where a weapon is used,
the weapon, including, if it is a firearm,
bullets and shells; weapons other than
the one used, to show intent; weapons
found on or near the victim, to show
self-defense;
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 victim’s companion
where relevant;
e. In homicide, the bones or flesh of the
victim, to show the character and
location of wounds (it is within the
court’s discretion to order the victim’s
skull exhumed so it may be offered in
evidence); objects used to help hide the
body;
f. In theft cases, the stolen goods,
burglars’ tools, other objects which help
accomplish the theft;
g. In a hit-and-run case, headlight glass
partly recovered from the scene and
partly from the garage where repairs
were made;
h. In a drunken driving 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 defendant’s escape
route;
s. Objects which illustrate a consciousness
of guilt on defendant’s 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 one’s 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 admissibility of object
(real) evidence – an object may be exhibited,
examined or viewed by the court when (1) it is
relevant to the fact in issue, and (2) the present
condition of the object is the same at the time in
issue.
If, by some principle of relevancy, a fact
offered to be shown is not admissible, because
irrelevant, it cannot be shown, either in this or in any
other way. For example, whether a person’s color is
black or white is best ascertained by inspecting the
person; but if his color when ascertained would be
irrelevant for the purpose concerned, an inspection
to learn his color would obviously be unnecessary,
and therefore improper. Thus, his color might be
relevant to show his race-ancestry, but not to show
his state of health; in the former case inspection
would be allowed in the latter case not, the ruling in
each instance depending on the admissibility of the
fact shown by inspection. In a large number of
instances this is the real question.
Admission of clothing worn by plaintiff at
time of accident has been held improper where the
fact of injury was uncontroverted.
The present condition of an object offered
may not be the same as to be proper evidence of its
former condition; accordingly, autoptic preference is
allowable only on the assumption that the condition
is the same or sufficiently similar.
Experiments to show the quality or operation
of a substance, a machine, etc., are often excluded
because of the dissimilarity of circumstances or
because of probable confusion of issues; and for this
reason the exhibition of such experiments before the
tribunal may of course be forbidden.
As a general rule it seems essential that
articles shown to the court be connected, at least
prima facie, with the crime in issue. An article of
personal property, the relevancy of which has been
shown by its identification with the subject-matter of
the crime, may be exhibited in the courtroom,
whether as direct evidence of a relevant fact, or to
enable them to understand the evidence or to realize
more completely its cogency and force, or to assist
the court in solving a material, controverted or
doubtful point. Admission of visual, exhibitive or
demonstrative evidence is much 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 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 plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s 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 indecency.
Where an arm or a 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 injury was inflicted. Thus, the court has
permitted the exhibition of an ankle, a knee, a foot, a
leg, an arm, a hand, an eye socket, and various
other parts of the body. A similar exhibition may be
made where the injury has resulted in the death of
the injured person or the loss of a member or part of
his body.
Indecency or impropriety as ground for
disallowing the introduction of object (real)
evidence; exception – when the object produced
as evidence is indecent, or improper, it should be
excluded, unless the same is necessary for
ascertaining the truth.
But when justice and the discovery of truth,
are at stake, the ordinary canons of modesty and
delicacy of feeling cannot be allowed to impose a
prohibition upon necessary measures. If such
matters were not unshrinking discussed and probed,
many kinds of crime would remain unpunished.
Nevertheless, needless spectators having no
responsibility for the course of justice may well be
avoided. Where it is a question of what would
otherwise be an indecency, two limitations seems
appropriate: (a) there should be fair necessity for
inspection, the trial court to determine; (b) the
inspection should take place apart from the public
courtroom, in the sole presence of the tribunal and
the parties.
Introduction of object (real) evidence for
the purpose of arousing undue prejudice – The
object of all evidence is to inform the trial tribunal of
the material facts, which are relevant as bearing
upon the issue, in order that the truth may be elicited
and that a just determination of the controversy may
be reached. It is not objectionable, in these cases,
which the evidence may go beyond the oral narrative
and may be addressed to the senses; provided that
it is kept within reasonable limits by the exercise of a
fair judicial discretion. It should be only of a nature
to assist the court to an understanding of a situation,
of an act, or to comprehend objective symptoms
resulting from an injury. Examples of this class of
evidence are frequent; in the viewing of the place of
an occurrence, in the exhibition of the person and of
the marks, or obvious evidences, of injuries
sustained. Personal injuries may be simulated and
deception 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 reporter’s
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 the subjects as of the time in
question, are, in the discretion of the trial court,
admissible in evidence as aids to it in arriving at an
understanding of the evidence, the situation or
condition of objects or premises, the circumstances
of an accident, or the condition or identity of a
person when any such matter is relevant to the
issues being litigated.
Where depositions of subscribing witnesses
to a will are taken, a photographic copy of the will
may be presented to the witnesses on their
examination and they may be asked the same
questions with respect to said copy as if it were the
original will and testimony as to the identity of the
photographic copy shown to the witnesses is
admissible in evidence.
In the case of Rodelas vs. Aranza; G. R. No. L-
58509 December 7, 1982:
The appellant Marcela Rodelas filed a
petition for the probate of the holographic will of
Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letter
testamentary in her favor. However, it was opposed
on the following ground:
a.) Can a holographic will which was lost be
proved by means of a photostatic copy?
Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the
affirmative. It is necessary that there be a
comparison between sample handwritten statements
of the testator and the handwritten will. But, a
photostatic copy of a holographic will may be
allowed because comparison can be made with the
standard writings of the testator.
The facts as depicted by photographs are
usually reasonably correct representations and
constitute evidence of a satisfactory and conclusive
nature.
Photographs of any place which may be
viewed by the trial court are admissible in evidence
upon proof of their exactness and accuracy.
The logic underlying the admission of
photographs which have been authenticated by the
operator of the camera, or by some other witness
who can testify from personal knowledge as to the
accuracy of the representation, is drawn principally
from the cases admitting maps and diagrams. 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
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 the road by tires or other parts 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 recreate a
bygone scene. An example of this would be the
placing of a yardstick to indicate the distance
between the ground and rear fender of the cat
involved in a fatal hit and run accident.
Enlargements – Although magnification that
constitutes distortion may be objectionable, it is no
valid objection to the introduction of the photograph
that it is an enlargement made from an original.
Enlargements are, of course, subject to the usual
tests of accuracy and relevancy that any photograph
would be.
Color pictures – color photographs or
slides are admissible on the same basis as ordinary
black and white pictures. The same test is applies
by courts, the test of probative value. The color
tends to be regarded as a more faithful type of
representation that black and white photographs.
Aerial photographs – Aerial photographs,
depicting ground areas pertinent to the particular
issue, are held admissible upon the same foundation
basis as other photographs.
X-ray – In one way or another, X-rays are
perhaps the modality of medical treatment or
diagnosis most commonly appearing in litigation.
Diagnostic X-ray films often provide counsel with his
best source of objective proof of his client’s injuries,
establishing in a manner that all can see that
plaintiff’s leg bones indeed were fractured a year
before trial, and the like. Even when X-ray films do
not reveal their secrets clearly enough for a court to
understand them without expert interpretation, they
nevertheless comprise a means of dramatic
persuasion often of inestimable value.
The same rules and principles which apply
to ordinary pictures are applicable to an X-ray
photograph, although subject to explanation or
interpretation by experts in order to make them
intelligible to the court.
Motion pictures – Principles underlying
admissibility of talking motion pictures are not
different from those governing the admissibility of
still pictures and phonograph records. It is a matter
of common knowledge that motion pictures are no
longer a novelty. They are 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, witness’s testimony, drinking driver’s
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 primary evidence
appealing to the eyes of the court under the rule
admitting photographs, they differ from the latter in
that their accuracy as portraits or likeliness must be
affirmatively shown by the testimony of the artist or
other competent witness. There is no presumption
of correctness founded on general use and
employment, or on their being mechanical
reproductions by a process which the court will
judicially notice, as exists in the case of
photographs. The witness called to prove their
correctness must testify of his own knowledge that
they faithfully represent the object depicted, and
their accuracy, if disputed, is a question for the court,
turning upon the credibility of the witnesses
The draftsman of the map must testify as to
its accuracy, but any other witnesses may refer to it
while testifying, to illustrate his testimony. It is not
material by whom the map or diagram was prepared
providing that he can testify that the map or diagram
is accurate and based on knowledge derive from his
own investigation.
The use of diagrams, models and casts as
testimony of the objects represented rests
fundamentally upon the theory that they represent a
method of pictorial communication of a qualified
witness which he may use of instead of, or in
addition to, some other method. Evidence of this
character is helpful in aiding the court to visualize
the objects and scenes in the action. Thus a model
of a machine, a mechanical device or a bridge, may
be submitted to the court to aid them in
understanding how an event occurred or might have
been prevented. This type of evidence is properly
described as illustrative evidence. It is a type of
demonstrative evidence especially useful to police
officers and other witnesses in describing traffic
accident scenes.
Fingerprints, palm prints, footprints,
tracks, etc. – A method of proof now commonly
resorted to in providing identity is in the use of
evidence as to the correspondence or similarity of
the fingerprints, palm prints and footprints.
Authenticated fingerprints, palm prints, or footprints
or photographs thereof of a 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.
Testimony concerning tracks and footprints
discovered near the scene of crime is admissible if a
connection with defendant by means of 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
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
tribunal’s 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
consideration by the curt in determining the issues in
the case.
Order denying or granting view not
reviewable –When it appears that the condition of
the premises or property has changed since the time
of occurrence in issue and before the demand for a
view, or that the facts involved are such that they
can be accurately described to the court by oral
testimony, or by the use of maps or diagrams with
proper explanations, or view would be unreasonable
expensive or cause unreasonable delay, or serve no
useful purpose, unless here appears a clear abuse
of discretion.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 Documentary evidence
DOCUMENT – any substance having any
matter expressed or described upon it by marks
capable of
being read. If it is produced without regard to the
message which it contains, it is treated as real
evidence.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- evidence
supplied by written instruments, or derived from the
conventional symbols, such as letters, by which
ideas are represented on material substances;
documents; documents produced for the inspection
of the court or judge.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUEMNTARY
EVIDENCE- subject to the same basic rules on
relevancy, materiality, exclusionary rules and court
discretion as determined by the issues in the
particular case. Identity and authenticity of the
document must be reasonably established as a pre-
requisite to its admission.
IMPORTANT RULES ON DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE-
1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Rule on Secondary Evidence
3. Parol Evidence Rule
4. Rule on Authentication and Proof of
Documents
5. Inadmissibility of written document in an
unofficial language unless translated in
English and Filipino
2. Best Evidence Rule
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 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 to 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:
(a) The original of the 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 for another
>Whenever a document is executed in
several parts, each part is primary evidence
> Whenever a document is executed in
counterpart, each part executed by one or
more of the parties only, each counterpart is
primary evidence as against the parties who
executed it
People vsSto. Tomas
138 SCRA 206
The trial court correctly rejected the xerox copy of
the marriage certificate, since the admission would
violate the best evidence rule.
For the application of the best evidence, it is
essential that:
the original writing or if it is a private document, be
first duly identified, and a sufficient and a sufficient
foundation be laid, so as to entitle the writing to be
admitted in evidence, and it must be available to the
opposite party for cross-examination.
Best Evidence Rule in Criminal Cases –
In criminal cases, where the issue is not only with
respect to the contents of the document but also as
to whether such document actually existed, the
original itself must be presented.
US vs Gregorio
17 Phil 522
For only only presenting the Xerox copy of the
falsified documents, prosecution failed to prove the
corpus delicti of the crime charged. In the absence
of the original document, it Is improper to conclude,
with only 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 case,
even the existence ofsuch document may be
doubted.
Non-production of the original document
unless justified in Section 3, gives rise to the
presumption of suppression of evidence.
Amended Documents- where a duplicate
or copy is amended or altered by the party or
parties, it becomes the original.
Document executed in two or more
identical contents each one of the parts is primary
evidence and the other need not be proved.
Mechanically reproduced copies:
h) Carbon copy- admissible as duplicate
original when executed at the same time
or about the same time. Imperfect
carbon copies, although made at the
same time as the original but if there is
something else to be done for it to be
binding or there is incomplete signature,
it’s not the best evidence.
i) Reproduction from the same matrix i.e.
mimeograph, hectograph- admissible as
duplicate original when produced from
the same matrix as original
j) Blueprints and vellum tracings- have
been held to be originals rather than
copies
k) 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;
• as sent by the sender- the original is
the message delivered
if the issue is the inaccuracy of
transmission,
• both telegrams as sent and received
are originals
l) Letter press copies- merely secondary
evidence as its prone to improper
reproduction and are not produced
simultaneously as the original
 m) Thermofax- merely secondary evidence
as it lacks satisfactory reproduction as
some portions are not clearly printed
n) Photographs and Xerox-merely
secondary evidence since they are
reproduced at a latter time but if
authenticated photostatic copy of
income tax returns, public and business
records are allowed as evidence
People vsMangulabnan
52 OG 6532
At the trial, presented as evidence a post-mortem
report of the injuries received by the deceased. This
was admitted over the objection of the accused, who
contend that a mere carbon copy is inadmissible.
The court ruled that the fact the post-mortem report
is a mere carbon copy is also of no moment for it
has been signed by the physician who executed the
same and his signature was identified b him at the
witness stand.
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs Reyes
August 5, 1931
The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed two
informations for libel against Guevarra. The
informations alleged that the defendant, with
malicious intent, published on page 9 of the weekly
paper IngMagumasid. The defendant demurred on
the ground of duplicity of informations, he having
published only one libelous article in
the IngMagumasid for July 13, 1930. The fiscal
attempted to present as evidence for the prosecution
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 evidence, which objection was
sustained. Petitioner contends that the exhibits in
question are the best evidence of the libel, the
subject matter of the information, and should
therefore be admitted.
Issue: Whether the exhibits are admissible.
Ruling: The rule of procedure which requires the
production of the best evidence, is applicable to the
present case. And certainly the copies of the weekly
where the libelous article was published, and its
translation, constitute the best evidence of the libel
charged. The newspaper itself is the best evidence
of an article published in it.
Thus if the issue is the contents of the articles sent
for publication, the best evidence is the manuscript.
But is if issue is on what was actually published,
then the best evidence is the copy of the news
paper.
Respondent judge of the CFI was required to admit
Exhibits A, B, C, and D, in question.
Manchester & Lawrence vs Fisk
(1856)
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
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 witnesses in the order stated.
certification case, CM sent notice to the Union for
termination of their contract and entered into a new
contract with another stevedoring association. 1. Source.—This provision is a reproduction of
Section 4, Rule 130 the Rules of Court with the
CM assailed that the termination of the contract was following differences:
due to Union worker’s inefficiency and that the
Company suffered financial losses due to such
service. To ascertain its annual losses, CM’s Section 4 Section 5
manager hired auditors. CM relied only upon such Title of “secondary “when
auditors’ report and presented in court only a the evidence original
summary of damages. The sales invoices were not section when original document is
produced. is lost or unavailable”
destroyed”
Issue: WON the non-submission as evidence of the Change “and loss or deleted
records of the alleged losses of the Company is s destruction, or
excused because of the rule exempting voluminous unavailability”;
records from being produced in court. “may be
proved”;
Ruling: The best evidence of the Company’s losses “recollection”
would have been the sales invoices instead of the Added: “or
Manager’ oral testimony. The rule that when the existence
original consists of numerous accounts or other and the
documents which cannot be examined in court cause of its
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be unavailability
established in only the general result of the whole, without bad
the original writings need not be produce, CANNOT faith on his
BE APPLIED because the voluminous character f part, may
the records was NOT DULY ESTABLISHED. It is prove” and
also a requisite for the application of the rule that the the words
records of accounts should be made accessible to “document”;
the adverse party so that the correctness of the “the offeror”;
summary may be tested on cross-examination. “testimony”;
“in the order
When an entry is repeated in the regular course stated”
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 2. Secondary evidence explained.
within reasonable time, it is sufficient. A much longer
but reasonable delay and when entries appear to Definition:
have been made while the memory as to the a. That which shows that better, or primary
transaction as clear or the source of such knowledge evidence exists as to the proof of the
was unimpaired, still makes it admissible. fact in question.

However, a book of account containing only a single b. It is that class of evidence which is
entry or charge of money lent, which show no mutual relevant to the fact in issue, it being first
recourse of dealing between the parties, is not shown that the primary evidence of the
admissible. fact is not obtainable.

c. Performs the same function as that of

2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
primary evidence but is LESS
SECTION 5, RULE 130 RELIABLE and WORTHY OF BELIEF

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
Ex. A warrant itself is better evidence of
what it contains than a copy of it
A check is better evidence of what it
contains than the stub
On why secondary evidence is admitted:
 It is admitted upon the theory that the
original cannot be produced by the party by whom
the evidence is offered within a reasonable time by
the exercise of reasonable diligence.
*This is applicable in both civil and criminal cases.
Rationale for requiring production of
original, two-fold:
1. Copies and oral testimony are more prone to
inaccuracy and subject to fraud.
2. The appearance of the document may
furnish information as to its authenticity.
3. Requisites for the admissibility of
secondary evidence:
a. Execution and existence of the original
b. Loss and destruction of the original or its
non-production in court
c. Unavailability of the original is not due to
bad faith on the part of the offeror
4. Proof of due execution and existence of
original
Meaning of execution:
The accomplishment of a thing, the
completion of an actor instrument, the
fulfilment of an undertaking
• Even though the production of an
original may be excused because of
loss or destruction, it is still necessary to
authenticate the absent document.
• Before proof of contents can be
admitted, the court should be satisfied of
the existence and due execution of the
original in the same manner as if the
original were produced.
• Before a party can be permitted to
introduce secondary evidence of the
contents of a written instrument,
satisfactory proof must be made of he
former existence of the instrument, and
this necessarily involves proof of its
proper execution or genuineness.
5. Due execution of lost ancient documents
need not be established.
Lost document is more than 30 years old-
secondary evidence of their contents is
admissible without proof of their execution
6. Proof of lost or destruction of original.
Destruction Loss
Signifies merely
The thing no
that it cannot be
longer exists
discovered
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 instrument may be
proved against a party by his
admissions in writing, without
accounting for non-production of the
original document.
9. Proof of non-production in court
1. It is sufficient to show that it is deposited
in a place from which it cannot be
removed for the purpose of being
produced in court;
2. Or that it is not in the possession or
under the control of the party seeking to
show the facts;
3. He is unable to produce it within a
reasonable time after the exercise of
reasonable diligence.
*When the original of the document e.g.
receipt, cannot be produced in court, the
Photostat copy thereof is admissible as
evidence.
10. Absence of bad faith on the part of the
offeror
1. Secondary evidence is inadmissible
when the party offering it had himself
destroyed the original, with the object of
preventing its production in court, for in
such a case, secondary evidence of its
contents could probably be regarded as
in all likelihood false or misleading.
2. If destruction was done in the ordinary
course of business or by mistake, or
where the proponent first removes, to
the satisfaction of the court any
reasonable suspicion of fraud,
secondary evidence is admissible.
*When primary evidence has been
wilfully destroyed, receipt of secondary
evidence may depend upon the reasons
for the destruction, and such evidence
will not be received from the party who
destroyed the primary evidence.
*The burden of proving absence of bad
faith falls on the proponent.
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.
a. Where the paper is such that from its
nature it may be fairly assumed that it
has some particular place of deposit,
that search should be search in the
utmost good faith, or the person in
whose custody it is shown to have been
should be produced.
b. The testimony of the last custodian of
the paper or record should be produced;
and, if this person is shown to be dead,
his representative or successor should
be called.
c. The general statement that diligence
has been used, or a mere perfunctory
showing of some diligence will not
ordinarily suffice.
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.
GR: The loss or destruction of the document
need not be proved beyond the possibility of
mistake; it is enough if the testimony
satisfies the court of the fact with reasonable
certainty. And the lost or destruction may be
proved by circumstantial evidence.
What constitute a diligent search:
The matter of the whole foundation or
predicate for admission of such secondary
evidence is subject to the wide discretion of
 the court although courts should be cautious
in the reception of such evidence.
General rule concerning proof of a lost
instrument:
1. Reasonable search shall be made for it
in the place where it was last known to
have been;
2. If such search does not discover it, then
inquiry should be made of persons most
likely to have its custody; or
3. Who have some reason to know of its
whereabouts.
Important points:
1. The party must show that he has in good
faith, and to a reasonable degree, made an
effort to discover the instrument, and to that
end has exhausted all sources of
information and means of discovery which
were open to him, and which in the nature of
the case were possible.
2. No fixed rule as to the necessary proof to
establish loss, or what constitutes
reasonable search, can be formulated.
3. The sole object of such proof is, to raise a
reasonable presumption, merely that the
instrument is lost, and this is a preliminary
inquiry addressed to the discretion of the
judge.
12. Proof of true copy of original.
This may be shown by the testimony of a
person who has had the opportunity to
compare the copy with the original and
found it to be correct.
In order that the testimony of such
person may be admissible, it is
sufficient:
1. That the original was read to him by
another person while he read the copy
and found that it corresponded with
what was read to him.
2. Where the person who made the
original a short time thereafter made a
copy by writing down the dictation of
another reading from the original.
*When originals of a public document in the
possession of the parties have been proven lost, a
CERTIFIED COPY of the document made before it
was lost is admissible as 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
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court
before secondary evidence can be given of any
one. A photocopy may not be used without
accounting for the other originals.
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.
lost,
The term "agreement" includes wills.
General Rule
Parol Evidence Rule

- The so-called “parol evidence”

Despite knowledge of the existence and forbids any addition to or
whereabouts of these duplicate originals, contradiction of the terms of a
Lagman merely presented a photocopy. He written instrument by testimony
purporting to show that, at or before
admitted that he kept a copy of the 1990 Bond but the signing of the document, other
he could no longer produce it because he had or different terms were orally agreed
upon by the parties
already severed his ties with Country - The existence of a valid contract is a
Bankers. However, he did not explain why condition precedent to the
severance of ties is by itself reason enough for the application of the rule.
- Where the terms of an agreement
non-availability of his copy of the bond considering are reduced to writing, the
that, as it appears from the 1989 Bonds, Lagman document itself, being constituted by
the parties as the expositor of their
himself is a bondsman. Neither did Lagman explain
intentions, is the only instrument of
why he failed to secure the original from any of the evidence in respect to that
three other custodians he mentioned in his agreement which the law will
recognize, so long as it exists for the
testimony. While he apparently was able to find the purpose of evidence.
original with the NFA Loan Officer, he was merely - When an agreement has been
contented with producing its photocopy. Clearly, reduced to writing, the parties
cannot be permitted to adduce
Lagman failed to exert diligent efforts to produce evidence to prove alleged practices
the original. which to all purposes would alter the
written agreement. Whatever is not
found in the writing must be
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE understood to have been waived
and abandoned. Soriano vs.
Section 9, Rule 130 Compania General de Tabacos de
Filipinas, 125 Phil.80
- If oral testimony or parol evidence is
Sec. 9 .Evidence of written agreements. — When
presented on facts or circumstances
the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
which do not refer to the terms or
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
contents of a writing, the prohibition
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties
in the parol evidence rule does not
and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
apply. Talosig vs. Vda. De nieba, 43
terms other than the contents of the written
SCRA 472.
agreement.
Reason for the Rule
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: - The purpose of the rule is give
stability to written agreements and
to remove the temptation and
a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
possibility of perjury, which would be
imperfection in the written agreement;
afforded if parol evidence were
 admissible. Castro vs. CA GR L-
34613, January 26, 1989
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
Parol evidence rule distinguished from best
evidence rule
- If the ambiguity is patent (one which
appears upon the face of the
instrument)
o extrinsic evidence not
admissible
o testator’s 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.
 claim on the instrument or assert a right originating
in the instrument or the relation established thereby.
- 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.
Held:
RECENTLY DECIDED CASES
Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
Heirs of PolicronioUreta, Sr. vs. Heirs of provides:
LiberatoUreta
Section 9.Evidence of written
G.R. No. 165748. September 14, 2011 agreements. — When the terms of
an agreement have been reduced
The applicability of the parol evidence rule requires to writing, it is considered as
that the case be between parties to the written containing all the terms agreed
instrument in question and their successors-in- upon and there can be, between
interest. the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such
Facts: terms other than the contents of
the written agreement.
In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta (Alfonso) begot
14 children, namely, Policronio, Liberato, Narciso, However, a party may present
Prudencia, Vicente, Francisco, Inocensio, Roque, evidence to modify, explain or add
Adela, Wenefreda, Merlinda, Benedicto, Jorge, and to the terms of written agreement
Andres. The children of Policronio (Heirs of if he puts in issue in his pleading:
Policronio), are opposed to the rest of Alfonso's
children and their descendants (Heirs of Alfonso). (a)An intrinsic ambiguity,
Alfonso and four of his children, namely, Policronio, mistake or imperfection in
Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco, met at the the written agreement;
house of Liberato. He executed four (4) Deeds of
Sale covering several parcels of land in favor of his (b)The failure of the
four children in order to reduce the inheritance taxes. written agreement to
No monetary consideration was given, Alfonso express the true intent
continued to own, possess and enjoy the lands and and agreement of the
their produce. Years after Alfonso’s and Policronio’s parties thereto;
death, the former’s heirs executed a Deed of Extra-
Judicial Partition, which included all the lands that (c)The validity of the
were covered by the four (4) deeds of sale that were written agreement; or
previously executed by Alfonso for taxation
purposes.
(d)The existence of other
terms agreed to by the
Believing that the six parcels of land parties or their successors
belonged to their late father, and as such, excluded in interest after the
from the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, the Heirs of execution of the written
Policronio filed a Complaint for Declaration of agreement.
Ownership, Recovery of Possession, Annulment of
Documents, Partition, and Damages against the
Heirs of Alfonso. The RTC ruled in favor of the Heirs The term "agreement" includes
of Alfonso. Likewise, the CA affirmed the finding of wills.
the RTC that the Deed of Sale was void. It found the
Deed of Sale to be absolutely simulated as the Paragraphs (b) and (c) are applicable in the
parties did not intend to be legally bound by it. case at bench.

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
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
citizen’s 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 other’s 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
latter’s 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 appellant’s
failure to make a timely objection to the
admission of his wife’s 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
spouse’s 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
Waiver of Privilege
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.”
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
Leticia’s 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 Man’s 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 Man’s 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
man’s 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 latter’s 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
Maximo’s car for one month, after which
Juan should immediately return the car to
Maximo. Pedro objected to the admission of
Mariano’s testimony. If you were the judge,
would you sustain Pedro’s 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
man’s 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 plaintiff’s 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 considered to be as
good faith that they were married if in confidential
fact they were not.
 the prohibition to testify is
b. The communication must be directed only to the wife and
confidential and made during the not to the third person so
marriage the latter cannot be
prevented from testifying
- Only those communication, whether by
word or deed, as pass from one to the  XPN to XPN: if the third
other by virtue of the confidence person comes into the
resulting from their intimate relation. possession of the
communication by
- Only the knowledge which the husband COLLUSION and
and the wife obtains from the other VOLUNTSRY
which for the marital relation and the DISCLOSURE on either
confidence growing out of it, would have spouse, he becomes an
been communicated, or which is of such agent of such spouse and
nature or character as that to repeat the cannot testify without the
same would tend to unduly embarrass consent of the other.
or disturb the parties in their marital
relations. b. Communication intended for
transmission to third person.
c. Form of communication
 A letter written to the
- Applies to any form of confidence defendant by his wife and
disclosure. seized by the police in
search of his effects on the
- Maybe words or conduct. day of his arrest is
admissible because a
e.i > letters from husband to the privilege communication
wife from one spouse to another
> wife saw husband counting stolen comes into the hands of a
money and put it in his pocket. third party, whether legally
or not without collusion and
5. Communication presumed confidential voluntary disclosure on the
part of either spouse , the
- Marital communication presumed to be
privilege is thereby
confidential, but the presumption may
extinguished and if
be overcome by proof that they were not
competent becomes
intended to be private.
admissible.
 Notwithstanding that one spouse
 Statements from the notes
subsequently without consent of the
of a stenographer to whom
other disclosed such communication
the husband dictated the
to a third person.
letter and who had
transcribed it is admissible,
6. When communication between husband because normally the
and wife cease to be confidential husband and the wife
communicate without a
a. When made in the presence of a third stenographer . here the
person. communications have been
 XPN: if the confidential voluntarily revealed.
communication is overheard
by a third person still
  Statements in the wife’s
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 as to incompetency as to
anti-marital facts privilege
communication
Prohibits adverse Prohibits only as to
testimony regardless knowledge obtained
of the source through confidence or
the marital realtio
Exists only when a Exists whether the
party to the action is husband or wife is a
the husband or wife party to the action or
not
Ceases upon death or Continues even after
either spouse the 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 attorney’s
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 client’s 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
attorney’s 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 client’s will
- Attorney may testify to the attending
circumstances of the execution of his
client’s will.
- The testator waives privilege as to his
attorney’s 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
complainant’s 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 attorney’s ignorance of his client’s
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 patient’s 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
patient’s treatment, it cannot be considered
privilege, but if it was obtained from observation
and inspection of the patient’s 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 person’s
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 minor’s prejudice.
Implied waiver is found when the patient
himself takes the stand to testify about his
physical condition, including the sending of a
physician’s 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 customer’s 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 Asuncion’s 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 wife’s 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 defendant’s 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-4878February 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
RIVAJanuary 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. DEMIARG.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
another’s 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 person’s
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 state’s witness
- If a confession is obtained on the
assurance that the accused will be used
as a state’s 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 prisoner’s 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 confession’s 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 aiming at a person, or just cleaning the
admissible which shows that the accused in gun, etc.;
a criminal case has committed a crime
wholly independent of the offense of the
present trial. b. In the delivery of money, the intent at
that time determines whether it is a
• A man may have committed many crimes, payment, or a loan or a deposit.
and still be innocent of the crime presently
• The person’s conduct is naturally the chief
charged.
circumstantial evidence of this intent – as it
• One who commits one crime may be more is also of a plan.
likely to commit another; yet, logically, one
7. Prior acts showing guilty knowledge
crime does not prove another, nor tend to
prove another, unless there is such a • Evidence which tends to show scienter or
relation between them that proof of one
such knowledge on the part of the accused
tends to prove the other.
as is necessary to constitute his act a crime
5. Exceptions to the general rule is admissible.

• Evidence of other crimes is always

Examples:
admissible when such evidence:
a. On a charge against X, a clerk, of
a. tends directly to establish the particular stealing from his employer’s sage, the
crime; safe having been opened by
manipulating the combination lock, X
b. it is usually competent to prove the denied having knowledge of such
combination. Here the fact that X had
 motive and intent; been seen on a previous instance of
surreptitiously opening the safe would
 the absence of mistake or be admissible to show his knowledge.
accident;

 a common scheme or plan b. On a charge against Z of uttering

embracing two or more crime so counterfeit money, to wit, a 100-peso
related to each other; or, bill, the fact that Z had tried on other
previous occasions, but unsuccessfully,
 the identity of the person
to pay out similar bills to A, B, and C is
charged with the commission of
admissible to evidence his knowledge of
the crime on trial.
the bill in issue being counterfeit.
• When the fact of a former crime is an
element in the offense charged.

6. Prior acts showing intent

8. Identification of accused by proof of other
• Intent is of course entirely distinct from crimes
intention (design, plan). The latter is almost
always an evidential fact only, but the former General Rule: Evidence of separate and
is a fact-in-issue, being usually an element independent crimes is inadmissible
of the offense or of the evil act done. to prove the guilt of a person upon
trial for a criminal offense.
• Intent is a specific state of mind at the very
time of the act charged. Exceptions:

Examples: • When evidence tends to aid in identifying

a. In a shooting, the nature of the offense the accused as the person who committed
depends on the state of mind as to 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.
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.
• 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.
A
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;

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
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.

• 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.
8. Statements showing the speaker’s state of
mind
A man’s 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 speaker’s 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.

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.
• 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 declarant’s
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
declarant’s 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 declarant’s 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
declarant’s 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 wife’s relatives
and vice versa, is admissible. But
declarations of the husband’s relatives
regarding the pedigree of the wife’s
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.
Proof concerning Pedigree
- 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 declarant’s 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 declarant’s
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.
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 bastard’s 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 person’s 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 Test of Admissibility
for its truth, and, therefore, by its nature, does
- Whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is
not yet represent the prevailing belief in the
so intimately interwoven or connected with the
community
principal factor event which it characterizes as to
- Common Reputation presupposes the existence be regarded as a part of the transaction itself,
of a general or undivided belief already formed and also whether it clearly negatives any
on which the general opinion is founded. premeditation or purpose to manufacture
testimony.
Common Reputation Respecting Marriage
Statements and Acts Constituting Part of Res
a) The common reputation must have been
Gestae
formed previous to the controversy.
a) Statement made by a person while a startling
b) The common reputation must have been
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
formed in the community or among the class of
or subsequent thereto with respect to the
persons who are in a position to have sources
circumstances thereof.
of information and to contribute intelligently to
the formation of the opinion. b) Acts and circumstances which are incidents of
a particular litigated act and which are
illustrative of such act;
Sec. 42
c) Statement accompanying an equivocal act
Part of res gestae material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, and are called by writers as
Statements made by a person while a “verbal facts” or “verbal acts”
starting occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto with Examples:
respect to the circumstances thereof, may
- Declaration of the parties made with regard to
be given in evidence as part of res gestae.
matters of business, if contemporaneous with
So, also, statements accompanying an
the acts they tend to explain and qualify, are
equivocal act material to the issue, and
admissible
giving it a legal significance, may be
received as part of the res gestae. - Declarations by a party relating to ownership of
property made by a person in possession
thereof, may be admitted when uttered under
Res Gestae Defined such circumstances as satisfy the requirements
applicable to other statements sought to be
- Comprehends a situation which presents a admitted under this exception to hearsay rule.
startling or unusual occurrence sufficient to
produce a spontaneous and instinctive reaction, - Declaration made at the time of a transaction
during which interval, certain statements are which are pertinent to the question of fraud are
made under such circumstance as to show lack generally viewed as admissible.
of forethought or deliberate design in the
- Statements made by an injured person relating
formulation of their contents.
to present pain and suffering or at the time of an
Res Gestae vs. Dying Declaration accident or so shortly thereafter as to form part
of one event or transaction are viewed in some
- In dying declaration there is a sense of decisions as part of the res gestae.
impending death which takes the place of an
oath and the law regards the declarant as
testifying .
Spontaneous Statement Defined
- While in res gestae it is the event itself which
- A statement or exclamation made immediately
speaks, the actual facts expressing themselves
after some exciting occasion by a participant or
through the mouth of a witness, which may
spectator and asserting the circumstances of
precede, or accompany, or follow, as events
that occasion as it is observed by him.
occurring as a part of the principal act.
Reason for Admissibility
Reason of Admissibility
a) Trustworthiness – the statements are
- It is a well-founded belief that statements made
made instinctively, while the declarant’s
instinctively at the time of a specific transaction
mental powers for deliberation in
or events, without opportunity for formulation of
concocting matters are controlled and
statements favorable to one’s own cause, are
stilled by the shocking influence of a
likely to cast important light upon the matter in
startling occurrence, they are but pure
issue; as to such statements, the law creates a
emanation of the occurrence itself.
presumption of their truthfulness.
 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 court’s 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 resgestae 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 official’s
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
* Osborn’s 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 defendant’s who are neither
identified nor explained, the proof of the defendant’s
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 expert’s 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 latter’s 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
petitioner’s 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 testator’s
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 testator’s 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 testator’s 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 another’s 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 accused’s 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 testator’s 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
AAA’s 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 AAA’s
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 defendant’s 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 person’s character or reputation.
Negative evidence is viewed as the most cogent
evidence of a person’s good character and
reputation, because in the absence of any
discussion about character, it may reasonably
be presumed that the person’s 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
defendant’s 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
woman’s character as to chastity is admissible
to show whether or not she consented to the
man’s 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 woman’s 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 "SEC. 51. Character evidence not generally
woman in an action on the case for seduction. admissible; exceptions. –

24. Evidence of moral character of a third (a) In Criminal Cases:

person. – An issue in a civil case sometimes
involves a third person’s act having a moral
quality. On such an issue, the third person’s
moral trait would have probative value, and
there is no practical policy against it. Court
sometimes admit it, and sometimes exclude it.
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."

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 plaintiff’s character.
D. CHARACTER OF WITNESS
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 respondent’s
posture.

Not every good or bad moral character of the

26. Evidence of good character of witness. –
offended party may be proved under this
Evidence of the good character of a witness is
provision. Only those which would establish the
not admissible until such character has been
probability or improbability of the offense
impeached. The character or reputation of a
charged. This means that the character
witness must be attacked or impeached before
evidence must be limited to the traits and
testimony sustaining his character or reputation
characteristics involved in the type of offense
can be admitted, but it is not necessary that
charged.
character witnesses for impeachment purposes
should first be introduced if the veracity or
In the present administrative case for sexual
character of the witness been substantially
harassment, respondent did not offer evidence
impeached in other ways, especially if he is a
that has a bearing on Magdalena’s chastity.
stranger in the county where the trial is being
What he presented are charges for grave oral
conducted. Evidence in rebuttal to sustain a
defamation, grave threats, unjust vexation,
witness’ character or reputation has been
physical injuries, malicious mischief, etc. filed
assailed in order to discredit him, or when the
against her. Certainly, these pieces of evidence
opposite party brings out matters, which, if true,
are inadmissible under the above provision
tend to diminish the credibility of the witness by
because they do not establish the probability or
disparaging his character.
improbability of the offense charged.

Obviously, in invoking the above provision, what

27. Latest jurisprudence.
respondent was trying to establish is
Magdalena’s lack of credibility and not the
Civil Service Commission vs. Allyson probability or the improbability of the charge. In
Belagan, GR No. 132164, October 19, 2004 this regard, a different provision applies.
“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: