1
EVIDENCE 10. Rule Making Power of the SC.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (Rule 128)
Basic Concepts of Evidence
DEFINITION:
Rule 128 (sec. 1) Evidence is the means, sanctioned
by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS:
1. Procedural;
2. Waivable in character;
3. Subject to stipulation;
4. Mostly exclusionary.
SOURCES:
A. Rules of Court:
1. Rule 115 (Rules on Criminal Procedure)
2. Rule 128-134 (Rules on Evidence)
B. Special issuance of the SC:
1. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
(A.M. No. 004-07-SC);
2. Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-
7-01-SC);
3. Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-
SC);
4. Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC).
C. Statute Containing Provisions on Evidence:
1. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA.
9165) specifically provisions on the chain of
custody rule;
2. Anti- Wiretapping Law (RA. 4200)
3. Human Securities Act (RA 9372)
D. Constitutional Provisions
1. Due Process of Law;
2. Equal Protection of the laws;
3. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and
Seizure;
4. Right to Privacy of Communication and
Correspondence;
5. Right to Remain Silent and to Counsel
During Custodial Investigation;
6. Right to Bail;
7. Right to Due Process and Presumption of
Innocence;
8. Right Against Self-Incrimination;
9. Right to Speedy Trial;
E. Substantive and Remedial Statute
F. Judicial Decisions
A means of ascertaining the truth not in all types of proceedings,
but specifically, in a “judicial proceeding.”
Purpose of Evidence: to ascertain the truth respecting a matter
of fact in a judicial proceeding.
The truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily the actual
truth but one aptly referred to as the judicial or legal truth.
Liberal Construction
Rule 1 (sec. 6) These Rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of
securing just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition
of every action and proceeding.
Rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate
the attainment of justice, and courts must avoid
their strict and rigid application which would result
in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice…It is proper where the
lapse in literal observance of a rule of procedure
has not prejudiced the adverse party and has not
deprived the court of its authority. (Dauglas F.
Anamavs Philippine Savings Bank, G.R. No. 187021,
January 25, 2012)
It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal
application, or suspension of the application of
procedural rules, must remain as the exception to
the well settled principle that the rules must be
complied with for the orderly administration of
justice. (Building Care Corporation/Leopard
Security & Investigation Agency and/or
RupertoProtociovs Myrna Macaraeg, G.R. No.
198357, December 10, 2012)
Construction of the Electronic Evidence Rule:
The Rules shall be liberally construed to assist the
parties in obtaining a just, speedy, and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceedings. (sec.
2,Rule 1)
Construction of the Child Witness Examination
Rule:This Rule shall be liberally construed to
uphold the best interests of the child and to
promote maximum accommodation of child
witnesses without prejudice to the constitutional
rights of the accused. Rule on Examination of Child
Witness, sec.3)
Source: (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the
Bench and the Bar, p 4-5.)
Scope of the Rules of Evidence
Rule 128 (sec.2.)The rules of evidence shall be the
same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or these rules.
It is guided by the Principle of Uniformity. As a
general policy, the rules on evidence shall be the
same in all courts and in all trials and hearings.
Only evidence that has been formally offered shall
be considered by the court. (Sec. 34, Rule 132 ROC)
APPLICABILITY:
The Rules on evidence generally applies in a
Judicial Proceedings. It does not apply to:
1. Election cases;
2. Land Registration cases;
3. Cadastral proceedings;
4. Naturalization proceedings;
5. Labor cases;
6. Impeachment cases;
7. Other cases not mentioned in Sec 4, Rule 1
of the ROC.
Exception:
May apply by analogy or in a suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient.
Examples of suppletory application:
1. Impeachment cases (Art. 6, Rules of
impeachment Trial in the Senate);
2. Civil Forfeiture cases in relation to Anti-
Money Laundering Act when not
inconsistent with provisions of the special
rules;
3. Labor cases when there is absence in the
applicable provision in the Rules (Sec. 3,
Rule 1 of NLRC Rules of Procedure).
Rules on evidence are NOT applicable in
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
Administrative bodies are not bound by technical
niceties of the rules obtaining in a court of law. (El
Greco Ship Maning and Management Corporation
vs CIC)
It is well-settled that the rules of evidence are
notstrictly applied in proceedings before
administrative bodies such as the BOM.( Atienza
vs. BOM)
Technical rules of evidence are not binding in
administrative proceedings, and the NLRC and the
labor arbiters shall use every and all reasonable
means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily
and objectively and without regard to technicalities
of law or procedure, all in the interest of due
process.(Abosta Ships vs. NLRC)
The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence,
even for the first time on appeal, because technical
rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases.
Even if not bound by the technical rules of
procedure, “the findings of facts of administrative
bodies are, however, respected as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence, even if such
evidence is not overwhelming or preponderant.”
Note: Parole evidence rule should not be strictly
applied in labor cases.
Application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence:
1. Civil actions and proceedings
2. Quasi-judicial cases
3. Administrative cases
Not to criminal cases.
There is no vested right in the rules on evidence
because said rules are subject to change by the
Supreme Court pursuant to its power to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedure. (Sec 5[5], Art VIII)
The change in the rules on evidence is, however,
subject to the constitutional limitation on the
enactment of ex post facto laws. (Sec. 22, Art. III)
3
Waiver of the Rules on Evidence
The rules on evidence may be waived. When
otherwise objectionable evidence is not objected
to, the evidence becomes admissible because of
waiver.
May the parties stipulate waiving the rules on
evidence? (Art 6, CC) As long as no law or
principles of morality, good customs and public
policy are transgressed or no rights of third persons
are violated, the rules on evidence may be waived.
Kinds of Evidence
The Kinds of evidence under the rules and existing
law and jurisdiction are as follows:
Object or Real Evidence is the kind of evidence
which is directly addressed to senses of the court
and consist of tangible things exhibited, viewed, or
demonstrated in open court.(Sec. 1, Rule 130)
Documentary Evidence is an evidence which
consist of writing or any materials containing
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or any
mode of written expression offered as proof of
their contents.(Sec. 2, Rule 130)
Testimonial Evidence is an oral evidence given by
the witness on the witness stand or in any
proceeding.
Direct Evidence is a kind of evidence if proves the
fact in issue.It is not only the source of the
conclusion of the trial court. Direct evidence of the
crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court
may draw its conclusion and findings of guilt. The
rules of evidence allow the trial court to rely on
circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of
guilt.
Circumstantial Evidence is that evidence which
proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts
in issue may be established by inference.
Four Basic Guidelines in the Appreciations of
Circumstantial Evidence:
1. It should be acted upon with caution
2. All the essential facts must be consistent with
the hypothesis of guilt
3. The facts must exclude every other theory but
that of guilt
4. The facts must establish such a certainty of guilt
of the accused as to convince the judge beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused is the one
who committed the offense.
Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for
conviction provided the following requisites
concur:
1. There is more than one circumstance
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived
and proven
3. The combination of all circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
All the circumstance proved must be considered
with each other, and they are not to be taken
together a proved.
Circumstantial evidence may be a basis for
conviction and such conviction can be upheld
provided the circumstances proven constitute an
unbroken chain which leads to one fair and
erasable conclusion that points to the accused to
the exclusion of all others as the guilty person.
Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker defense
vis-a-vis direct evidence.
Demonstrative Evidence is the kind of evidence
which demonstrate the real thing.
Corroborative Evidence is kind of evidence which
merely supplements evidence which has already
been given tending to strengthen the same. It is
deemed necessary only when there are reason to
warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the
truth or that his observation had been inaccurate.
Cumulative Evidence is kind of evidence in which is
of the same kind and character tending to prove
the same proposition.
Positive Evidence (Testimony) is kind of evidence
in which a witness affirms that a fact did or did not
occur. In rape cases, Positive identification of rape
victim prevails over alibi/denial of the accused if
not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence.
Negative Evidence is a testimony that certain fact
did not exist. Denial and alibi are negative
evidence. The well-established rule is that denial
and alibi are self-serving negative evidence; they
cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive, and
credible testimonies of the prosecution witness
who pointed to and identified the accused-
appellant as the malefactor.
Prima facie evidenceare evidence which, if
unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to
sustain the proposition it supports or establish a
facts – prima facie means it is ‘’sufficient to
establish a fact or raise a presumption unless
disproved or rebutted.’’
Conclusive Evidence is evidence which establishes
the fact.
Substantial Evidence is the level of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion. In proceedings
before administrative and quasi-judicial agencies,
the quantum of the evidence required to establish
a fact is substantial evidence.
Preponderance of Evidencerefers to the
comparative weight of the evidence presented by
the opposing parties. As such, it has been defined
as “the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side,” and is usually considered
to be synonymous with the term greater weight of
the evidence or greater weight of the credible
evidence. It is proof that is more convincing to the
court as worthy of belief than that which is offered
in opposition thereto.(Republic vs. Bakunawa)
Proof of Beyond Reasonable Doubt is the required
quantum of evidence in order to convict an
accused. A judgement of conviction must rest on
nothing less moral certainty in unprejudiced mind
that it was the accused who committed the crime,
failing which the accused must be exonerated. If
the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of
establishing theguilt of the accused, it is
unnecessary to still pass on the accused’s defense.
Clear and Convincing Evidence is a kind of evidence
which establishes in the minds of a trier of facts a
firm belief on the existence of the fact in issue.
Competent Evidence is kind of evidence which is
not otherwiseexcluded bylaw or by the rules.(Sec.
3, Rule 128)
Incompetent evidenceis kind of evidence which is
excluded by law or by the rule
Relevant Evidence is a kind of evidence which has
relation to the fact in issue.(Sec. 3, Rule 128)
Material Evidenceis one that is directed to prove a
fact in issue as determined by the rules on
substantive law and pleadings.
Rebuttal Evidence is any component evidence to
explain, repel, counteract, or disprove adversary’s
proof. It is receivable only where new matters have
been developed by the evidence of one of the
parties and is generally limited to a reply to new
matters.
Sur-Rebuttal Evidenceare evidence in reply to or to
rebut new matter introduced in rebuttal.
Primary Evidence is a kind of evidence which
assures the greatest certainty of fact sought to be
proved, and which does not in itself, indicate the
existence of other and better proof.
Secondary Evidence is any evidence other than the
document itself,(e.g.,1)a copy;2) recital of its
contents in some authentic document; or 3)
recollection of the witness.
Evidence in chief is the primary and main evidence
presented by the parties to prove their cause or
defense.
Newly Discovered Evidence is a ground for new
trial, and requires the concurrence of the following
conditions: (a) the evidence must have been
discovered after trial; (b) the evidence could not
5

have been discovered at the trial even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) the evidence is
material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching; and (d) the evidence must affect the
merits of the case and produce a different result if
admitted.
Source: (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the
Bench and the Bar, p 6-11.)
Evidence in Civil Cases vsEvidence in Criminal Case
Although the rules of evidence is the same in all
courts and in all trials and hearings, there are
certain differences in the evidence in civil and
criminal case.
Factum Probansis the evidentiary fact or facts by
which factum probandumis to be established. It is
subject to the rules of admissibility.
Admissibility of Evidence
Rule 128 (sec 3) Evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law
of these rule.
REQUISITES:
a. It must be relevant to the issue sought to
be proved;
b. It must be competent or not otherwise
excluded by the law or the rules.

Civil Criminal
No presumption as to Accused is presumed COMPETENT EVIDENCE
either party innocent until proven Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by
otherwise law or rules in a particular case.
Offer of compromise Offer of compromise is
does NOT amount to implied admission of The test of competence is the laws or rules.
admission of liability guilt
The quantum of proof is The quantum of proof is In relation to evidence in general, competence
preponderance of guilt beyond reasonable refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be
evidence doubt received as such.
“Patient-Physician” “Patient-Physician”
When applied to a witness, competence refers to
privilege may or may cannot be invoke by the
the qualifications of the witness.
not be applied Physician or the
accused The objection should specify the ground for its
Dying declaration is not In certain cases, dying incompetence such as leading, hearsay or parol.
admissible declaration is
admissible For purposes of trial objections, evidence is never
Source: (Domondon, Evidence, p 20) incompetent. It is people who are.

Evidence vs Proof
Evidence is the means Proof is the effect or
sanctioned by the Rules, result of evidence, the
to ascertain in a judicial persuasion from
proceedings, the truth consideration of
respecting a matter of evidence
fact
Factum Probandum vs Factum Probans
Factum Probandumis the ultimate fact to be
established and the result of factum probans. Being
the end result, it is subject to being weight.
In the case of Diokno vs. Stonehill, the court laid
down the principle that materials seized by virtue
of a “general search warrant” is violative of the
constitutional right against unreasonable searches
and seizure which requires that a warrant should
particularly describe the place to be search and
person and things to be seized. Any evidence
obtained in violation of this right shall not be
admissible for any purpose in any proceedings.
TEST TO DETERMINE ADMISSIBILITY:
The purpose to which the evidence is offered must
be considered. Evidence may admissible for one
purpose and inadmissible for another.

KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY
Multiple Admissibility–where the evidence is
relevant and competent for two or more purposes,
such evidence must be admitted for any or all of
the purposes for which it was offered.
Examples:Declaration of a dying person: As a dying
declaration, part of the res gestae1 or declaration
against interest.
Evidence may also be admissible against one party
but not against another.
It must be remembered that the purpose for which
the evidence is offered must be specified because
such evidence may be admissible for several
purposes.
May a private document be offered and admitted
in evidence both as documentary evidence and as
object evidence? Yes, depending on the purposed
for which the document is offered.
Conditional Admissibility – where the evidence at
the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or
irrelevant, unless it is connected with the other
facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence
may be admitted on the condition that the other
facts shall be proved thereafter.
Curative Admissibility-this doctrine treats upon
the right of a party to introduce incompetent
evidence in his behalf where the court admitted
the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse
party.
Does the concept of curative admissibility refer to
a situation where incompetent evidence was
erroneously received by the court despite absence
of objection form the other party? The principle of
curative admissibility should not be made to apply
the evidence admitted wihtout objection because
the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the
inadmissibility of the evidence.
TIME TO DETERMINE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
1
Res gestae, the statement should have been made while a starting
occurrence is taking place or immediately or subsequent thereto.
1. At the time it is offered to the court (sec
35, Rule 132)
2. In case of object evidence, when it is
presented to the court for viewing or
evaluation;
3. In case of testimonial evidence, at the time
the witness is called at the witness stand;
4. In case of documentary evidence, when it
is formally offered and before resting of
the case. (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium
for the Bench and the Bar, p 22)
Note: Objection not made is deemed waived.
Further, the objection on the admissibility of
evidence cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. (Pp vs. Salak, G.R. No. 181249, March 14,
2011)
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE DISTINGUISHED
FROM PROBATIVE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE:
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of
whether or not the circumstance is to be
considered at all, on the other hand, probative
value of evidence refers to the question of whether
or not it proves an issue. (Rico Rommel Atienzavs
Board of Medicine and EdithaSioson, G.R. No.
177407, February 2011)
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE DISTINGUISHED
FROM CREDIBILITY OF EVIDENCE:
Refers to the duty of the court to receive or allow
the evidence, while credibility of evidence refers to
the worthiness of belief of the evidence.
ADMISIBILITY UNDER THE ANTI-WIRETAPPING
LAW(RA 4200)
1. Evidence obtained in violation of RA 4200 shall
not be admissible in evidence:
a. Judicial
b. Quasi-judicial
c. Legislative
d. Administrative
A person who did not participate in tapping wire or
cable or using dictaphone … may be liable under
Sec 1 of RA 4200. This is because the law also
considers it unlawful to knowingly possess any tape
record, wire record, disc record, or any such record
or copies.
7

It is also unlawful to replay the same to any other
person. Even communicate, either verbally or in
writing to another. And also the furnishing of
transcriptions of the recorded communication,
whether complete or partial, to any other person.
And also those Who willfully or knowingly aid ,
permit or cause to be done the act described.
The acts mentioned as punishable would not
constitute a violation of the law if done by a peace
officer authorized by a written order of the court in
cases involving:
a) Treason
b) Espionage
c) Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
d) Piracy
e) Mutiny in the high seas
f) Rebellion
g) Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
h) Inciting to rebellion
i) Sedition
j) Conspiracy to commit sedition
k) Inciting to sedition
l) Kidnapping
m) Violations of CA 616
n) Other offenses against national security
Surveillance of suspects, interception and
recording of communications under the Human
Security Act of 2007: Sec 7, RA 4200
notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement
official may listen to, intercept and record, any
communication, message, conversation, discussion,
or written or spoken words bet the ff:
a) Members of a judicially declared and outlawed
terrorist organizations, assoc, or group of
persons
b) Any person charged with or suspected of the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism
The above acts may be done only with written
order of the CA. Such written order shall be
granted only upon a written application by a police
or law enforcement official who is authorized by
the Anti-Terrorism Council to file such application.
It only requires an ex parte application.
Before the written order is issued, the applicant
and the witnesses he may produce shall be
examined under oath or affirmation to establish
the ff matters:
a) There is a probable cause to believe that the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism has been committed, or is being
committed, or is about to be committed.
b) There is a probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
that evidence essential to the conviction of the
charged or suspected person, or evidence that
would solve or prevent the crime, will be
obtained
c) There is no other effective means readily
available for acquiring such evidence. (Sec 8, RA
9372)
The authorization shall be effective for the length
of time specified in the written order which shall
not exceed 30 days from the date of receipt of the
written order by the applicant. The period may be
renewed for a non-extendible period of 30 days
from the expiration of the original period upon
proper application (Sec 10, RA 9372)
Inadmissible evidence in connection with arrests,
searches and seizures
A 1988 landmark case, People v
Aminnudindemonstrates the inadmissibility of
evidence due to the legal infirmity of an arrest for
noncompliance with the requisites of the flagrante
delicto exception. The SC ruled that the accused
was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a
crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so
or had just done so.
It is settled that reliable information alone, absent
any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in
the presence and within the view of the arresting
officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable
cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto.
In Lagman, the Court likewise ratiocinated that
illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala
prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an
essential element, but the prosecution must prove
the intent to posses (animus possidendi)
Possession is not only actual. Constructive
possession exists when the drug is under the
dominion and control of the accused or when he
has the right to exercise.
Whether a person should be liable under RA 4200
for listening to a conversation which he was not
authorized to listen to using a telephone
extension line? No. Telephone party lines were
deleted from the final provisions of the law. It was
held that an extension telephone line cannot be
placed under the category of the enumerated
devices.
Whether or not illegally wire-tapped recordings
are admissible in impeachment proceedings? Not
settled. Impeachment proceedings is SUI GENERIS
(of its own kind or class) If an impeachment
proceeding in the Philippines is a class of its own,
there would seem to be no reason therefore, to
prevent the admissibility of illegally-procured
recordings.
It does not consider it unlawful to record open and
public communication.
If only one party authorizes the recording and the
other does not, there is a violation of the law.
RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AND COLLATERAL
MATTERS:
Relevant Evidence is a kind of evidence which has
relation to the fact in issue (Sec. 3, Rule 128). There
is no precise and universal test of relevancy
provided by law. Determination of relevancy is
largely at the discretion of the court in accordance
to the teachings of logic and every day experience.
Relevance is a matter of relationship between the
evidence and the fact in issue. The determination
of relevance is a matter of inference and not of
law.
In the case of OCA vs. Judge Lermathe court ruled
that Relevancy isdeterminable by the rules of logic
and human experience. Relevant evidence is any
class of evidence which has rational probative
value to the issue in controversy.
As a general rule, only relevant evidence is
admissible and evidence on collateral matter is not
allowed. However, collateral matter may be
allowed when tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the
facts in issue
Collateral Evidencewhen it is on a “parallel or
diverging line,” merely “additional” or
“auxiliary”.The term connotes a direct connection
between the evidence and the mater in dispute.
Example: Although evidence of character is
generally inadmissible, the accused may provide
his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
In civil cases, evidence of the moral character of a
party is admissible when pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the case. Also it is admissible
when the character of a witness has been
previously impeached.
As decided by the SC in the case of Cambe vs.
Office of the Ombudsman, In preliminary
investigation and determination of probable cause
conducted by the Ombudsman,the doctrine of
independently relevant statements, regardless of
their truth or falsity, the fact that such statements
have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does
not apply, and the statements are admissible as
evidence. Evidence as to the making of such
statement is not secondary but primary, for the
statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of
such a fact.
Relevance of evidence on the credibility of a
witness
1. Evidence on the credibility of a witness, or the
lack of it, is always relevant.
9
2. The importance of the credibility of a witness in
a judicial proceeding is highlighted by rules
which allow the adverse party to test such
credibility through a process called “cross-
examination”
3. Questions outside the subject matter of the
direct examination are not allowed.
Types of collateral matter
Prospectant collateral matteris a matter which
precede the fact in issue but pointing forward to it,
such as moral character, motive, conspiracy, plan
and design.
Retrospectant collateral matteris a matter which
succeed the fact in issue but pointing backward to
it, such as flight and concealment, behavior of the
accused upon being arrested, or fingerprints or
footprints which may identify the culprit.
Concomitant collateral matteraccompanies the
fact in issue and pointing to it, such as opportunity
and incompatibility and alibi. (Domondon,
Evidence, p 16-17)
II. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
(Rule 129)
What need not be proved?
A. Facts that do not need introduction of
evidence.
1. Facts which a court shall or may take
judicial notice (sec 1 &2, Rule 129);
2. Judicial admission (ibid., sec 4);
3. Facts which may be presumed from proven
facts (sec 2&3, Rule 131)
4. Where the facts are deemed established as
a result of a refusal to comply with an
order to make recovery (ibid., sec 3 (a), 29)
5. Upon failure to seasonably respond to a
notice of admission (ibid., sec 2 (1), 26)
6. When no factual issue exists in a case,
there is no need to present evidence
because where the case presents a
question of law, such question is resolved
by the mere application of the relevant
statutes or rules of this jurisdiction to
which no evidence is required.
7. When the pleadings in a civil case do not
tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be
conducted since there is no more reason to
present evidence. The case is then ripe for
judicial determination through a judgment
on the pleadings (Rule 34 ROC)
8. Presentation of evidence may be dispensed
with by the agreement of the parties.
9. Evidence is not also required when a law or
rule presumes the truth of a fact. Ex.
Presumption of negligence and
Presumption of Innocence
Matters of Judicial Notice
WHAT IS JUDICIAL NOTICE?
It means what is known need not be proved.” It
means no more than the court will bring to its aid
and consider without proof of the facts, its
knowledge of those matters of public concern
which are known by all well-informed persons.
(People vsLotis, 1991-CR, December 13, 1982)
REQUISITES:
1. It must be a matter of general or common
knowledge;
2. In case of foreign law, it must be proved
like any other fact except when the court
has actual knowledge of the foreign law or
when the court has already ruled upon in a
case involving the said foreign law.
PURPOSE:
1. Taking the place of proof in connection
with the issue in the case;
2. To abbreviate the proceedings.
WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE MANDATORY?
A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence:
1. The existence and territorial extent of
states;
2. Their political history;
3. Forms of government and symbols of
nationality;
4. The law of nations;
5. The admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals;
 6. The political constitution and history of the
Philippines;
7. The official acts of the legislative, executive
and judicial departments of the Philippines;
8. The laws of nature;
9. The measure of time;
10. The geographical divisions. (sec 1, Rule
129)
Other matters that the court should take judicial
notice mandatorily:
11. Amendment of the Rules of Court; decision
of the Supreme Court;
12. Decision of the Supreme Court;
13. Official acts or declaration of the President;
14. Banking practices;
15. Financial status of the Government;
16. Powers of the President;
17. Court Records.(Tan, Evidence: A
Compendium for the Bench and the Bar, p
86-17)
In the case of Atienza vs. BOM, the SC held that
Laws of nature involving the physical sciences,
specifically biology, which include the structural
make-up and composition of living things such as
human beings, and the proper anatomical locations
of human organs, should be within the court’s
mandatory judicial notice.
In the case of Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, the
court stated that the Court will take judicial notice
of the fact that the people’s ratification of the 1987
Constitution on February 2, 1987 signaled the
return to normalcy of the political situation in the
Philippines. Hence, petitioner cannot excuse their
failure to file an answer to a subpoena issued to
them in the year 1991 on the premise that it was
due to the threat to their lives during the EDSA
revolution.
WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY?
A court may take judicial notice of matters which
are:
1. Public knowledge; or
2. Are capable of unquestionable
demonstration; or
3. Ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions.(sec 2, Rule 129)
Things of “common knowledge” of which the
courts take judicial 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.
In the case of Salazar vs J.V. Brothers Marketing
Corporation, because the Negotiable Instruments
Law is silent with respect to crossed
checks, although the Code of Commerce makes
reference to such instruments, the court has taken
judicial cognizance of the practice that a check with
two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner
means that it could only be deposited and could
not be converted into cash.Thus, the effect of
crossing a check relates to the mode of payment,
meaning that the drawer had intended the check
for deposit only by the rightful person, i.e., the
payee named therein.The change in the mode of
paying the obligation was not a change in any of
the objects or principal condition of the contract
for novation to take place.
Matters capable of unquestionable
demonstration pertain to fields of professional and
scientific knowledge.
Judicial Notice and Knowledge of the Judge
Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges
ought to know because of their judicial functions.
But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The
mere personal knowledge of the judge is not
judicial knowledge of the court and he is not
authorized to make his individual knowledge of a
fact, not generally or professionally known.
Judicial Notice of Foreign Laws; Doctrine of
Processual Presumption
It is well settled in our jurisdiction that our courts
cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. It must
be alleged and proved. In the absence of proof,
the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as
11
the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the case under
the doctrine of processual presumption.
Exception:However, where the foreign law is
within the actual knowledge of the court such as
when the law is generally well known, has been
ruled upon in previous cases before it and none of
the parties claim otherwise, the court may take
judicial notice of the foreign law.
When the foreign law is part of a published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in
the subject, the court, it is submitted, may take
judicial notice of the treatise containing the foreign
law (Sec. 46, Rule 130)
Judicial Notice of the law of Nations
Under the Philippine Constitution (Sec. 2, Art II).
Being parts of the law of the land, they are
therefore, technically in the nature of local laws
and hence, are subject to mandatory judicial
notice.
Judicial Notice of Municipal Ordinances
1. Municipal courts must take judicial notice of
municipal ordinances in force in the
municipality in which they sit. Likewise with the
RTC, but only when so required by law.
2. The CA may take judicial notice of. Municiap
Ordinances because nothing in the Rules
prohibits it from taking cognizance of an
ordinance which is capable of unquestionable
demonstration.
No judicial notice if records of other cases;
Exceptions:
a) In the absence of any objection and 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
b) 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.
The Court may take Judicial Not of its Own Acts
and Records in the same case.
In the case of BSP vs. Legaspi,the SC held thata
court will take judicial notice of its own acts and
records in the same case, of facts established in
prior proceedings in the same case, of the
authenticity of its own records of another case
between the same parties, of the files of related
cases in the same court, and of public records on
file in the same court. Since a copy of the tax
declaration, which is a public record, was attached
to the complaint, the same document is already
considered as on file with the court, thus, the court
can now take judicial notice of such.
In the case of De Llana vs. Biong, it was held that
courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular
accidents cause whiplash injuries. This proposition
is not public knowledge, or is capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be
known to judges because of their judicial functions.
We have no expertise in the field of medicine.
Justices and judges are only tasked to apply and
interpret the law on the basis of the parties’ pieces
of evidence and their corresponding legal
arguments.
WHEN IS HEARING NECESSARY IN JUDICIAL
NOTICE?
1. During trial, on any matter – allow the
parties to be heard thereon;
2. After trial, and before judgment or on
appeal – any matter and allow the parties
to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case. (sec
3, Rule 129)
Judicial Admission
WHAT IS JUDICIAL ADMISSION?
It is an admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case which dispenses with the need for proof with
respect to the matter or fact admitted. It may be
contradicted only by a showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or no such admission
was made.(sec 4, Rule 29; Camitan vs. Fidelity
Investment, G.R. No. 163864)
Effects of Judicial Admissions:
1. They do not require proof
2. They cannot be contradicted because they are
conclusive upon the party making it
Exceptions:
1. Upon showing that the admission was made
through palpable mistake
2. When it is shown that no such admission was
made
REQUISITES:
1. Must be definite;
2. Certain;
3. And unequivocal.
INSTANCES OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
1. Admissions made in the pleadings;
2. Admissions made during pre-trial
conference;
3. Admissions made in motions filed before
the court;
4. Admissions made by the witness on the
witness stand;
5. Admissions made in answer to written
request for admission;
6. Admissions made in the answer in the
written interrogatories;
7. Admissions made in open court during
trial;
8. Admissions on testimonies, deposition and
affidavits;
9. Agreement of facts by the parties.
May be express or Always express or tacit
implied
More broader in scope Limited to the
which includes judicial confession of a person
confession
Maybe made by any Made by an accused in a
party criminal proceedings
Source:(Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the
Bench and the Bar, p 85, 91-97.)
As a general rule, facts alleged in a party’s pleading
are deemed admissions of the party and are
binding upon him, but this is not an absolute and
inflexible rule. An answer is a mere statement of
fact which the party filing it expects to prove, but it
is not evidence.
An admission may likewise be inferred from the
failure to specifically deny the material allegations
in the other party’s pleadings.
Implied Admissions of Actionable Documents:
The failure to deny the genuineness and due
execution of the said documents amounts to a
judicial admission pursuant to Section 8, Rule 8 of
the ROC(Bell Carpets International vs. CA).
However it does not preclude the party from
arguing against the document by evidence of fraud,
mistake, compromise, payment, statute of
limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration.
He is however precluded from arguing the
document is a forgery because genuineness of the
document has been impliedly admitted by his
failure to. Deny the same under oath.
A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth
of the allegations of the complaint.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUDICIAL ADMISSION AND Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive
JUDICIAL CONFESSION upon a client. Exception, in case where reckless or
Judicial Admission Judicial Confession gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of
Is an admission, verbal Acknowledgement of due process of law, or when its application will
or written, made by the one’s guilt in the same result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty
party in the course of case or property or when interests of justice so require.
the proceedings in the
same case A party who judicially admits a fact cannot. Later
Does not result in Connotes admission of challenge the fact, as judicial admissions are waiver
liability one’s liability
13
of proof, productions of evidence is dispensed
with.
III. SPECIFIC RULE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
(RULE 130)
A. OBJECT EVIDENCE
NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
Object evidence does not refer the perception of
the witness and a recollection of that perception. It
is not a reconstruction of past events as related by
a witness on the stand. Real or object evidence is
not a verbal description of something. It is not a
replica or a mere representation of something.
Object or real evidence appeals directly to the
senses of the court. Instead of relying on the
recollection of the witness, an object evidence will
enable the court to have its own firsthand
perception of the evidence. If the court wants to
know whether the bolo used in the crime is long or
short, big or small, sharp or blunted, the object
evidence would be the bolo itself.
Object evidence is not visual alone. It covers the
entire range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell
and touch.
In a case where the issue is infringement of a
musical composition, the court may listen to the
composition involved. The court may not only look
at but also touch the blade of a knife to know
whether or not it could have produced the incision
characteristic of sharp blades.
When the object evidence is relevant to the fact in
issue, it may be;
1. Exhibited to
2. Examined
3. Viewed by court
Requisites for Admissibility
(a) The evidence must be relevant;
(b) The evidence must be authenticated;
(c) The authentication must be made by a
competent witness; and
(d) The object must be formally offered in
evidence.
The requirements of relevance and the testimony
by a competent witness rarely pose a problem.
Relevance is a matter of reasoning and the court
will draw an inference of the relevancy of the
evidence from the issues of the case. Also, almost
no party would offer a witness who has no
personal knowledge of the object to be
authenticated. The problem commonly lies in
showing that the object sought to be admitted is in
fact the real thing and not a mere substitute or
representation of the real thing. This problem of
authentication is commonly called "laying the
foundation" for the evidence.
The authentication of the object by a competent
witness is to comply with the element of
competence as an essential ingredient of
admissibility. After its authentication, the object
need to be offered in evidence at the appropriate
time.
The formal offer of evidence is particularly a vital
act before the admission of evidence because the
court "shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered" (Sec.34, Rule 132, Rules of
Court).
1. The admissibility of object or real evidence like
any other evidence requires that the object be
both relevant and competent. To be relevant the
evidence must have a relationship to the fact in
issue. To be competent it must not be excluded by
the rules or by law.
2. For the object not to be excluded by the Rules,
the same must pass the test of authentication. The
threshold foundation for real evidence is its being
authenticated. Is it the real thing? In other words,
is it the actual object it is claimed to be? To
authenticate the object, it must be shown that the
object is the very thing that is either the subject
matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to
prove an issue in the case.
Illustration:
If the prosecution wants the admission of the gun
used in the murder, it must prove that it was the
very same gun used by the accused. Another gun
although identical with the actual gun in all
respects, would not satisfy the requirements of
authentication.
How to authenticate the object:
This is a very basic rule. In layman's term, the
evidence must be "sponsored" by a witness. To
authenticate the object, the witness must have
capacity to identify the object as the very thing
involved in the litigation. Better still, he must have
actual and personal knowledge of the exhibit he is
presenting for admission. This is because "a
witness can only testify to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception..."
Even a supposedly ancient document (a private
document that is more than thirty years old
produced from a custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine and is unblemished
by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion),
requires a witness to testify on the characteristics
of the document even if the document no longer
requires authentication (Sec. 21, Rule 132, Rules of
Court).
Object Evidence and the Right Against Self-
incrimination
The right against self-incrimination cannot be
invoked against object evidence.
In one early case, in his assignment of error, the
accused appellant asseverates that the admission
as evidence of the victim's wallet together with its
contents, viz., (1) his residence certificate; (2) his
identification card; and (3) bunch of keys, violates
his right against self-incrimination.
The Court held that the right against self-
incrimination guaranteed under our fundamental
law finds no application in this case because no
testimonial compulsion was involved.
Said the Court: "This right, as put by Mr. Justice
Holmes in Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245,
". . . is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral
compulsion, to extort communications from him .
" It is simply a prohibition against legal process to
extract from the [accused's own lips, against his
will, admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the
instant case where the evidence sought to be
excluded is not an incriminating statement but an
object evidence. ’’
Instances where a document is considered as
object evidence;
1. When it tends to prove the existence or
non –existence of the document
2. When the purpose is to prove the nature of
the handwriting in the document
3. When the intention of the party is to
determine the age of the paper or material
used.
4. When its purpose is to prove the
alterations, blemishes or forgery in a
document.
Categories of Object Evidence
1. For purposes of authentication of an object or
for laying the foundation for the exhibit, object
evidence may be classified into the following (29A
Am Jur, §§945-947):
(a) Objects that have readily identifiable marks
(unique objects);
(b) Objects that are made readily identifiable
(objects made unique); and
(c) Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be
marked (non-unique objects).
2. If the object has a unique characteristic, like the
serial number of a caliber 45 pistol, it becomes
readily identifiable.
So long as the witness testifies that the object has
a unique characteristic, he saw the object on the
relevant date, remembers its characteristics,
asserts that the object shown to him in court is the
same or substantially in the same condition as
when he first saw it and alleges that those
15
characteristics are those of the object he is
identifying in court, the authentication
requirement is satisfied.
3. If the object does not have a unique
characteristic, like the typical kitchen knife that has
no serial number, is commonplace, and is identical
with a lot of knives of the same kind and quality,
the witness may be able to identify the same in
court if he claims that he made the thing acquire a
unique characteristic like placing identifying marks
on it. All he has to do in court is to testify as to
what he did to make the object identifiable and
that the object presented to him for identification
in court has the characteristics he made on the
object.
Demonstrative Evidence
1. Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing
but it is referred to as "demonstrative" because it
represents or demonstrates the real thing. It is not
strictly "real" evidence because it is not the very
thing involved in the case. A map, a diagram, a
photograph and a model, fall under this category.
This category of evidence is not separately defined
in the Rules of Court and appears to have been
incorporated under the general term "object"
evidence.
2. The admissibility of this type of evidence largely
depends on laying the proper foundation for the
evidence. The rule boils down to one basic
question: Does the evidence sufficiently and
accurately represent the object it seeks to
demonstrate or represent? If it does, the evidence
would be admissible.
a.Photographs — Photographs of persons, things
and places when instructive to the understanding
of the case, will be admitted in evidence. For a still
photograph to be admitted, the same must be
relevant and competent. It is competent when it is
properly authenticated by a witness who is familiar
with the scene or person portrayed and who
testifies that the photograph faithfully represents
what it depicts.
Some courts insist on requiring the photographer
to testify but this view has been eroded by the
tendency of modern courts to admit as a witness
one who has familiarity with the scene portrayed.
b. Motion pictures and recordings — The rules
that apply to photographs generally apply to
motion pictures and recordings. Because of the
possibility of tampering and distortion, courts have
traditionally required a stricter standard for laying
the foundation for motion pictures and tape
recordings.
Courts then would require detailed testimony as to
the qualifications of the operator, a detailed
description of the equipment used, the conditions
under which the photograph and the recordings
were taken. Modern courts however, have taken
judicial notice of how motion cameras and tape
recorders work and their general reliability and
their prevalent use.
Court practices regarding motion pictures and tape
recording shave been liberalized and the testimony
of a person present when the activities of taking
the picture and the recording has been held
sufficient. He must testify that the motion picture
accurately, faithfully represents the place or
person, it purports to portray.
In the case of tape recordings, the witness should
identify the speakers, state how he recognizes their
voices and that recording was not taken in
violation of the Anti Wire-Tapping
Law (R.A. No. 4200).The modern approach to
motion pictures and recordings is reflected in local
rules.
Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the
authentication process need not involve the person
who actually made the recording. It can be done by
some other person as long as he is one who can
testify as to its accuracy.
There is also a requirement that the recording be
shown, presented or displayed to the court (Sec. 1,
Rule 11, Rules on Electronic Evidence).
Under the electronic evidence rules, photographic
evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be
admissible in evidence provided:
(a) It shall be presented, displayed and shown to
the court; and
(b) It shall be identified, explained or authenticated
by either;
(i) The person who made the recording, or by
(ii) Some other person competent to testify on the
accuracy thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 11, Electronic Rules
of Evidence).
The admissibility of photographs is within the
discretion of the trial court, and its ruling in this
respect will not be interfered with except upon a
clear showing of an abuse of discretion. In
determining whether photographs should be
admitted, a trial judge must determine whether
they are relevant, and whether a proper
foundation has been laid.
c. Diagrams, models and maps— These types of
demonstrative evidence are presented to indicate
the relative locations or positions of objects and
persons. Aside from the requirement of relevance,
a diagram, model or map must be identified by a
witness who is familiar with what the evidence
depicts, and that the same is an accurate
representation of the scene it portrays.
Like any other exhibit, the touch stone for
admissibility of maps, diagrams and models is the
ability of the witness to authenticate the exhibit.
Some courts may require that the model, diagram
or map be made or drawn to scale. If not drawn to
scale, the court must be so informed. The question
as to the sufficiency of the authentication is a
matter of judicial discretion (29A Am Jur 2d,
Evidence, §§989, 990).
d. X-ray pictures — X-ray pictures, also referred to
as "ski graphs" or "radiographs" are admissible
when shown to have been made under
circumstances as to assure their accuracy and
where relevant to a material issue in the case.
Authenticated x-rays are normally involved in
personal injury cases to show the location and the
extent of the injury. X-rays are properly
authenticated by the X-ray technician or the
physician who testifies to the competence of the
person taking it, the procedure taken and that the
X-ray picture shown is that of the person, the
anatomical part or the object involved in the case.
Because the science of taking X-ray pictures is now
well-founded and generally recognized, almost all
courts no longer require testimony as to the
reliability of an X-ray machine ( 29A Am Jur 2d,
Evidence, §§977).
e. Scientific tests, demonstrations and
experiments —The issue of refusing or granting
requests for demonstrations, experiments and
tests in open court is a matter subject to judicial
discretion. In-court reenactment of material events
by witnesses has been held permissible to help
illustrate the testimony of a witness.
JURISPRUDENCE
Romeo S. Sisonet. al vs. People of the Philippines
The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs,
when presented in evidence, must be identified by
the photographer as to its production and testified
as to the circumstances under which they were
produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in
its being a correct representation or reproduction
of the original, and its admissibility is determined
by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time
of the crime.
The photographer, however, is not the only
witness who can identify the pictures he has
taken. The correctness of the photograph as a
faithful representation of the object portrayed can
be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of
the person who made it or by other competent
witnesses, after which the court can admit it
subject to impeachment as to its
accuracy. Photographs, therefore, can be identified
by the photographer or by any other competent
witness who can testify to its exactness and
accuracy.
People vs. Tacipit
In reviewing the evidence of this case, this Court
was guided by the three(3) settled principles in
reviewing rape cases, namely, (1) an accusation for
17
rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to
prove but more difficult for the person accused,
though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only
two persons are usually involved, the testimony of
the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.
For one, although there was an absence of external
injuries on the body of the complainant, the
clothes worn by her at the time of the offense
speak well of the use of force and the presence of a
struggle. As the trial court noted:
Her T-shirt was torn which corroborates her
testimony that it was forcibly removed. It also
proves that she offered resistance to the criminal
advances of the accused. Her shorts, like her panty,
had blood stains. Her panty was detached from her
shorts. Her bra was torn, also denoting that it was
forcibly removed. These physical evidence . . . are
consistent only with the force and compulsion
applied on her; they prove she offered resistance
and her defloration was against her will.
View of an Object Evidence
View of an Object or Scene
1. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 130, when an object is
relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court.
2. Courts have recognized that there are times
when a party cannot bring an object to the court
for viewing in the courtroom. In such a situation
the court may take a view of an object. The court
may make an ocular inspection of a contested land
to resolve questions of fact raised by the parties.
The court may inspect a crime scene to clarify itself
with certain matters raised by the litigants. It may
view the conditions of vehicles involved in a civil
case for damages. Going out of the courtroom to
observe places and objects is commonly termed a
"view."
The "view" is expressly authorized by Sec. 1 of Rule
130and even without this express provision, it is
well-recognized that the court has an inherent
power to order a view when there is a need to do
so (Sec. 5, Rule 135, Rules of Court).
3. A view disrupts the usual trial process and is
time consuming. Hence, in almost all jurisdictions,
the trial judge is granted discretion to grant or
refuse a request for a view
4. The inspection may be made inside or outside
the courtroom. An inspection or view outside the
courtroom should be made in the presence of the
parties or at least with previous notice to them. It
is error for the judge for example, to go alone to
the land in question, or to the place where the
crime was committed and take a view without the
previous knowledge of the parties. Such inspection
or view is part of the trial since evidence is thereby
being received.
Paraffin Tests
1. Paraffin tests, in general, have been considered
as inconclusive by the Court because scientific
experts concur in the view that paraffin tests have
proved extremely un reliable in use. The tests can
only establish the presence or absence of nitrates
or nitrites on the hand but the tests alone cannot
determine whether the source of the nitrates or
nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The
presence of nitrates should be taken only as an
indication of a possibility or even a probability but
not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun,
since nitrates are also admittedly found in
substances other than gunpowder. A person who
tests positive may have handed one or more
substances with the same positive reaction for
nitrates such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers,
pharmaceuticals, tobacco and leguminous plants.
The argument that the negative result of
gunpowder nitrates from the paraffin test
conducted shows an absence of physical evidence
that one fired a gun, is untenable as it is possible
for one to fire a gun and yet be negative for the
presence of nitrates as when the hands are washed
before the test.
The paraffin test is merely corroborative evidence,
neither proving nor disproving that a person did
indeed fire a gun. The positive or negative results
of the test can be influenced by certain factors,
such as the wearing of gloves by the subject,
perspiration of the hands, wind direction, wind
velocity, humidity, climate conditions, the length of
the barrel of the firearm, or the open or closed
trigger guard of the firearm
Polygraph Tests (Lie Detector Tests)
1. A polygraph test operates on the principle that
stress causes physiological changes in the body
which can be measured to indicate whether the
subject of the examination is telling the truth.
During an examination in which a polygraph is
used, sensors are attached to the subject so that
the polygraph can mechanically record the
subject's physiological responses to a series of
questions.
2. Courts accordingly uniformly reject the results of
polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the
purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of
one accused of a crime because it has not yet
attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and
accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception
DNA Evidence
The determination of the probative value of the
DNA evidence rests upon sound judicial
assessment taking into consideration the following
matters:
(a) The chain of custody, including how the
biological samples were collected, how they were
handled, and the possibility of contamination of
the samples;
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the
procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure,
and compliance with the scientifically valid
standards in conducting the tests;
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including its
accreditation and the qualification of the analyst
who conducted the test; if the laboratory is not
accredited, the court shall consider the relevant
experience of the laboratory in forensic casework
and its credibility shall be properly established; and
(d) The reliability of the testing result (Sec. 7, RDE).
Are the DNA profiles of a person open to public
scrutiny?
They are not. DNA profiles and all the results or
other information obtained from DNA testing are
confidential (Sec.11, RDE). Whoever discloses,
utilizes or publishes in any form any information
concerning a DNA profile without the proper court
order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the
court wherein such DNA evidence was offered,
presented or sought to be offered and presented
(Sec. 11, RDE).
Except upon order of the court, the DNA profiles
and other results shall only be released to any of
the following:
(a) The person from whom the sample was taken;
(b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or
action where the DNA evidence is offered and
presented or sought to be offered and presented;
(c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal
action;
(d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
(e) Other persons as determined by the court
(Sec.11, RDE).
The person from whom the biological sample was
taken may also request that his D N A profile and
all results or other information obtained from the
DNA testing be disclosed to the person designated
in his request. This request however, must be in
writing and verified and filed with the court that
allowed the DNA testing (Sec. 11, RDE).
The trial court is mandated to preserve the DNA
evidence in its totality, including all biological
samples, DNA profiles and results or other genetic
information obtained from DNA testing in
accordance with Sec. 12 of the RDE.
Chain of Custody
19
1. The third category refers to those objects which
are not readily identifiable, were not made
identifiable or cannot be made identifiable like
drops of blood or oil, drugs in powder form, fiber,
grains of sand and similar objects. Under this
situation, the proponent of the evidence must
establish a chain of custody.
2. The purpose of establishing a chain of custody is
to guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence
and to prevent the introduction of evidence which
is not authentic but where the exhibit is positively
identified the chain of custody of physical evidence
is irrelevant.
3. Since it is called a chain, there must be links to
the chain. The links are the people who actually
handled or had custody of the object.
Each of the links in the chain must show how he
received the object, how he handled it to prevent
substitution and how it was transferred to another.
Each of the handlers of the evidence is a link in the
chain and must testify to make the foundation
complete. This is the ideal way to show the chain of
custody although the ideal way is not absolutely
required.
There is authority supporting the view that the
prosecution is not required to elicit testimony from
every custodian or from every person who had an
opportunity to come in contact with the evidence
sought to be admitted.
As long as one of the "chains" testifies and his
testimony negates the possibility of tampering and
that the integrity of the evidence is preserved, his
testimony alone is adequate to prove the chain of
custody of evidence is possessed jointly by two
people, it is not necessary for both to testify as to
the chain of custody. As long as one of the joint
possessors testifies and that testimony negates the
possibility of tampering, it alone is adequate to
prove chain of custody.
"As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain
of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is
what the proponent claims it to be.
It would include testimony about every link in the
chain, from the moment the item was picked up to
the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way
that every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness' possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in
the condition of the item and no opportunity for
someone not in the chain to have possession of the
same.
Marking of evidence
The chain of custody rule requires that the marking
of the seized items should be done in the presence
of the apprehended violator and immediately upon
the confiscation to ensure that they are the same
items that enter the chain and are eventually the
ones offered in evidence.
Chain of Custody in Drug Cases
1. Section Kb) of the Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 (in relation to Sec.
81[b] of R.A. No.9165) which implements R.A. No.
9165, defines "chain of custody "as follows:
"b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs
or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record
of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item,
the date and time when such transfer of custody
were made in the course of safekeeping and use in
court as evidence, and the final disposition".
But a mere statement that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence is not enough. It
must be accompanied by proof.
"What is of utmost importance is the preservation
of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
Like The existence of the dangerous drug is a
condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs.
JURISPRUDENCE
People vs. Piad
The chain of custody requirement is essential to
ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the
evidence are removed through the monitoring and
tracking of the movements of the seized drugs
from the accused, to the police, to the forensic
chemist, and finally to the court.21 Section 21(a) of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.
No. 9165 provides:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory
and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at
the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items.
Evidently, the law requires "substantial" and not
necessarily "perfect adherence" as long as it can be
proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items were preserved as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the accused.
PEOPLE vs. TAMAÑO and GULMATICO
In the prosecution of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense
and, in sustaining a conviction therefor, the
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must
definitely be shown to have been preserved. This
requirement necessarily arises from the illegal
drug's unique characteristic that renders it
indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open
to tampering, alteration or substitution either by
accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt
or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the
seized drug, evidence must definitely show that
the illegal drug presented in court is the same
illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-
appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. No.
9165 fails.
Similarly, in the prosecution of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense,
and the fact of its existence beyond reasonable
doubt, plus the fact of its delivery and/or sale, are
both vital and essential to a judgment of
conviction. And more than just the fact of sale, of
prime importance is that the identity of the
dangerous drug be likewise established beyond
reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be
established with unwavering exactitude that the
dangerous drug presented in court as evidence
against the accused is the same as that seized from
him in the first place. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it
ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed.
However, under the same proviso aforecited, non-
compliance with the stipulated procedure, under
justifiable grounds, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said
21
items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officers.While nowhere in
the prosecution's evidence would show the
"justifiable ground" which may excuse the police
operatives involved from making an immediate
physical inventory of the drugs confiscated and/or
seized, such omission shall not render appellants'
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from
them as inadmissible in evidence. Said "justifiable
ground" will remain unknown in the light of the
apparent failure of appellants to specifically
challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue
of disposition and preservation of the subject drug
before the trial court. They cannot be allowed too
late in the day to question the police officers'
alleged non-compliance with Section 21 for the
first time on appeal.
Moreover, the rule on chain of custody under the
foregoing enactments expressly demands the
identification of the persons who handled the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly
monitoring the authorized movements of the
illegal drugs from the time they are seized from
the accused until the time they are presented in
court. The chain of custody requirement performs
the function of ensuring that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as
to the identity of the evidence are removed. To be
admissible, the prosecution must show by records
or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the
exhibit at least between the time it came into
possession of the police officers until it was tested
in the laboratory to determine its composition up
to the time it was offered in evidence.
However, while the procedure on the chain of
custody should be perfect and unbroken, in
reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain.Thus, failure to strictly comply
with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does
not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal
or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible. The most important factor is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized item.
In a number of casesWe held that with the
implied judicial recognition of the difficulty of
complete compliance with the chain of custody
requirement, substantial compliance is sufficient
as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized item are properly preserved by the
apprehending officers. We ruled that the failure
to photograph and conduct physical inventory of
the seized items are not fatal to the case against
the accused, and do not ipso facto render
inadmissible in evidence the items seized. What is
important is that the seized item marked at the
police station is identified as the same item
produced in court.
Furthermore, the defense of frame-up or denial in
drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence
because of the presumption that the law
enforcement agencies acted in the regular
performance of their official duties. The
presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed can only be overcome through clear
and convincing evidence showing either of two
things: (1) that they were not properly performing
their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any
improper motive.
PEOPLE vs. SONIA BERNAL NUARIN
The ‘Marking’ Requirement vis-à-vis the Chain of
Custody Rule
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series
of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines
chain of custody as "the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping
to presentation in court for destruction."
A crucial step in proving chain of custody is the
marking of the seized drugs or other related items
immediately after they are seized from the
accused. "Marking" means the placing by the
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of
his/her initials and signature on the items seized.
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized
contraband be immediately marked because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the
markings as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the marked evidence
from the corpus of all other similar or related
evidence from the time they are seized from the
accused until they are disposed of at the end of the
criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching,
"planting," or contamination of evidence.
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Meaning of Documentary Evidence
Documents as evidence do not exclusively refer to
writings.
They may refer to any other material like objects as
long as the material contains letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
written expression and offered as proof of their
contents. There are therefore, two categories of
documents as evidence, namely:
(a) writings, or
(b) any other material containing modes of written
expressions.
Under the first category are those instantly
recognizable documents like written contracts and
wills. Under the second category are those which
are not traditionally considered as writings but are
actually objects but which contain modes of
written expressions.
However, being writings or materials containing
modes of written expressions do not ipso facto
make such writings or materials documentary
evidence. For such writings or materials to be
deemed documentary evidence, the same must be
offered as proof of their contents. If offered for
some other purpose, the writings or materials
would not be deemed documentary evidence but
merely object evidence.
Requisites for Admissibility
The following are the requisites for the
admissibility of documentary evidence:
(a) The document must be relevant;
(b) The evidence must be authenticated;
(c) The document must be authenticated by a
competent witness; and
(d) The document must be formally offered in
evidence.
JURISPRUDENCE
MIGUEL J. OSORIO PENSION FOUNDATION vs. CA
The law expressly allows a co-owner (first co-
owner) of a parcel of land to register his
proportionate share in the name of his co-owner
(second co-owner) in whose name the entire land
is registered. The second co-owner serves as a legal
trustee of the first co-owner insofar as the
proportionate share of the first co-owner is
concerned. The first co-owner remains the owner
of his proportionate share and not the second co-
owner in whose name the entire land is registered.
For Article 1452 to apply, all that a co-owner needs
to show is that there is "common consent" among
the purchasing co-owners to put the legal title to
the purchased property in the name of one co-
owner for the benefit of all. Once this "common
consent" is shown, "a trust is created by force of
law." The BIR has no option but to recognize such
legal trust as well as the beneficial ownership of
the real owners because the trust is created by
force of law. The fact that the title is registered
solely in the name of one person is not conclusive
that he alone owns the property.
Documents acknowledged before notaries public
are public documents and public documents are
admissible in evidence without necessity of
preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due
execution. They have in their favor the
presumption of regularity, and to contradict the
23
same, there must be evidence that is clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant.
The trustor-beneficiary is not estopped from
proving its ownership over the property held in
trust by the trustee when the purpose is not to
contest the disposition or encumbrance of the
property in favor of an innocent third-party
purchaser for value.
LOURDES AZARCON v. PEOPLE, and MARCOSA
This knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit at
the time of the issuance of the check involves a
state of mind of the person making, drawing or
issuing the check which is difficult to prove. Section
2 of B.P. Blg. 22 creates a prima facie presumption
of such knowledge. Said section reads:
SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds.
– The making, drawing and issuance of a check
payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such
bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from
the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence
of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or
credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder
thereof the amount due thereon, or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of
such check within five (5) banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not been
paid by the drawee.
The presumption is brought into existence only
after it is proved that the issuer had received a
notice of dishonor and that within five days from
receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the
check or to make arrangements for its payment.
The presumption or prima facie evidence as
provided in this section cannot arise, if such notice
of non-payment by the drawee bank is not sent to
the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to
when such notice was received by the drawer,
since there would simply be no way of reckoning
the crucial 5-day period.
A notice of dishonor received by the maker or
drawer of the check is thus indispensable before a
conviction can ensue. The notice of dishonor may
be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank.
The notice must be in writing. A mere oral notice to
pay a dishonored check will not suffice. The lack of
a written notice is fatal for the prosecution.
The requirement of notice, its sending to, and its
actual receipt by, the drawer or maker of the check
gives the latter the option to prevent criminal
prosecution if he pays the holder of the check the
amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for
payment in full by the drawee of such check within
five (5) banking days after receiving notice that the
check has not been paid.
All that the Bouncing Checks Law thus requires is
that the accused must be notified in writing of the
fact of dishonor.
OTERO v. TAN
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides
that the authenticity and due execution of a
private document, before it is received in evidence
by the court, must be established. Thus:
Sec. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any
private document offered as authentic is received
in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved either:
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be
identified as that which it is claimed to be.
A private document is any other writing, deed, or
instrument executed by a private person without
the intervention of a notary or other person legally
authorized by which some disposition or
agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the
official or sovereign character of a public
document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a
private document requires authentication in the
manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court
before its acceptance as evidence in court. The
requirement of authentication of a private
document is excused only in four instances,
specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient
one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness and
authenticity of an actionable document have not
been specifically denied under oath by the adverse
party; (c) when the genuineness and authenticity of
the document have been admitted; or (d) when the
document is not being offered as genuine.
The statements of account which Tan adduced in
evidence before the MTCC indubitably are private
documents. Considering that these documents do
not fall among the aforementioned exceptions, the
MTCC could not admit the same as evidence
against Otero without the required authentication
thereof pursuant to Section 20, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court. During authentication in court, a
witness positively testifies that a document
presented as evidence is genuine and has been
duly executed, or that the document is neither
spurious nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake
or under duress.
Here, Tan, during the ex parte presentation of his
evidence, did not present anyone who testified
that the said statements of account were genuine
and were duly executed or that the same were
neither spurious or counterfeit or executed by
mistake or under duress. Betache, the one who
prepared the said statements of account, was not
presented by Tan as a witness during the ex parte
presentation of his evidence with the MTCC.
Considering that Tan failed to authenticate the
aforesaid statements of account, the said
documents should not have been admitted in
evidence against Otero.
CALIMAG v. HEIRS OF MACAPAZ
Marriage Contract and Canonical Certificate of
Marriage; inadmissible
A secondary evidence is admissible only upon
compliance with Rule 130, Section 5, which states
that: when the original 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.
On the other hand, a canonical certificate of
marriage is not a public document. It has been
settled that church registries of births, marriages,
and deaths made subsequent to the promulgation
of General Orders No. 68 and the passage of Act
No. 190 are no longer public writings, nor are they
kept by duly authorized public officials. They are
private writings and their authenticity must
therefore be proved as are all other private
writings in accordance with the rules of evidence.
Accordingly, since there is no showing that the
authenticity and due execution of the canonical
certificate of marriage of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela
was duly proven, it cannot be admitted in evidence
Birth Certificate; admissible
A certificate of live birth is a public document that
consists of entries (regarding the facts of birth) in
public records (Civil Registry) made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer (Civil
Registrar). Thus, being public documents, the
respondents' certificates of live birth are presumed
valid, and are prima facie evidence of the truth of
the facts stated. "Prima facie evidence is defined as
evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such
evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is
sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or
chain of facts constituting the party's claim or
defense and which if not rebutted or contradicted,
will remain sufficient.
It is well settled that other proofs can be offered to
establish the fact of a solemnized marriage.
Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage
may be proven by relevant evidence other than the
marriage certificate. Hence, even a person's birth
certificate may be recognized as competent
evidence of the marriage between his parents.
Thus, in order to prove their legitimate filiation, the
respondents presented their respective Certificates
of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics
Officewhere Fidela signed as the Informant in item
no. of both documents.
PEREGRINA MACUA VDA. DE AVENIDO vs. TECLA
HOYBIA AVENIDO
While a marriage certificate is considered the
primary evidence of a marital union, it is not
regarded as the sole and exclusive evidence of
25
marriage. Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of
marriage may be proven by relevant evidence
other than the marriage certificate. It should be
stressed that the due execution and the loss of the
marriage contract, both constituting the conditio
sine qua non for the introduction of secondary
evidence of its contents, were shown by the very
evidence they have disregarded. They have thus
confused the evidence to show due execution and
loss as "secondary" evidence of the marriage.
In the present case, due execution was established
by the testimonies of Adela Pilapil, who was
present during the marriage ceremony, and of
petitioner herself as a party to the event. The
subsequent loss was shown by the testimony and
the affidavit of the officiating priest, Monsignor
Yllana, as relevant, competent and admissible
evidence. Since the due execution and the loss of
the marriage contract were clearly shown by the
evidence presented, secondary evidence–
testimonial and documentary–may be admitted to
prove the fact of marriage.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
1. Despite the word "best," the rule does not
proclaim itself as the highest and most reliable
evidence in the hierarchy of evidence.
The term "best" has nothing to do with the degree
of its probative value in relation to other types of
evidentiary rules.
It is not intended to mean the "most superior"
evidence. More accurately, it is the "original
document" rule, or the "primary evidence" rule.
2. The rule is not intended to mean that a weaker
evidence be substituted by a stronger evidence. It
merely comprehends a situation where the
evidence offered is substitutionary in nature when
what should be offered is the original evidence.
The underlying purpose of the best evidence rule is
the prevention of fraud or mistake in the proof of
the contents of a writing, to determine the exact
wording of the writing or document and to prevent
erroneous interpretation of the documents or
writings.
Original Document must be Produced
The only actual rule that the 'best evidence'
phrased notes today is the rule requiring the
production of the original writing, the rationale
being:
(1)That there is a substantial hazard of inaccuracy
in the human process of making a copy by
handwriting or typewriting, and
(2)As respects oral testimony purporting to give
from memory the terms of a writing, there is a
special risk of error, greater than in the case of
attempts at describing other situations generally.
In the light of these dangers of mistransmision,
accompanying the use of written copies or of
recollection, is largely avoided through proving the
terms by presenting the writing itself, the
preference for the original writing is justified"
(3)The theory therefore, is that the copy of the
original is not as reliable as the latter because of
possible inaccuracy in the process of copying and
the danger of erroneous transmission of the
original.
As held, the "best evidence rule" applies only when
the content of such document is the subject of the
inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such
document was actually executed, or exists, or on
the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply
and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other
substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible
without need to account for the original.
Illustrative Applications of the Best Evidence Rule
In a case where counsel wants to show that a
marriage ceremony took place between H and W,
the following questions were asked:
Q: Mr. Witness, where were you on September 26,
2008at around 7:30 in the evening?
A: I was in the Manila Cathedral attending the
wedding of H and W where I stood as a principal
sponsor.
Q: Can you tell this Court what happened when
you were there?
A: There was a marriage ceremony officiated by
the parish priest for the marriage of H and W.
Opposing counsel objects at this stage: "Objection,
Your Honor! The best evidence is the marriage
contract!"
Should the court sustain the objection? No! The
best evidence rule does not apply. (RIANO)
For the best evidence rule to apply, two requisites
must concur:
(a) The subject matter must involve a document;
and
(b) The subject of the inquiry is the contents of the
document.
Requisites for the best evidence rule to apply.
(TAN)
1. The original document of the writing is the
writing itself
2. The contents of which is the subject of the
inquiry
3. The original document must be produced if
the purpose is to prove its contents.
The subject of the inquiry and response in the
illustration does not even involve a document. The
evidence is purely testimonial. Where the contents
of a document are not in issue, the best evidence
rule cannot be invoked and more so when the
evidence does not involve a document. The
illustration involves an inquiry into an activity that
occurred in the presence of the witness. A witness
may testify as to an event he perceived. The
wedding ceremony is an event or a fact with an
existence independent of any writing. The
ceremony was observed and perceived by the
witness, and one's perception if relevant to an
issue in the case, is a legitimate subject of a
testimony.
Thus, a witness may testify that Pedro died in his
presence without presenting a death certificate. He
may also testify that he traveled to Los Angeles
without necessarily presenting the plane ticket and
that his father gave him a car without presenting a
deed of donation, without invoking the *best
evidence' rule.
Where Best Evidence Rule does not Apply
There is no reason to apply the "best evidence"
rule when the issue does not involve the contents
of a writing. Sec.3 of Rule 130 is clear on this point:
The rule will come into play only "when the subject
of inquiry is the contents of a document."
The key therefore, to the understanding of the
"best evidence" rule is simply to remember that
the rule cannot be invoked unless the contents of a
writing is the subject of judicial inquiry, in which
case, the best evidence is the original writing itself.
When Document is Merely Collaterally in Issue
1. When a document is involved in the inquiry but
the document is only collaterally in issue, the best
evidence rule does not apply. A document is
collaterally in issue when the purpose of
introducing the document is not to establish its
terms but to show facts that have no reference to
its contents like its existence, condition, execution
or delivery.
2. If a witness testifies that the victim was writing a
letter when he was shot by the accused, the judge
would likely rule against the party who insists on
the presentation of the letter because the letter is
not the subject of an important issue in the case
and hence, is merely collateral.
3. If a witness testifies that he actually saw the
debtor tender payment of his obligation to the
creditor, he need not be required to produce the
original promissory note evidencing the debt
because it is the act of payment which is the focal
point of the testimony, not the document.
The document need not be likewise presented
when the witness merely testifies to the delivery of
a deed of sale by X to Y because the contents of
the document itself is not the purpose of the
testimony.
Waiver of the Rule
27
The best evidence rule may be waived if not raised
in the trial.
In one case, although the marriage certificate, the
marriage license, and other pieces of documentary
evidence were only photocopies, the fact that
these have been examined and admitted by the
trial court, with no objections having been made as
to their authenticity and due execution, means that
these documents are deemed sufficient proof of
the facts contained therein
What To Do To Apply The Best Evidence Rule
1. The first step to apply the best evidence rule is
to determine the matter inquired into. If the
inquiry involves a document and its contents are
the subject of that same inquiry, the best evidence
rule applies and must therefore, be complied with.
The procedural compliance of the rule requires the
presentation of the original document, and not a
copy of that document. So long as the original is
available, no other evidence can be substituted for
the original because the original is the "best
evidence" in relation to mere copies or substitutes
thereof.
2. Now what is to be done if for one reason or
another, the original cannot be presented in
evidence? If this happens, the second step now
comes into play. This step involves two stages:
(1) Finding an adequate legal excuse for the failure
to present the original; and
(2) Presenting a secondary evidence sanctioned by
the Rules of Court.
If the rule were to be restated into a simple
formula, the rule would be: "Present the original,
except when you can justify its unavailability in the
manner provided for by the Rules of Court."
Excuses for Not Presenting the Original Document
The excuses for the non-production of the original
document refer to the instances when the original
does not have to be produced even when the
contents of the document are the subjects of
inquiry. These instances are those mentioned in
Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, namely:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith
on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the
control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents 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
(d) When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office.
Meaning of Original
1. Section 4, of Rule 130 elucidates on the concept
of
the term “original”, thus:
"Sec. 4. Original of document. —
(a) The original of a document is one the contents
of which are the subject of inquiry.
(b) When the 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.
(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."
To be considered originals under this provision,
certain requisites must be complied with:
(a) there must be entries made and repeated in the
regular course of business; and
(b) the entries must be at or near the time of the
transaction.
When carbon sheets are inserted between two or
more sheets of paper with the writing and the
signature on the first sheet being reproduced in
the sheets beneath by the same stroke of the pen
or writing medium, all the sheets are deemed
originals.
If several copies of a document are made at the
same by inserting on each page a carbon paper and
only one of them is signed, the signed copy is the
original and the others are only copies
JURISPRUDENCE
HEIRS OF MARGARITA PRODON vs. HEIRS OF
MAXIMO S. ALVAREZ AND VALENTINA CLAVE,
Best Evidence Rule was not applicable herein. The
Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of
a written document are the subject of the inquiry.
In an action for quieting of title based on the
inexistence of a deed of sale with right to
repurchase that purportedly cast a cloud on the
title of a property, Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court embodies the Best Evidence.
(refersacodal)
The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving
the terms of a written document the original of the
document must be produced in court. The rule
excludes any evidence other than the original
writing to prove the contents thereof, unless the
offeror proves: (a) the existence or due execution
of the original; (b) the loss and destruction of the
original, or the reason for its non-production in
court; and (c) the absence of bad faith on the part
of the offeror to which the unavailability of the
original can be attributed.
Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of
writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to
be introduced concerns external facts, such as the
existence, execution or delivery of the writing,
without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence
Rule cannot be invoked.In such a case, secondary
evidence may be admitted even without
accounting for the original.
This case involves an action for quieting of title, a
common-law remedy for the removal of any cloud
or doubt or uncertainty on the title to real property
by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently
valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid,
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
prejudicial to said title. In such an action, the
competent court is tasked to determine the
respective rights of the complainant and other
claimants to place things in their proper place and
to make the one who has no rights to said
immovable respect and not disturb the other. The
terms of the writing may or may not be material
to an action for quieting of title, depending on the
ground alleged by the plaintiff. For instance, when
an action for quieting of title is based on the
unenforceability of a contract for not complying
with the Statute of Frauds, Article 1403 of the Civil
Code specifically provides that evidence of the
agreement cannot be received without the writing,
or a secondary evidence of its contents. There is
then no doubt that the Best Evidence Rule will
come into play.
In this case, the action does not involve the terms
or contents of the deed of sale with right to
repurchase. The principal issue raised by the
respondents as the plaintiffs, which Prodon
challenged head on, was whether or not the deed
of sale had really existed. The fact sought to be
established by the requested testimony was the
execution of the deed, not its terms.
HEIRS OF THE LATE FELIX M. BUCTON vs.SPOUSES
GONZALO and TRINIDAD GO
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be
proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence
and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging
forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature in
the instrument is the instrument itself reflecting
the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery
can only be established by comparison between
the alleged forged signature and the authentic and
genuine signature of the person whose signature is
theorized upon to have been forged.
While it is true that a notarized document carries
the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
29
respect to its due execution, and has in its favor
the presumption of regularity, this presumption,
however, is not absolute. It may be rebutted by
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The
testimony of Constantino and Nicanora, had it
been properly appreciated, is sufficient to
overcome the presumption of regularity attached
to public documents and to meet the stringent
requirements to prove forgery.
SALUN-AT MARQUEZ VS ESPEJO
The Best Evidence Rule states that when the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document,
the best evidence is the original document itself
and no other evidence (such as a reproduction,
photocopy or oral evidence) is admissible as a
general rule. The original is preferred because it
reduces the chance of undetected tampering with
the document.
NISSAN NORTH EDSAVS UNITED PHILIPPINE
SCOUT VETERANS DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE
AGENCY
The best evidence rule is the rule which requires
the highest grade of evidence to prove a disputed
fact. However, the same applies only when the
contents of a document are the subject of the
inquiry. In this case, the contents of the service
contract between Nissan and United have not
been put in issue. Neither United nor Nissan
disputes the contents of the service contract; as in
fact, both parties quoted and relied on the same
provision of the contract (paragraph 17) to
support their respective claims and
defenses. Thus, the best evidence rule finds no
application here.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Secondary evidence is any evidence other than the
document itself:
Example:
1. a copy
2. recital of its contents in some authentic
document
3. recollection of the witness
RIANO:Before secondary evidence can be
presented it is imperative that all the originals of a
deed must be accounted for.
The burden of proof in establishing loss or
destruction of the original is on the proponent of
the secondary evidence
Requisites
What is the rule in case original document was
lost?
The rule requiring the presentation of the original
document is NOT absolute: secondary evidence of
the contents of the original can be adduced, when
the original has been lost without bad faith on the
part of the party offering it.
RIANO: This exception does not only cover loss or
destruction but also other reasons for failure to
produce the original in court even if not loss or
destroyed as when original is beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the court or in cases of inscription on
immovable objects such as tombstones.
What are the requisites in order secondary
evidence may be presented?
a. Prove the due execution of the original
b. Proof of the loss, destruction or unavailability of
all such originals
c. Proof that reasonable diligence and good faith in
the search for atleast an attempt to produce the
original
When Original Document is Unavailable
RIANO: Accordingly the correct order of proof is as
follows: existence, execution, loss and contents,
although at the sound discretion of the court, this
order may be changed if necessary.
A copy of the original is the best secondary
evidence. If it is available, other secondary
evidence will not be admitted.
The presentation or the offer of the original may be
WAIVED. If the party against whom the secondary
evidence is offered does not object thereto when
the same is offered in evidence, the secondary
evidence becomes the primary evidence. But even
if admitted as primary evidence, its probative value
must still meet the various test by which its
reliability is to be determined.
How to prove the due execution of a lost or
destroyed original document?
a. The testimony if the persons who executed it
b. The testimony of any person before whom its
execution was acknowledged
c. Any person who was present and saw it executed
and delivered or who thereafter saw it and
recognized the signature
How to prove loss or destruction of the original
document?
a. The loss may be shown by any person who knew
the fact of its loss
b. By 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
character are usually kept
c. By the person in whose custody the document
was lost and unable to find it
d. Those who has made any other investigation
which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the
instrument is indeed lost.
When Original Document is in adverse party’s
custody
What is the rule in case the original of the
document is under the control of the adverse
party?
a. That the original exists
b. That said document is under the custody and
control of the adverse party
c. That the proponent of secondary evidence has
given the adverse party reasonable notice to
produce the original document
d. That the adverse party failed to produce the
original document despite reasonable notice.
RIANO: The offeror must prove that he has done
all in his power to secure the best evidence by
giving notice to the said party to produce the
document. The notice may be in the form of
motion for the production of the original or made
in open court in the presence of the adverse party
or via subpoena duces tecum.
What are the requisites for the introduction of
secondary evidence when the original consists of
numerous accounts?
a. If the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents
b. They cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time
c. The fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the truth.
RIANO: The voluminous records must however be
made accessible to the adverse party so that the
correctness of the summary of the voluminous
records may be tested on cross examination.
When Original Document is Public Record
There are instances when the original of a
document is a
public record or is recorded in a public office.
Public records are generally not to be removed
from the places where they are recorded and kept.
For this reason, the proof of the contents of a
document which forms part of a public record may
be done by secondary evidence. This evidence is a
31
certified true copy of the original. This certified
copy is to be issued by the public officer in custody
of the public records (Sec. 7,
Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Party Who Calls for Document not bound to offer
it
What is the rule in case the party calls for the
production of a document?
A party who calls for the production of a document
and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as
evidence
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Oral or verbal evidence, that which is given by
word of mouth; the ordinary kind of evidence,
given by witness in court.
In a particular ense, and with reference to
contracts, deeds, wills, and other writings, parol
evidence is the same as extraneous evidence or
evidence aliunde.
RIANO:The rule, however applies only to contracts
which the parties has decided to set forth in
writing. When the agreement is merely ORAL the
parol evidence rule should not be applied.
Only the parties and successors in interest are
bound by the parol evidence rule. The rule that the
terms of an agreement are to be proven only by
the contents of the writing itself refers to the suits
between “parties and their successors in interest”.
The rules does not bind suits involving strangers to
the contract.
What are the exceptions to the parol evidence
rule?
A party may present evidence to modify, explain,
or add to the terms of the agreement of HE PUTS
IN ISSUE IN HIS PLEADING:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection
in the written agreement
(b)The failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto.
(c)The validity of the written agreement; or
(d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
The term agreement includes wills.
RIANO: The parol evidence rule, therefore forbids
any addition to or contradiction of, the terms of a
written agreement by testimony or other evidence
purporting to show that different terms were
agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of
the written contract.
Whatever is not found in the writing is understood
to have been waived and abandoned.
Parol evidence rule does not per se bar the
introduction of parol evidence as long as the
pleader puts in issue in the pleading any of the
matters set forth in the rule. Unless duly pleaded, a
party will be barred from offering extrinsic
evidence over the objection of the adverse party.
Distinctions between the Best Evidence Rule &
Parol Evidence Rule
Parol Evidence Best Evidence
The original of the The original
document is document is not
available in court available in court
Prohibits the varying Prohibits the
terms of the written introduction of
agreement substitutionary or
secondary evidence
The controversies is Involves any parties
between the parties to the action
in the written
agreement

Intrinsic Ambiguity, Mistake or Imperfection
What are the kinds of ambiguities?
1. LATENT AMBIGUITY- When the writing on its
face is clear and unambiguous but there are
collateral matters or circumstances which makes
the meaning uncertain or the writing admits of two
constructions.
2. PATENT OR EXTRINSIC AMBIGUITY- When
ambiguity is apparent on the face of the writing
itself and requires something to be added in order
to ascertain the meaning of the word.
3. INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITY-When the words in
the writing are all sensible and have settled
meaning, but admit 2 interpretations according to
the subject matter in contemplation of the parties.
RIANO: Parol evidence particularly refers only to an
INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY. As long as latent ambiguity
is raised as an issue in the pleadings, the court will
allow evidence aliunde to explain the ambiguity to
give effect to the intention of the parties.
What are the requisites in order that mistake will
be an exception under the parol evidence rule?
a. That the mistake should be one of fact.
b. That the mistake must be common to both
parties.
c. That it must be alleged and proved by clear and
convincing evidence.
RIANO:
Although parol evidence is admissible to explain
the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the
purpose of incorporating into the contract
additional and contemporaneous conditions which
are not mentioned at all in the writing unless there
has been fraud or mistake.
The failure of the writing to express the true
agreement of the parties is another ground of
admitting parol evidence as long as the issue is
raised in the pleadings
Aside from mistake there are some other reasons
for the failure of the instrument express the true
intention of the parties like fraud, inequitable
conduct or accident, ignorance, lack of skill,
negligence or bad faith on the part of the person
drafting the instrument.
In an action for reformation of the instrument the
plaintiff may introduce parol evidence to show the
real intention of the parties. If there is no meeting
of the minds between the parties because of
mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident,
the proper remedy is NOT reformation but an
action for annulment
Waiver of Parol Evidence
The parol evidence rule can be waived by failure to
invoke the benefits of the rule. This waiver may be
made by failure to object to evidence aliunde.
Inadmissible evidence may be rendered admissible
by failure to object.
Even if parol evidence is admitted such admission
would not mean that the court would give
probative value to the parol evidence.
JURISPRUDENCE
SPS. PARAS VS KIMWA
33

WHEN PAROLE EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED- when there the document, other or different terms were orally
is mistake, imperfection or failure to express the agreed upon by the parties.
true intent of parties Although parol evidence is admissible to explain
the meaning of a contract, "it cannot serve the
ORTANEZ VS CA purpose of incorporating into the contract
additional contemporaneous conditions which are
The parol evidence herein introduced is
not mentioned at all in the writing unless there has
inadmissible. First, private respondents' oral
been fraud or mistake." No such fraud or mistake
testimony on the alleged conditions, coming from a
exists in this case.
party who has an interest in the outcome of the
case, depending exclusively on human memory, is
Fourth, we disagree with private respondents'
not as reliable as written or documentary
argument that their parol evidence is admissible
evidence. Spoken words could be notoriously
under the exceptions provided by the Rules,
unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks
specifically, the alleged failure of the agreement to
of a uniform language. Thus, under the general rule
express the true intent of the parties. Such
in Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when
exception obtains only in the following instance:
the terms of an agreement were reduced to
[W]here the written contract is so ambiguous or
writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all
obscure in terms that the contractual intention of
the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such
the parties cannot be understood from a mere
terms can be admitted other than the contents
reading of the instrument. In such a case, extrinsic
thereof. Considering that the written deeds of sale
evidence of the subject matter of the contract, of
were the only repository of the truth, whatever is
the relations of the parties to each other, and of
not found in said instruments must have been
the facts and circumstances surrounding them
waived and abandoned by the parties. Examining
when they entered into the contract may be
the deeds of sale, we cannot even make an
received to enable the court to make a proper,
inference that the sale was subject to any
interpretation of the instrument.
condition. As a contract, it is the law between the
In this case, the deeds of sale are clear, without
parties.
any ambiguity, mistake or imperfection, much less
Secondly, to buttress their argument, private
obscurity or doubt in the terms thereof.
respondents rely on the case of Land Settlement
Development, Co. vs. Garcia Plantation where the
One last thing, assuming arguendo that the parol
Court ruled that a condition precedent to a
evidence is admissible, it should nonetheless be
contract may be established by parol evidence.
disbelieved as no other evidence appears from the
However, the material facts of that case are
record to sustain the existence of the alleged
different from this case. In the former, the contract
conditions. Not even the other seller, Asuncion
sought to be enforced expressly stated that it is
Inocentes, was presented to testify on such
subject to an agreement containing the conditions-
conditions.
precedent which were proven through parol
evidence. Whereas, the deeds of sale in this case,
made no reference to any pre-conditions or other TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
agreement. In fact, the sale is denominated as
absolute in its own terms. Testimonial or oral evidence is evidence elicited
Third, the parol evidence herein sought to be from the mouth of a witness as distinguished from
introduced would vary, contradict or defeat the a real and documentary evidence. (Black’s Law
operation of a valid instrument, hence, contrary to Dictionary)
the rule that:
The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to . . . Competent evidence means evidence that is not
the terms of a written instrument by testimony excluded by law. Applying it to witnesses,
purporting to show that, at or before the signing of
competence means that the witness is qualified to
take the stand and testify. (Riano, 2009 p.244).
QUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES
Except as provided in the next succeeding section,
all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
make their known perception to others, may be
witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a
ground for disqualification(Sec. 20, Rule 130).
Who may be witnesses :
All persons who:
1. Can perceive and in perceiving
2. Can make known their perception to others (Sec.
20, Rule 130);
Additionally,
3. the examination of a witness in trial or hearing
shall be done under oath or affirmation(Sec. 1, Rule
132; Riano, 2013); and
4. Must not possess the disqualifications imposed
by law or the rules (Riano, 2013).
NOTE: The ability to make known the perception of
the witness to the court involves two factors: (a)
the ability to remember what has been perceived;
and (b) the ability to communicate the
remembered perception. It is of common reason to
realize that a witness is presented to testify on a
matter he has perceived. If he cannot remember
what he perceived, he cannot be a competent
witness (Riano, 2013).
NOTE: The number of witnesses does not
determine the outcome of the case. The
testimonies of witnesses are weighed and not
based on how many. Cases are not won by the fact
that one side has more witnesses than the other. In
a case of rape, the Supreme Court has held that
positive identification will prevail over the defense
of alibi, alibi being considered as a weaker defense
since it can be easily fabricated.
Ability to perceive; in relation to sec 36 of Rule
130:
A witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge, i.e., those facts
which are derived from his own perception.
Hence it is absurd to ask a blind man to testify to
what he saw, or a deaf man to what he heard.
(Riano 2009, p.247)
Ability to Make Known the perception to others
Two factors:
1. the ability to remember what he has been
perceived; and
2. the bility to communicate the remembered
perception. (ibid., 248)
NOTE: Deaf-mutes are not necessarily
incompetent, where they :
1. can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an
oath;
2. can comprehend facts they are going to testify
to; and
3.can communicate their ideas through a qualified
interpreter. (Riano, citing People vs Tuangco 345
SCRA 429)
Time when the witness must possess the
qualifications
The qualifications and disqualifications of
witnesses are determined as of the time said
witnesses are produced for examination in court or
at the taking of their depositions (Regalado, 2008).
Presumption in favor of competence of a witness
GR:Generally, a person who takes the witness
stand, is presumed to be qualified to testify. A
party who desires to question the competence of a
witness must do so by making an objection as soon
as the facts tending to show incompetency are
apparent (Jones on Evidence, Vol. 3, Sec. 796).
35
XPNs: There is prima facie evidence of
incompetency in the following:
1. The fact that a person has been recently found
of unsound mind by a court of competent
jurisdiction; or
2. That one is an inmate of an asylum for the
insane (Torres v. Lopez, 48 Phil. 772).
Competency vs Credibility
Competency of a witness has reference to the basic
qualifications of a witness as his capacity to
perceive and his capacity to communicate his
perception to others. It also includes the absence
of any of the disqualifications imposed upon a
witness. Hence it is a matter of law or the rules.
Credibility refers to the weight and the
trustworthiness, reliability of the testimony or
believability of the witness and has nothing to do
with law or the rules, but lies with the discretion of
the court.
In deciding the competence of a witness, the court
will not inquire into the trustworthiness of the
witness. Accordingly, a witness who has given
contradicting testimony is still a competent
witness. (Riano 2009, p.250)
Other Factors that Do Not Affect the Competency
of a Witness
GR:
1. religious belief
2. political belief
3. interest in the outcome of the case
4. conviction of a crime
XPN:
1.if provided by law (e.g falsification of a
document, perjury or false testimony are
disqualified from being witnesses to a will)
2. Those who have been convicted of an offense
involving moral turpitude cannot be discharged to
become a State witness (Sec. 17, Rule 119; Sec. 10,
R.A. 6981, UST GOLDEN NOTES);
Oath vis-a-vis Affirmation
An oath signifies that he is swearing to the Creator
to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and that
if he does not, he will later on answer for all the
lies he is guilty of (Riano, 2013), while an
affirmation is a formal declaration of truth in the
absence of swearing to a Creator. It is a declaration
about something to be true.
NOTE: The issue which a judge must resolve before
a witness is allowed to take the stand is whether
the witness understands the nature of an oath,
realizes the moral duty to tell the truth, and
understands the prospects of being punished for a
falsehood. A person is not qualified to be a witness
if he is incapable of understanding the duty to tell
the truth (Riano, 2013)
DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
The following are the disqualifications of a
witness:
1.Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity (Sec. 21, Rule 130);
2. Disqualification by reason of marriage (Sec. 22,
Rule 130);
3. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of
adverse party (Sec. 23, Rule 130); and
4. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication:
a. Marital privilege;
b. Attorney-client privilege;
c. Doctor-patient privilege;
d. Minister-penitent privilege; or
e. Public officer as regards communications
made in official confidence (Sec. 24, Rule
130).
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL
INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY (Sec. 21, Rule 130)
The following persons cannot be witnesses:
1. 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;
2. Children whose mental maturity is such as to
render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of relating
them truthfully (sec. 21 rule 130)
Disqualification by reason of MENTAL INCAPACITY
(par. 1)
REQUISITES:
(a) the person must be incapable of intelligently
making known his perception to others; and
(b) his incapability must exist at the time of his
production for examination.
The test supplied by the Rules of Court is a simple
test: Is the mental condition of the proposed
witness at the
time he is to testify such that he is incapable of
intelligently
making known his perception to others?
To be disqualified by reason of mental incapacity,
the witness must not be capable of making his own
perception known to others at the time he is
produced for examination.
TEST: Is the mental condition of the proposed
witness at the time he is to testify is such that he is
incapable of intelligently making known his
perception to others?
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF IMMATURITY
(par. 2)
REQUISITES:
(a) the mental maturity of the witness must render
him incapable of perceiving the facts respecting
which he
is examined; and
(b) he is incapable of relating his perception
truthfully
To be disqualified by reason of immaturity, the
incompetence of the witness must occur at the
time the witness perceives the event including his
incapability to relate his perceptions truthfully.
COMPETENCY OF CHILD WITNESS
Under the Rule on Examination of a Child witness,
a child witness is:
1. any person who at the time of giving testimony
is below the age of 18 years.
2. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over 18
yrs but is found by the court as unable to fully take
care of himself or protect himself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty,
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.
This is the presumption established by the Rule on
Examinationof a Child Witness (Section 6 of A.M.
No. 004-07-SC) andto rebut the presumption of
competence enjoyed by a child,the burden of proof
lies on the party challenging his
competence(Section 6[b], Rule on Examination of
Child Witness).
The Court may motu proprio or upon motion,
conduct a competency examination of the child
when it finds that there is substantial doubt
existing as to his ability to perceive, remember,
communicate, distinguish from falsehood, or
appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court. (Sec.
6 of Rule in Examination of child witness)
The competency examination of a child witness is
not open to the public. Only the following are
allowed to attendthe examination:
(a) The judge and necessary court personnel;
(b) The counsel for the parties;
(c) The guardian ad litem;
(d) One or more support persons for the child; and
(e) The defendant, unless the court determines
that
competence can be fully evaluated in his absence
(Section
6[c], Rule on Examination of A Child Witness).
Also, the competency examination shall be
conducted only by the judge. If the counsels of the
parties desire to ask questions, they cannot do so
directly. Instead, they are allowed to submit
questions to the judge which he may ask the child
in his discretion. (Ibid.)
37
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE
(MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE or SPOSUAL
IMMUNITY) (Sec. 22, Rule 130)
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 descendant or descendants (Sec.
22, Rule 130).
Requisites for the applicability of spousal
immunity
1. That the spouse for or against whom the
testimony of the other is offered is a party to the
case;
2. That the spouses are legally married
3. That the testimony is offered during the
existence of the marriage
NOTES(RIANO):
1. The spouses must be legally married. Does not
cover cohabitation or common law spouses.
2. As long as the testimony is offered during the
existence of the marriage, it does not matter if the
facts subject of the testimony occurred or came to
the knowledge of the witness-spouse before the
marriage.
3. As soon as the marriange is dissolved, the
immunity does not apply hence testimony may be
offered.
4. Since the wordings of the rule provides that ‘
testify for or against the other’, the rule applies
whether the spouse-witness is a party or not to the
case.
5. The testimony covers not only those adverse to
the spouse, but also to a testimony in favor of the
spouse.
6. Also to extends to criminal or civil cases, since
the rule did not distinguish.
7. The prohibited testimony is one that is given or
offered “during their marriage”.
8. The testimony is prohibited only over the
objection of the affected spouse, or the spouse
against whom the testimony is offered. It is the
latter spouse who has the right to object to the
competency of the spouse-witness. Hence w/o
objection, it can be waived.
9. It covers not only utterances but also production
of documents.
The reasons given for the rule are:
1. There is identity of interests between husband
and wife;
2. If one were to testify for or against the other,
there is consequent danger of perjury;
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and
confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent
domestic disunion and unhappiness; and
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility
there is danger of punishing one spouse through
the hostile testimony of the other (Alvarez vs.
Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005).
Exceptions to spousal immunity
1. Consent is given by the party-spouse or failure to
object;
2. In a civil case filed by one against the other;
3. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants
or ascendants (Sec. 22, Rule 130); or
4. Where the testimony was made after the
dissolution of the marriage (Riano, 2013).
Testimony where spouse is accused with others
In a case where a spouse testifies against his/her
spouse and the latter’s co-accused the
disqualification is between the husband and wife,
but not to the other parties. However, the
testimony cannot be used against the accused-
spouse directly or through the guise of taking
judicial notice of the proceedings in the case w/o
violating the marital disqualification rule. This is an
example of “what cannot be done directly cannot
be done indirectly” (Riano 2009, p. 270, People vs
Quidato)
Marrying the witness
An accused can effectively “seal the lips” of a
witness by marrying the witness. As long as a valid
marriage is in existence at the time of the trial, the
witness-spouse cannot be compelled to testify –
even where the crime charged is against the
witness’ person, and even though the marriage
was entered into for the express purpose of
suppressing the testimony (Herrera, 1999, citing [I]
A.L.R. 2d 649).
Testimony by Estranged Spouse
Since the prohibition lies during the subsistence of
a marriage, this would also cover separation de
facto, as it does not sever the marriange bonds and
the spouses remain legally married to each other.
(Ibid,m p,272, Alvarez vs Ramirez)
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF DEATH OR
INSANITY OF THE ADVERSE PARTY (DEAD MAN’S
STATUTE / SURVIVING PARTY RULE/
SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE) (Sec. 23,
Rule 130)
Parties or assignors 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 (Sec. 23, Rule 130).
Dead Man’s Statute
It is a rule of evidence which disqualifies parties or
assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose
behalf a case is prosecuted against a
representative of a deceased person or his estate,
upon a claim or demand against estate, from
testifying as to any matter of fact occurring before
the death of such person. (TAN, p.178)
It is for the protection of the deceased, where a
claimant is rendered incompetent to testify against
him concerning transactions which happened
during the deceased’s lifetime, for purposes of
enforcing a claim against the deceased’s
representatives or executors. (Riano 2009, p.260)
REQUISITES
1. The defendant in the case is the executor or
administrator or a representative of the deceased
or the person of unsound mind;
2. The suit is upon the claim by the plaintiff against
the estate of said deceased or person of unsound
mind;
3. The witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that
party, or a person in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted; and
4. The subject of the testimony is as to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound
mind (Sec. 23, Rule 130).
Applicability of Dead Man’s Statute
This rule “applies only to a civil case or a special
proceeding over the estate of a deceased or insane
person” (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium,
Vol. II, 2008 Ed., p.743).
Extent of disqualification by reason of death or
insanity of the adverse party
It constitutes only a partial disqualification as the
witness is not completely disqualified but is only
prohibited from testifying on the matters therein
specified (Regalado, 2008).
Who may invoke the protection of the Dead
Man’s Statute
The persons entitled to invoke the protection of
the dead man’s statute are the executor,
administrator and any other representative of a
deceased person, when they are the defendants in
a claim against the estate of the deceased. The
protection may likewise be invoked by a person of
39
unsound mind in a claim filed against him (Riano,
2013).
The following cannot testify as to any matter of
fact occurring before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound
mind:
1. Parties or assignors of parties to a case or
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted;
2. Against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against a
person of unsound mind
Waiver of the protection of the Dead Man’s
Statute
The protection may be waived by:
1. Failing to object to the testimony;
2. Cross-examining the witness on the prohibited
testimony; or
3. Offering evidence to rebut the testimony (Riano,
2013).
Cases not covered by the Dead Man’s Statute
1. The rule has no application to mere witnesses)
who are neither parties to the case, their assignors,
nor persons in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted, nor to a nominal party, nor to officers
and stockholders of a plaintiff corporation
(Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, 84
Phil. 330);
NOTE: The rule is exclusive and cannot be
construed to extend its scope by implication so as
to disqualify persons not mentioned therein. Mere
witnesses who are not included in the above
enumeration are not prohibited from testifying as
to a conversation or transaction between the
deceased and a third person, if he took no active
part therein (Sanson v. CA, G.R. No. 127745, April
22, 2003).
2. When a counterclaim is set up by the
administrator [or executor or representatives] of
the estate, the case is removed from the operation
of the dead man’s statute (Riano, 2013). When it is
the executor or administrator or representatives of
the estates that sets up the counterclaim, the
plaintiff, herein respondent, may testify to
occurrences before the death of the deceased to
defeat the counterclaim (Sunga-Chan v. Chua, G.R.
No. 143340, August 15, 2001);
3. The adverse party is competent to testify to
transactions or communications with the deceased
or incompetent person which were made with an
agent of such person in cases in which the agent is
still alive and competent to testify. But the
testimony of the adverse party must be confined to
those transactions or communications which were
had with the agent (Herrera, 1999, citing Goñi v.
CA, G.R. No. L-27434, September 23, 1986);
4. In land registration cases instituted by the
decedent’s representatives, this prohibition does
not apply as the oppositors are considered
defendants and may, therefore, testify against the
petitioner (Nañagas v. Mun. of San Narciso, 53 Phil.
719). This prohibition does not also apply in
cadastral cases since there is no plaintiff or
defendant therein (Tongco v. Vianzon, G.R. No.
27498, September 20, 1927);
5. The disqualification under this rule is waived if
the defendant does not timely object to the
admission of such evidence or testifies on the
prohibited matters
(Asturias v. CA, G.R. No. L-17895, September 30,
1963) or cross-examines thereon (Tongco v.
Vianzon, supra);
6. The rule will not apply where the plaintiff is the
executor or administrator as representative of the
deceased or if the plaintiff is the person of
unsound mind (Riano, 2013);
7. Where the testimony is intended to prove a
fraudulent transaction of the deceased (Ong Chua
v. Carr, G.R. No. L-29512, January 17, 1929),
provided such fraud is first established by evidence
aliunde (Babao v. Perez, G.R. No. L-8334, December
28, 1957);
8. Negative testimony, that is, testimony that a fact crime committed by
did not occur during the lifetime of the deceased one spouse against
(Mendezona v. Vda. De Goitia, G.R. No. L-31739, the other or the
March 11, 1930); latter’s direct
descendants or
9. Testimony on the present possession by the ascendants
witness of a written instrument signed by the
deceased (4 Martin, op. cit., p. 164), assuch fact The rule prohibits The rule prohibits
exists even after the decendent’s demise testimony that is testimony that is for
(Regalado, 2008); against the estate of or against the party-
a deceased person or spouse (Sec. 22, Rule
10. When the defendants, as heirs of the deceased, against a person of 130).
are sued in their personal capacity (Go Chi Gun v. unsound mind (Sec.
Co Cho, 96 Phil. 622); and 23, Rule 130).

11. In an action against a partnership, plaintiff DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED

partners may testify against a deceased partner
(Fortis v. Gutierrez Hermanos, 6 Phil. 100).
12. Testimonies as to matters which transpired
after the death or insanity of the person. (Riano,
2009 p.263)
13. Testimonies beneficial to the estate of the
deceased or person of unsound mind. (Riano, 2009
p. 263)
COMMUNICATION
Scope
The disqualification by reason of privileged
communication applies to both civil and criminal
cases except as to the doctor-patient privilege,
which is applicable only in civil cases. Unless
waived, the disqualification under Sec. 24 remains
even after the various relationships therein have
ceased to exist.

Privileged Communication:
1. Marital
2. Attorney and client
Dead Man’s Statute Marital 3.Patient and doctor
v. s Disqualification Rule 4. Preist and penitent
5. Public Officer (State Secrets)
Only a partial A complete and (Tan, p.181- 190)
disqualification as the absolute
witness is not disqualification Who may assert the privilege
completely The holder of the privilege, authorized persons and
disqualified but is persons to whom privileged communication were
only prohibited from made may assert the privilege (Herrera, 1999).
testifying on the
matters therein
specified MARITAL PRIVILEGE (SEC. 24(A), RULE 130)

Applies only to a civil GR: Applies to a civil The husband or the wife, during or after the
case or special or criminal case marriage, cannot be examined without the consent
proceeding over the XPN: In a civil case by of the other as to any communication received in
estate of a deceased one spouse against confidence by one from the other during the
or insane person the other, or in a marriage except in a civil case by one against the
criminal case for a other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed
41
by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants (Sec. 24(a), Rule 130).
REQUISITES
1. There must be a valid marriage between the
husband and wife;
2. There is a communication received in confidence
by one from the other;
3. The confidential communication was received
during the marriage (Riano, 2013); and
4. The spouse against whom such evidence is being
offered has not given his or her consent to such
testimony (Regalado, 2008).
Cases when marital privilege is inapplicable
1. In a civil case by one against the other; or
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants
or ascendants (Sec. 24(a), Rule 130).
3. Information acquired by a spouse before the
marriage even if received confidentially will not fall
squarely within the privilege (Riano, 2013).
Other items of communication overheard or in
presence of third parties
GR: Third persons who, without the knowledge of
the spouses, overhear the communication are not
disqualified to testify.
XPN: When there is collusion and voluntary
disclosure to a third party, that third party
becomes an agent and cannot testify (Francisco,
1993).
Confidential Communication
For it to be considered as confidential, it must be
made during and by reason of the marital relations
and is intended not to be shared with others.
Without such intention, the information is not
confidential.
Thus if a third person is present with the
knowledge of the communicating spouse, it is not
covered, and the communication is unprivileged.
If children of the family are present, this likewise
deprives the conversation of protection, unless the
children are too young to understand what is said.
(Riano 2009, p.276)
Marital Disqualification Rule vs Marital Privileged
Communication Rule
1.In Marital Disqualification Rule (MDR), the
prohibition is a testimony for or against the other,
while in Marital Privileged Communication Rule
(MPC), what is prohibited is the examination of a
spouse as to matters received in confidence by one
from the other during the marriage.
2. MDR is broader than MPC. The former includes
facts, occurrences or information even prior to the
marriage unlike the latter, which applies only to
those received during the marriage. The former
applies to any information/facts/occurrences
observed by the other spouse, but the latter
applies only to confidential information.
3. The MDR can no longer be invoked once the
marriage is dissolved, whereas MPC can be invoked
even after the dissolution of marriage.
4. MDR requires that the spouse for or against
whom the testimony is offered is a party to the
action, but this is not required in MPC. (Riano
2009, p.278)
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (SEC. 24(B), RULE
130)
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 (Sec. 24(b), Rule 130).
REQUISITES:
1. There must be a communication made by the
client to the attorney or an advice given by the
attorney to his client;
2. The communication or advice must have been
given in confidence; and
3. The communication or advice must have been
given either in the course of the professional
employment or with a view to professional
employment.
Purpose of Attorney-Client Relationship
To encourage full disclosure by client to her
attorney of all pertinent matters, so as to further
the administration of justice (Herrera, 1999).
Confidential communication
It refers to information transmitted by voluntary
act of disclosure between attorney and client in
confidence and by means which, so far as the client
is aware, discloses the information to no third
person other than one reasonably necessary for
the transmission of the information or the
accomplishment of the purpose for which it was
given (Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108, May 26,
2005).
Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
The privilege is personal and it belongs to the
client. If the client waives the privilege, no one else
including the attorney can invoke it (Riano, 2013,
citing In Re: Young’s Estate, 33 Utah 382, 94 P 731,
732).
Cases when the attorney-client privilege is
inapplicable
The privilege does not apply to communications
which are:
1. Intended to be made public;
2. Intended to be communicated to others;
3. Intended for an unlawful purpose;
4. Received from third persons not acting in behalf
or as agents of the client; or
5. Made in the presence of third parties who are
strangers to the attorney-client relationship
(Regalado, 2008).
Applicability of the rule with regard to the identity
of the client
GR: A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and
refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.
XPNs:
1. Where a strong possibility exists that revealing
the client’s name would implicate the client in the
very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s
advice;
2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil
liability; or
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 for a crime
(Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938,
September 20, 1996).
Last-Link Doctrine
Q: Does the privilege preclude inquiries into the
fact
that the lawyer was consulted?
A: The traditional and still applicable rule is that an
inquiry into the fact of consultation or employment
is not privileged.Under the Last Link Doctrine, Non-
privileged information,such as the identity of the
client, is protected if the revelationof such
information would necessarily reveal privileged
information.
(In re Grand Jury Proceedings [GJ90-2J, 946 2d 746
[11th Cir. 1991]).
Riano Notes:
1. No need for a perfected attorney-client
relationship, it is enough that the communication
or advice be with a view to professional
employment. This extends to preliminary
negotiations.
43
2.The relationship between the attorney and the
client is said to exist where a person employees the
professional services of an attorney or seeks
professional guidance, even though the lawyer
declines to handle the case.
3. There is authority to support the theory that it is
enough if he reasonably believes that the person
consulted is a lawyer, although in fact he is not as
in a case of a detective pretending to be a lawyer.
4. For the privilege to exist, payment of a fee is not
essential.
5. Even if the person is an attorney, and was
consulted as a friend w/o view to professional
employment, it is not covered.
6. The privilege does not extend to
communications where the client’s purpose is the
furtherance of a future intended crime or fraud.
7. The communication must be intended to be
confidential.
8. The privilege is not extended to suits between
the attorney and clients themselves.
9. Generally, the privilege survives the death of the
client. However, when there is an attack on the
validity on the will, communications made to the
attorney on the drawing of the will is not required
to be in secret.
(Riano 2009, pgs. 281 – 286)
PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT PRIVILEGE (SEC. 24(C),
RULE 130)
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 that capacity, and which would blacken
thereputation of the patient (Sec. 24(c), Rule 130).
Purpose of this privilege
The privilege is intended to facilitate and make
safe, full and confidential disclosure by patient to
doctor 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 (Herrera, 1999).
Requisites for the applicability of physician and
patient privilege
1. The privilege is claimed in a civil case;
2. The person against whom the privilege is
claimed is one duly authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
3. Such person acquired the information while he
was attending to the patient in his professional
capacity;
4. The information was necessary to enable him to
act in that capacity; and
5. The information was confidential and, if
disclosed, would blacken the reputation of the
patient (Krohn v. CA, G.R. No. 108854, June 14,
1994, citing Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 91114, September
25, 1992).
Information which cannot be disclosed
1. Any advice given to the client;
2. Any treatment given to the client;
3. Any information acquired in attending such
patient provided that the advice, treatment or
information was made or acquired in a professional
capacity and was necessary to enable him to act in
that capacity; and
4. That the information sought to be disclosed
would tend to blacken the reputation of the
patient (Sec. 24(c), Rule 130).
Waiver of Privilege
The waiver may be made expressly or impliedly.
The waiver may be by a contract as in medical or
life insurance. When there is disclosure by the
patient of the information, there is necessarily, a
waiver. When the patient answers questions on
matters which are supposedly privileged on cross-
examination, the waiver also exists (Riano, 2013).
There could also be waiver by operation of law
(Sec. 4, Rule 28).
Cases when Physician and Patient Privilege is
inapplicable:
The privilege does not apply where:
1. The communication was not given in confidence;
2. The communication is irrelevant to the
professional employment;
3. The communication was made for an unlawful
purpose;
4. The information was intended to be made
public; or
5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by
provisions of contract or law (Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: It is essential that at the time the
communication was made, the professional
relationship is existing, that is, while the doctor
was attending to the patient for curative,
preventive or palliative treatment. It is not
however necessary that the physician-patient
relationship was created through the voluntary act
of the patient. The treatment may have been given
at the behest of another, the patient being in
extremis(Regalado, 2008).
PRIEST/MINISTER-PENITENT PRIVILEGE (SEC.
24(D), RULE 130)
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 (Sec. 24(d), Rule 130).
Requisites for the applicability of the priest-
penitent privilege
1. The confession must have been made to the
priest in his professional character according to the
discipline of the church to which the priest or
minister belongs (Sec. 24(d), Rule 130); and
2. Communications made must be confidential and
must be penitential in character, e.g., under the
seal of the confessional (Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: The privilege also extends not only to a
confession made by the penitent but also to any
advice given by the minister or priest. The
confession and the advice must be made or given
pursuant to the course of discipline of the
denomination or sect to which the minister or
priest belongs (Riano, 2013).
Extent of the priest-penitent privilege
The communication must be made pursuant to
confession of sins. Where the penitent discussed
business arrangements with the priest, the
privilege does not apply (Riano, 2013).
PUBLIC OFFICER AS REGARDS COMMUNICATIONS
MADE IN OFFICIAL CONFIDENCE
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 (Sec. 24(e), Rule 130).
Reason: General grounds of public policy
The right of the people to information on matters
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents and papers
pertaining toofficial acts, transactions, or decisions,
as well as to government research data used as
basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as maybe
provided by law (Sec. 7, Article III, 1987
Constitution).
Requisites for its application of the privilege
1. The holder of the privilege is the government,
acting through a public officer;
2. The communication was given to the public
officer in official confidence;
3. The communication was given during the term
of office of the public officer or afterwards;
4. The public interest would suffer by the
disclosure of the communication (Herrera, 1999).
Cases when the privilege is inapplicable
45
If what is asked is among the following, disclosure
will be compelled:
1. Useful evidence to vindicate the innocence of an
accused person;
2. To lessen risk of false testimony;
3. Essential to the proper disposition of the case; or
4. The benefit to be gained by a correct disposition
of the litigation was greater than any injury which
could inure to the relation by a disclosure of
information (Francisco, 1996).
NOTE: The disclosure or non-disclosure is not
dependent on the will of the officer but on the
determination by a competent court (Riano, 2013).
Executive privilege
It is the power of the government to withhold
information from the public, the courts, and the
Congress.
There are certain types of information which the
government may withhold from the public like
military, diplomatic and other national security
secrets (Riano, 2013).
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE (SEC. 25, RULE
130)
No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other
direct descendants. (Sec. 25, Rule 130). (Bar 1998)
Under the Family Code, no descendant shall be
compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his
parents and grandparents. As an exception, the
descendant may be compelled to give his
testimony in the following instances:
1. When such testimony is indispensable in a crime
committed against said descendant; or
2. In a crime committed by one parent against the
other (Riano, 2013, citing Art. 215, Family Code).
OTHER PRIVILEGED MATTERS
1. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any
proceeding concerning any information, statement,
or opinion received from the child in the course of
serving as guardian ad litem, unless the court finds
it necessary to promote the best interests of the
child (Sec. 5(e), Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness);
2. Editors may not be compelled to disclose the
source of published news(R.A. 53, as amended by
R.A. 1477);
3. Votersmay not be compelled to disclose for
whom they voted (Air Philippines v. Pennswell, Inc.,
G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007);
4. Trade secrets (Ibid.);
5. Information contained in tax census returns
(Ibid.);
6. Bank deposits(Sec. 2, R.A. 1405);
7. Information and statements made at conciliation
proceedings (Art. 233, Labor Code);
8. Institutions covered by the law and its officers
and employees who communicate a suspicious
transaction to the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(Sec. 6 of R.A. 9194 amending Sec. 9 of R.A. 9160);
and
9. The prosecutor may not be compelled to present
an informer to protect his identity and when his
testimony would be merely corroborative and
cumulative (Herrera, 1999).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
GR: The examination of witnesses presented in a
trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and
under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a
different mode of answer, the answers of the
witness shall be given orally (Sec. 1, Rule 132).
NOTE: Open court examination allows the court
the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witness and also allows the adverse party to cross-
examine the witness (Riano, 2013).
XPNs:
The testimony of the witness may not be given in
open court in the following cases:
1. In civil cases, by depositions pursuant to and
under the limitations of Rules 23 and 24 (Regalado,
2008);
2. In criminal cases, by depositions or conditional
examinations, pursuant to Secs. 12-15, Rule 119,
and Sec. 1, Rule 123, or by the records of the
preliminary investigation, under the circumstances
of Sec. 1(f) of Rule 115 (Regalado, 2008);
3. In criminal cases covered by the Rule on
Summary Procedure, the affidavits of the parties
shall constitute the direct testimonies of the
witnesses who executed the same (Riano, 2013,
citing Sec. 15, Rule on Summary Procedure);
4. In civil cases covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure, the parties are merely required to
submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other
pieces of evidence on the factual issues, together
with their position papers, setting forth the law
and the facts relied upon (Riano, 2013, citing Sec.
9, Rule on Summary Procedure); and
5. Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the judicial
affidavit shall take the place of direct testimonies
of witnesses (Sec. 2, Judicial Affidavit Rule).
Oath
It is an outward pledge made under an immediate
sense of responsibility to God or a solemn appeal
to the Supreme Being in attestation of the truth of
some statement (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., p.
966).
NOTE: The object of the rule is to affect the
conscience of the witness to compel him to speak
the truth, and also to lay him open to punishment
for perjury if he testifies falsely.
In order that one may be competent as a witness,
it is not necessary that he has a definite knowledge
of the difference between his duty to tell the truth
after being sworn and before, or that he is able to
state it, but it is necessary that he be conscious
that there is a difference (People v. Bisda, G.R. No.
140895, July 17, 2003).
Affirmation
It is a substitute for an oath and is solemn and
formal declaration that the witness will tell the
truth (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., p. 55).
NOTE: The option to take either an oath or
affirmation is given to the witness and not to the
court (Riano, 2013).
Waiver of the right to have the witness sworn
The right to have the witness sworn may be
waived. If a party admits proof to be taken in a
case without an oath, after the testimony has been
acted upon by the court, and made the basis of a
judgment, such party can no longer object to the
admissibility of the testimony. He will be deemed
to have waived the objection. (People v. Bisda, G.R.
No. 140895, July 17, 2003).
Matters to be recorded during trial
The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing,
including:
1. Questions propounded to a witness and his
answers thereto; and
2. The statements made by the judge or any of the
parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the
case (Sec. 2, Rule 132).
NOTE: These shall be recorded by means of
shorthand or stenotype or by other means of
recording found suitable by the court (Ibid.).
Exclusion and separation of witnesses
GR: The judge may exclude from the court any
witness not at the time under examination, so that
he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses.
The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept
separate and to be prevented from conversing with
one another until all shall have been examined
(Sec. 15, Rule 132).
XPNs: The following may not be excluded:
1. An accused in a criminal case as it is his
constitutional right to be present at all stages of
the proceedings;
2. Parties to the litigation will generally not be
excluded, their presence usually being necessary to
a proper management of the case;
47
3. Party in interest though not a party to the record
and an agent of such party, if the presence of such
agent is necessary;
4. Officers and complaining witnesses are
customarily excepted from the rule unless the
circumstances warrant otherwise; and
5. Expert witnesses are not excluded until
production of evidence bearing upon the question
or subject as to which they have been called or
unless liable to be influenced by the testimony of
the other witnesses (Herrera, 1999).
Recantation of a witness
Courts must not automatically exclude the original
statement based solely on the recantation. It
should determine which statement should be given
credence through a comparison of the original and
the new statements, applying the general rules of
evidence (PLDT v. Bolso, G.R. No. 159701, August
17, 2007).
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
Rights of a witness
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
provided by law (right against self-incrimination);
NOTE: This refers to immunity statutes wherein the
witness is granted immunity from criminal
prosecution for offenses admitted in his testimony,
e.g. under Sec. 8, R.A. 1379, the law providing for
the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property; and
under P.D. 749, in prosecutions for bribery and
graft (Regalado, 2008).
5. Not to give an answer, which will tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it be to the very fact
at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed. But a witness must answer to
the fact of his previous final conviction for an
offense (Sec. 3, Rule 132).
Obligation of a witness in open court
GR: A witness must answer questions, although his
answer may tend to establish a claim against him
(Sec. 3, Rule 132).
XPNs: A witness may validly refuse to answer
under the following:
1. Right against self-incrimination – If his answer
will tend to subject him to punishment for an
offense; or
NOTE: The constitutional assurance of the right
against self-incrimination is a prohibition against
the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from the accused. It is simply a
prohibition against legal process to extract from
the accused’s own lips, against his will, admission
of his guilt (Ong v. Sandiganbayan & Office of the
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 126858, September 16,
2005).
2. Right against self-degradation – If his answer will
have a direct tendency to degrade his character.
XPNs to the XPN: A witness may not invoke the
right against self-degradation if:
1. Such question is directed to the very fact at issue
or to a fact from which the fact at issue would be
presumed; or
2. If it refers to his previous final conviction for an
offense (Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: A witness invited by the Senate who refused
to testify and arrested for contempt, cannot invoke
the right against self-incrimination in a petition for
certiorari and prohibition. The said right may be
invoked only when the incriminating question is
being asked, since he has no way of knowing in
advance the nature or effect of the questions to be
asked of him. That this right may possibly be
violated or abused is no ground for denying the
Senate Committees their power of inquiry (In Re:
Sabio, G.R. Nos. 174340, 174318 & 174177,
October 17, 2006).
Refusal of a witness to take the witness stand
GR: A witness may not refuse to take the witness
stand.
XPNs:
1. An accused in a criminal case; or
2. A party who is not an accused in a criminal case
is allowed not to take the witness stand – in
administrative cases/proceedings that partook of
the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to
a criminal proceeding. As long as the suit is criminal State witness may be liable for contempt or
in nature, the party thereto can altogether decline criminal prosecution
to take the witness stand. It is not the character of A State witness may be liable for contempt or
the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings criminal prosecution. If he fails or refuses to testify
that controls (Rosete, et. al. v. Lim, et. al., G.R. No. or to continue to testify without just cause when
136051, June 8, 2006). lawfully obliged to do so, he shall be prosecuted for
contempt. If he testifies falsely or evasively, he
Right against self-incrimination not available shall be liable to prosecution for perjury. If a State
under the Witness Protection Program witness fails or refuses to testify, or testifies falsely
A: Any witness admitted into the program of the or evasively, or violates any condition
Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act accompanying such immunity without just cause,
cannot refuse to testify or give evidence or as determined in a hearing by the proper court, his
produce books, documents, records or writings immunity shall be removed and he shall be subject
necessary for the prosecution of the offense or to contempt or criminal prosecution. Moreover,
offenses for which he has been admitted into the the enjoyment of all rights and benefits under R.A.
Program on the ground of the constitutional right 6981 shall be deemed terminated. The witness
against self-incrimination but he shall enjoy may, however, purge himself of the contumacious
immunity from criminal prosecution and cannot be acts by testifying at any appropriate stage of the
subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any proceedings (Sec. 13, R.A. 6981).
transaction, matter or thing concerning his
compelled testimony or books, documents, records Xxxx
and writings produced (Sec. 14, R.A. 6981).
Persons eligible to the Witness Protection, Admission Confession
Security and Benefit Program
A statement of fact A statement of fact which
Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge
which does not involves an acknowledgment
or information on the commission of a crime and
involve an of guilt or liability
has testified or is testifying or about to testify
acknowledgment of
before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before
guilt or liability
any investigating authority may be admitted
provided that:
May be made by third Can be made only by the
1. The offense in which his testimony will be used
persons and in certain party himself and, in some
is a grave felony as defined under the Revised
cases, are admissible instances, are admissible
Penal Code, or its equivalent under special laws;
against a party against his co-accused
2. His testimony can be substantially corroborated
in its material points;
Applies to both Applies only to criminal cases
3. He or any member of his family within the
criminal and civil cases
second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity is
May be express or Must be express
subjected to threats to life or bodily injury or there
tacit
is a likelihood that he will be killed, forced,
intimidated, harassed or corrupted to prevent him
from testifying, or to testify falsely, or evasively,
NOTE: An admission, in general sense, includes
because or on account of his testimony; and
confessions, the former being a broader term
4. He is not a law enforcement officer, even if he
because, accordingly, a confession is also an
would be testifying against the other law
“admission… by the accused of the fact charged
enforcement officers. In such a case, only the
against him or of some fact essential to the charge”
immediate members of his family may avail
(4 Wigmore, Sec. 1050). A confession is a specific
themselves of the protection provided for under
type of admission which refers only to an
the Act (Sec. 3, R.A. 6981).
49

acknowledgement of guilt. As used, the term On principle of good faith and mutual convenience,
admission refers to an acknowledgement of facts a man’s own acts are binding upon himself and are
which, although may be incriminating, falls short of evidence against him. So are his conduct and
an admission of guilt (Riano, 2013). declarations. It would not only be rightly
inconvenient but also manifestly unjust, that a man
should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized
Judicial admission vs. Extrajudicial admission strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by
the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or
Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial conduct be used as evidence against him (People v.
Admissions Guittap, G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003).
Those made in the Those made out of Two (2) branches of res inter alios acta rule
course of the court or in a judicial 1. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
proceeding in the proceeding other act, declaration, or omission of another (Sec. 28,
same case than the one under Rule 130); (Bar 2003)
consideration 2. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
Do not require proof Regarded as evidence thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he
and may be and must be offered did or did not do the same or similar thing at
contradicted only by as such, otherwise another time (Sec. 34, Rule 130).
showing that it was the court will not
made through consider it in deciding Exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule (first
palpable mistake or the case. branch):
that no such 1. Admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec. 29, Rule
admission was made 130);
(Sec. 4, Rule 129). 2. Admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 30, Rule
Judicial admissions Requires formal offer 130); and
need not be offered for it to be considered 3. Admission by privies (Sec. 31, Rule 130).
in evidence since it is
not evidence. It is NOTE: The rule has reference to extrajudicial
superior to evidence declarations. Hence, statements made in open
and shall be court by a witness implicating persons aside from
considered by the him are admissible as declarations from one who
court as established. has personal knowledge of the facts testified to
Conclusive upon the Rebuttable (Riano, 2013).
admitter NOTE: The testimony of the accused against his co-
Admissible even if Not admissible if self- accused in open court is considered as admissibile
self-serving serving testimony and not subject of the res inter alios acta
Subject to cross- Not subject to cross- rule since such testimony is subject to cross
examination examination examination.

Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
This principle literally means “things done between
strangers ought not to injure those who are not
parties to them” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.;
Dynamic Signmaker Outdoor Advertising Services,
Inc. v. Potongan, G.R. No. 156589, June 27, 2005).
Reason for the rule on res inter alios acta
ADMISSION BY A PARTY
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him
(Sec. 26, Rule 130).
Requisites for the admissibility of an admission
1. The act, declaration or omission must have been
made by a party or by one by whom he is legally
bound;
2. The admission must be as to a relevant fact; and
3. The admission may only be given in evidence
against him (Ibid.; Herrera, 1999).
Classifications of Admissions
Express It is a positive statement or
act.
Implied It is one which may be
inferred from the declarations
or acts of a person.
Judicial When made in the course of a
judicial proceeding.
Extrajudicial When made out of court or
even in a proceeding other
than the one under
consideration.
Adoptive It is a party’s reaction to a
statement or action by
another person when it is
reasonable to treat the party’s
reaction as an admission of
something stated or implied
by the other person. A third
person’s statement becomes
the admission of the party
embracing or espousing it.
Adoptive admission may occur
when a party:
1. Expressly agrees to or
concurs in an oral statement
made by another;
2. Hears a statement and later
on essentially repeats it;
3. Utters an acceptance or
builds upon the assertion of
another;
4. Replies by way of rebuttal
to some specific points raised
by another but ignores further
points which he or she has
heard the other make; or
5. Reads and signs a written
statement made by another
(Republic v. Kendrick
Development Corp., G.R. No.
149576, August 8, 2006).
ADMISSION BY A THIRD PARTY
GR: The act, declaration or omission made out of
court of a party as to a relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him but may not be given in
evidence against another person.
XPN: The act or omission of one party made out of
court may be used as evidence against another
when its admission is made by:
1. A partner;
2. An agent;
3. A joint owner;
4. A joint debtor;
5. A person jointly interested with the party;
6. A conspirator;
7. A privy or successor in interest (Suarez and De la
Banda, 2006).
ADMISSION BY A 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 (Sec. 29, Rule 130).
Requisites for an admission of a partner to bind
his co-partners or for an agent to bind his
principal
1. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of
the party must be within the scope of his authority;
2. The admission was made during the existence of
the partnership or agency; and
3. The existence of the partnership or agency is
proven by independent evidence other than such
act or declaration (Ibid.). The Articles of
Incorporation or a Special Power of Attorney may
be presented for such purpose (Suarez and De la
Banda, 2000).
NOTE: The same rule applies to an act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor or other
person jointly interested with the party (Sec. 29,
Rule 130).
51
Dissolved Partnership
GR: Admissions made after a partnership has been
dissolved do not fall within the exception because
such are made when the partnership ceased to
exist.
XPN: Where the admissions are made in
connection with the winding up of the partnership
affairs, said admissions are still admissible as the
partner is acting as an agent of his co-partner in
said winding up (Regalado, 2008
ADMISSION BY A 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 (Sec. 30, Rule 130).
Conspiracy
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it (Herrera, 1999).
NOTE: Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one is
the act of all. The statement therefore of one may
be admitted against the other co-conspirators as
an exception to the rule of res inter alios acta
(Riano, 2013).
Requisites of an admission by a conspirator
1. The declaration or act be made or done during
the existence of the conspiracy;
2. The declaration or act must relate to the
purpose and object of the conspiracy; and
3. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence
other than the declaration or act (evidence
aliunde) (Sec. 30, Rule 130).
NOTE: This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or
admission and not to testimony at trial where the
party adversely affected has the opportunity to
cross-examine the witness (People vs. Baharan,
G.R. No. L-188314, January 10, 2011).
Self-serving declaration
It is one which has been made extra-judicially by
the party to favor his interest. It is not admissible in
evidence because they are inherently
untrustworthy, and would open the door to fraud
and fabrication of testimony (Lichauco v. Atlantic
Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, 84 Phil. 330; People
v. Demiar, 108 Phil. 651).
NOTE: Self-serving evidence are inadmissible
because the adverse party is not given the
opportunity for cross-examination, and their
admission would encourage fabrication of
testimony (Hernandez v. CA, G.R. No. 104874,
December 14, 1993).
Statements in affidavits are not sufficient to prove
the existence of agricultural tenancy. It is self-
serving. It will not suffice to prove consent of the
owner. Independent evidence is necessary
(Rodriguez v. Salvador, G.R. No. 171972, June 8,
2011).
Extrajudicial admissions made after the
conspiracy had terminated
GR: Extrajudicial admissions made by a conspirator
after the conspiracy had terminated and even
before trial are not admissible against the co-
conspirator.
XPNs:
1. If made in the presence of the co-conspirator
who expressly or impliedly agreed therein;
2. Where the facts in said admission are confirmed
in the individual extrajudicial confessions made by
the co-conspirator after their apprehension;
3. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of
the witness; or
4. As circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of the co-conspirator’s participation in
the offense (Regalado, 2008).
When extrajudicial admission becomes a judicial
admission
While it is true that statements made by a
conspirator against a co-conspirator are admissible
only when made during the existence of the
conspiracy, if the declarant repeats the statement
in court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a
judicial admission, making the testimony
admissible as to both conspirators (People v.
Baharan, G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011).
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 (Sec. 31, Rule 130).
Privies
They refer to persons who are partakers or have an
interest in any action or thing, or any relation to
another (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.).
Requisites of an admission by privies
1. One (successor in interest) derives title to
property from another (predecessor in interest)
through any legal means of transfer
2. A statement, act or declaration is made by the
predecessor in interest in relation to the property
and while holding the title thereof
3. Said statement, act or declaration is evidence
against his successor in interest (Sec. 31, Rule 130;
Suarez and De la Banda, 2006).
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
There is admission by silence when a party does or
says nothing when he hears or observes an act or
declaration made in his presence when such 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. Such may be given in
evidence against him (Sec. 32, Rule 130).
Requisites of an admission by silence
1. He must have heard or observed the act or
declaration of the other person;
2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it
(People v. Ranario, 49 Phil. 220);
3. He must have understood the statement;
4. He must have an interest to object, such that he
would naturally have done so, if the statement was
not true;
5. The facts were within his knowledge; and
6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn
from his silence is material to the issue (People v.
Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060, July 20, 1978; Sec. 32,
Rule 130; Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: The rule on admission by silence does not
apply when a person is under an official
investigation. For the silence of a person under a
custodial investigation for the commission of an
offense should not be construed as an admission
by silence because a person has the right to remain
silent and to be informed of that right (Sec. 12, Art.
III, 1987 Constitution; Riano, 2009). However, if it is
not the police investigators who confronted the
accused but the owner of a carnapped vehicle, the
silence of one after being implicated by the other
accused serves as an admission by silence as he did
not refute the statements of his co-accused despite
having heard of them (People v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No.
138470, April 1, 2003).
PRINCIPLE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION
It is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by
another person when it is reasonable to treat the
party’s reaction as an admission of something
stated or implied by the other person. The basis for
admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that
arising from the ratification or adoption by the
party of the statements which the other person
had made (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-
15, April 3, 2001).
NOTE: One good example of adoptive admission is
the alleged admissions made by President Estrada
when his options had dwindled when, according to
the Angara Diary, the Armed Forces withdrew its
support from him as President and Commander-in-
Chief. Thus, Angara had to allegedly ask Senate
President Pimentel to adviseEstrada to consider
the option of “dignified exit or resignation.”
Estrada did not object to the suggested option but
simply said he could never leave the country.
According to the court, his silence on this and other
related suggestions can be taken as adoptive
admissions by him (Ibid.).
CONFESSIONS
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 (Sec. 33, Rule 130).
Requisites for the admissibility of a confession
53
1. It must involve an express and categorical
acknowledgement of guilt (U.S. v. Corrales, 28 Phil.
362);
2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal
offense (U.S. v. Flores, 26 Phil. 262);
3. It must have been given voluntarily (People v.
Nishishima, 57 Phil. 26);
4. It must have been intelligently made (Bilaan v.
Cusi, G.R. No. L-18179, June 29, 1962), the accused
realizing the importance or legal significance of his
act (U.S. v. Agatea, 40 Phil. 596); and
5. There must have been no violation of Sec. 12,
Art. III, 1987 Constitution (Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: A confession to a person, who is not a police
officer, is admissible in evidence. The declaration
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or
of any offense necessarily included therein, may be
given in evidence against the declarant. Such
admissions are not covered by Secs. 12 (1) and (3),
Article III, 1987 Constitution, because they were
not extracted while he was under custodial
investigation (People v. Davao, et al., G.R. No.
174660, May 30, 2011).
6. It must be in writing and signed by such person
in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s
absence, upon a valid waiver and in the presence
of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters,
his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal
judge, district school supervisor or priest or
minister of the gospel as chosen by him (Sec. 2(d),
R.A. 7438).
CLASSIFICATION OF CONFESSION
Judicial - One made by the accused before an open
court in which the case is pending and in the
course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself,
can sustain conviction and is admissible against
one’s co-accused. It is governed by Secs. 1, 3 & 4 of
Rule 116.
Extrajudicial - One made in any other place or
occasion other than the court where the case is
pending and cannot sustain a conviction unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. It is
generally binding only upon the confessant and is
not admissible against his co-accused. It is
governed by Sec. 33 of Rule 130 (Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: If the accused admits having committed the
act in question but alleges a justification therefor,
such as absence of criminal intent, the same is
merely an admission (Ibid.).
Admissibility of extrajudicial confessions
GR: An extrajudicial confession is not admissible
against the confessor’s co-accused. Said confession
is hearsay evidence and violative of the res inter
alios acta rule.
XPN: It may be admitted in evidence against his co-
accused in the following cases:
1. In case of implied acquiescence of the co-
accused to the extrajudicial confession;
2. In case of interlocking confessions;
3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by
the confessant after being apprised of such
confession;
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the
crime which was confessed by one of the accused
and said confession is used only as corroborating
evidence;
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial
evidence to show the probability of participation
by the co-conspirator;
6. When the confessant testified for his co-
defendant; and
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial
confession is corroborated by other evidence on
record (Regalado, 2008).
Requirements for an admission of guilt of an
accused during a custodial investigation to be
admitted in evidence
1. The admission must be voluntary (Sec. 12(1),
1987 Constitution);
2. The admission must be in writing (R.A. 7438);
3. The admission must be made with the assistance
of competent, independent counsel (Sec. 12, 1987
Constitution);
4. The admission must be express (People vs.
Prinsipe, G.R. No. 135862, May 2, 2002);
5. In case the accused waives his rights to silence
and to counsel, such waiver must be in writing,
executed with the assistance of competent,
independent counsel (R.A. 7438).
Doctrine of Interlocking Confessions
It states that extrajudicial confessions
independently made without collusion which are
identical with each other in their essential details
and corroborated by other evidence against the
persons implicated, are admissible to show the
probability of the latter’s actual participation in the
commission of the crime (People v. Mulit, G.R. No.
181043, October 8, 2008).
SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE, 2nd branch of the Res
Inter Allos Acta
GR: 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 similar thing at
another time (Sec. 34, Rule 130). This is also
referred to as the “Propensity Rule.”(Bar 2002)
XPNs: Evidence of similar or previous acts may be
received to prove the following:
1. Specific intent;
2. Knowledge;
3. Identity;
4. Plan;
5. System;
6. Scheme;
7. Habit;
8. Custom;
9. Usage; and
10. The like (Ibid.).
Purpose of the rule
Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the
defendant to meet allegations that are not
mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his
defense, raises a variety of relevant issues, and
diverts the attention of the court from the issues
immediately before it. Hence, the evidentiary rule
guards the practical inconvenience of trying
collateral issues and protracting the trial, and
prevents surprise or other mischief prejudicial to
litigants (Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 126713, July 27,
1998).
HEARSAY RULE
It states that a witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of based on his personal
knowledge or those which are derived from his
own perception (Sec. 36, Rule 130)
It also includes all assertions where, though
derived from personal knowledge, the adverse
party is not given an opportunity to cross-examine
(Herrera, 1999).
Hearsay evidence can be defined as evidence that
is derived from the testimony of a witness who has
not personal knowledge of the events being
inquired into. (Bar 1999)
Elements of hearsay evidence
1. There must be an out-of-court statement; and
2. The statement made out of court, is repeated
and offered by the witness in court to prove the
truth of the matters asserted by the statement
(Riano, 2013).
NOTE: Newspaper clippings are hearsay and of no
evidentiary value at all whether objected to or not,
unless offered for a purpose other than proving the
truth of the matter asserted (Feria v. CA, G.R. No.
122954, February 15, 2000).
Medical certificates cannot be admitted in the
absence of the testimony of the physician who
examined the complaint for alleged torture
wounds.
Affidavits are inadmissible unless the affiants
themselves are placed in the witness stand to
testify therefrom.
Statements made through an interpreter
GR: Statements made through an interpreter are
considered hearsayif a witness is offered to testify
to the statements of another person, spoken in a
language not understood by him, but translated for
him by an interpreter, such witness is not qualified,
because he does not speak from personal
knowledge. All that he can know as to the
testimony is from the interpretation thereof which
is in fact given by another person.
XPNs: In cases where the interpreter had been
selected:
55
1. By common consent of the parties endeavoring
to converse;
2. By a party against whom the statements of the
interpreter where offered in evidence (Principal-
Agent Rule).
RATIONALE FOR HEARSAY RULE
There is no opportunity to cross-examine the
outside declarant.
Double hearsay
It is a testimony of a person with respect to what
was told him by one who was not an eyewitness to
the crime but who obtained knowledge thereof
only from the alleged victim (People v. Manhuyod,
Jr., G.R. No. 124676, May 20, 1998).
Classification of out-of-court statements:
1. Hearsay – Its probative force depends, in whole
or in part, on the competency and credibility of
some persons other than the witness by whom it is
sought to produce it. It is inadmissible as evidence
when the purpose for introducing the out-of-court
statement is to prove the truth of the facts
asserted therein (Estrada v. Desierto, supra).
2. Non-hearsay – This occurs when the purpose for
introducing the statement is not to prove the truth
of the facts asserted therein but only the making of
the statements and are admissible in evidence
when the making of the statement is relevant.
These are the so-called independently relevant
statements (Herrera, 1999).
3. Exceptions to the hearsay rule – Those which are
hearsay but are considered as exceptions to the
hearsay rule and are therefore admissible (Secs.
37-47, Rule 130).
Independently relevant statements
These are statements which are relevant
independently of whether they are true or not.
They are neither hearsay nor an exception to the
hearsay rule as the purpose thereof is not to prove
the truth of the declaration or document (Estrada
v. Desierto, supra).It merely proves the fact that a
statement was made and not the truth of the fact
asserted in the statement.
Classification of independently relevant
statements
1. Those statements which are the very facts in
issue;
2. Those statements which are circumstantial
evidence of the fact in issue. It includes the
following:
a. Statements of a person showing his state
of mind, that is, his mental condition,
knowledge, belief, intention, ill-will and
other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his
physical condition, as illness and the like;
c. Statements of a person from which an
inference may be made as to the state of
mind of another, i.e., the knowledge,
belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of
the latter;
d. Statements which may identify the date,
place and person in question; and
e. Statements showing the lack of
credibility of a witness (Ibid.).
Non-human evidence
It is the testimony of a witness as to statements
made by a non-human declarant (e.g. machines
and computers). It does not violate the rule on
hearsay, hence not covered by the Rule. Machines
and animals, unlike humans, lack conscious
motivation to tell falsehoods. The workings of the
machines can be explained by human witnesses
who may then be cross-examined (Herrera, 1999).
EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE
1. Dying declaration (Sec. 37);
2. Declaration against interest (Sec. 38);
3. Act or declaration about pedigree (Sec. 39);
4. Entries in the course of business (Sec. 43);
5. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
(Sec. 47);
6. Family reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree (Sec. 40);
7. Common reputation (Sec. 41);
8. Parts of res gestae (Sec. 42);
9. Entries in official records (Sec. 44);
10. Commercial lists and the like (Sec. 45);
11. Learned treatises (Sec. 46);
NOTE: Items 1 to 5 require death or unavailability
of declarant.
It is not correct to say that the exceptions to the
hearsay rule are not hearsay. They are hearsay
evidence but they are deemed admissible by
reason of necessity and trustworthiness (Riano,
2013).
Reason for admissibility
They are admissible by reason of relevancy,
necessity and trustworthiness (Estrada vs. Desierto,
supra).
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 (Sec. 37,
Rule 130
These are ante mortem statements made by a
person after the mortal wound has been inflicted
under the belief that the death is certain, stating
the fact concerning the cause of and the
circumstances surrounding the attack (Herrera,
1999).
NOTE: Where the elements of both a dying
declaration and a statement as part of the res
gestae are present, the statement may be
admitted as a dying declaration and at the same
time as part of res gestae(People vs. Gado, G.R. No.
129556, November, 11, 1998).
Requisites for the admissibility of a dying
declaration
1. The declaration is one made by a dying person;
2. The declaration was made by said dying person
under a consciousness of his impending death;
3. The declaration refers to the cause and
circumstances surrounding the death of the
declarant and not of anyone else;
4. The declaration is offered in a case wherein the
declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry
(Geraldo v. People, G.R. No. 173608, November 20,
2008);
5. The declarant is competent as a witness had he
survived (Ibid.);
6. That the statement is complete in itself –
“Doctrine of Completeness” (People v. De Joya,
G.R. No. 75028, November 8, 1991); and
7. The declarant should have died (if he survives,
his declaration may be admissible as part of the res
gestae) (Riano, 2013).
Factors in determining whether the declarant is
conscious of his impending death
1. The words or statements of the declarant on the
same occasion;
2. His conduct at the time the declaration was
made; and
3. The serious nature of his wounds as would
necessarily engender a belief on his part that he
would not survive therefrom (Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: The dying declaration of the deceased is not
admissible as an ante-mortem declaration when
the deceased was in doubt as to whether he would
die or not. It may, however, be admitted as part of
res gestae when it is made immediate after a
startling occurrence(People of the Philippines v.
Laquinon, G.R. No. L-45470, February 28, 1985).
Assailing a dying declaration
The declaration may be attacked in the same
manner as one would do a testimony in open
court. The declarant himself may be impeached
through the normal methods provided for under
the rules.
DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
The declaration made by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact is 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
ininterest and against third persons (Sec. 38, Rule
130).(Bar 2007)
These are ante litem motam statements made by a
person who is neither a party nor in privity with a
party to the suit. Such are considered secondary
57

evidence and admissible only when the declarant is

already dead or unavailable to testify as a witness Must have been May be made at any
and may be admitted against himself or successors- made ante litem time, before or during
in-interest and against third persons. motam, i.e. before the trial.
the controversy
May be admitted Used only against the
Reason for the admissibility of declaration against against himself or party admitting
interest successors-in-interest
Necessity, as such declaration, act, or omission is and against third
frequently the only mode of proof available and persons
trustworthiness, because of the first presumption
that men will neither falsify nor commit mistakes
when such falsehood or mistake would be ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
prejudicial to their own pecuniary interest, and
because of the fact that any fraudulent motive for The act or declaration of a person deceased, or
making the statement may be shown. unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
Requisites of declaration against interest: another person related to him by birth or marriage,
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify; may be received in evidence where it occurred
before the controversy, and the relationship
NOTE: The inability to testify must be serious. between the two persons is shown by evidence
2. Declaration relates to a fact against the interest other than such act or declaration (Sec. 39, Rule
of the declarant; 130).
3. At the time he made said declaration, he was Pedigree
aware that the same was contrary to his interest; It includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,
and marriage, death, the dates when and the places
4. Declarant had no motive to falsify and believed where the facts occurred and the names of the
such declaration to be true. relatives. It also embraces facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree (Ibid.).
NOTE: The relationship between the declarant and
Declaration against interest vs. Admission against the person subject of the inquiry must be
interest legitimate unless the issue is the legitimacy itself.
There is no provision as to the extent of degree of
Declaration against Admission against relationship.
Interest Interest Reason for admissibility
Made by a person Made by a party to a Necessity and trustworthiness. Necessity since the
who is neither a party litigation or by one in facts about pedigree are usually those which
nor in privity with a privity with or occurred many years before the trial and known
party to the suit is a identified in legal only to a few persons. Trustworthiness since these
secondary evidence. interest with such are matters which members of a family are
party. presumed to be interested in ascertaining the
Secondary evidence is Primary evidence is truth.
admissible only when admissible whether Requisites for the admissibility of acts or
the declarant is or not the declarant is declarations about pedigree
already dead or available as a witness. 1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify;
unavailable to testify 2. The pedigree should be in issue
as a witness.
3. The declarant must be a relative of the person
Exception to the Covered by the whose pedigree is in question, either by birth or
hearsay rule hearsay rule marriage;
4. The declaration must be made ante litem motam concerned must be a member of the family of said
or before the controversy occurred; and person either by consanguinity or affinity (Sec. 40,
5. The relationship between the declarant and the Rule 130).
person whose pedigree is in question must be
shown by evidence other than such act or How to establish family reputation or tradition
declaration (Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, with respect to one’s pedigree
March 3, 2004). 1. Through testimony in open court of a witness
NOTE: Such declarations are natural expressions of who must be a member of the family either by
persons who must know the truth. Although consanguinity or affinity;
hearsay, it is best that the nature of the case 2. Through entries in:
admits and because greater evil might arise from a. Family bible;
the rejection of such proof than from its admission. b. Family books or charts;
c. Engravings on rings; or
d. Family portraits and the like.
FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING
PEDIGREE
Sec. 39 (act or declaration about pedigree) v. Sec.
The reputation or tradition existing in a family 40 (family reputation regarding pedigree)
previous to the controversy, in respect to the
pedigree of any one of its members, may be
received in evidence if the witness testifying Declaration about Section 40
thereon be also a member of the family, either by pedigree Family reputation or
consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or tradition regarding
other family books or charts, engravings on rings, pedigree
family portraits and the like, may be received as Act or declaration Family reputation or
evidence of pedigree (Sec. 40, Rule 130). (Bar 2000) about pedigree tradition regarding
pedigree
The declarant is the witness himself and a member Witness need not be Witness is a member
of the family. The witness is the one to whom the a member of the of the family
fact relates, it is not necessary for him to establish family
by independent evidence his relationship to the Relation of the The witness is the
family. declarant and the one to whom the fact
person subject of the relates, it is not
Reason for admissibility inquiry must be necessary for him to
These are admissible by reason of necessity since established by establish by
tradition is often the sole method by which proof independent independent
of matters of pedigree can be obtained. evidence evidence his
Requisites for the admissibility of family relationship to the
reputation or tradition regarding pedigree family (Francisco,
1. There is controversy in respect to the pedigree 1992).
of any member of the family; Testimony is about Testimony is about
2. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of what the declarant family reputation or
the person concerned existed previous to the has said concerning tradition covering
controversy; the pedigree of the matters of pedigree
3. The statement is about the reputation or family
tradition of the family in respect to the pedigree of
any member of the family; and
4. The witness testifying to the reputation or COMMON REPUTATION
tradition regarding pedigree of the person
59
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 (Sec. 41, Rule 130).
It is the definite opinion of the community in which
the fact to be proved is known or exists. It means
the general or substantially undivided reputation,
as distinguished from a partial or qualified one,
although it need not be unanimous (Regalado,
2008).
NOTE: As a general rule, the reputation of a person
should be that existing in the place of his
residence; it may also be that existing in the place
where he is best known (Ibid.). Character is what a
man is, and reputation is what he is supposed to be
in what people say he is (Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 91114,
September 25, 1992).
Reasons for admissibility
1. Necessity arising from the inherent difficulty of
obtaining any other evidence than that in the
nature of common reputation; and
2. Trustworthiness of the evidence arising from:
a. The supposition that the public is conversant
with the subject to be proved because of their
general interest therein; and
b. The fact that the falsity or error of such evidence
could be exposed or corrected by other testimony
since the public are interested in the same
(Francisco, 1992).
Requisites for admissibility of common reputation
1. The facts must be of public or general interest or
respecting marriage or moral character;
2. The common reputation must have been
ancient, i.e. 30 years old;
3. The reputation must have been one formed
among a class of persons who were in a position to
have some sources of information and to
contribute intelligently to the formation of the
opinion; and
4. The common reputation must have been existing
previous to the controversy.
Matters that may be established by common
reputation
1. Matters of public and general interest more than
30 years old;
2. Matters respecting marriage or moral character
and related facts; and
3. Individual moral character.
NOTE: Marriage, if not proven through an act or
declaration about pedigree may be proven through
common reputation (Trinidad v. CA, G.R. 118904,
April 20, 1998).
Difference between matters of public interest and
matters of general interest
Matters of public interest involve those which are
common to all citizen of the state or to the entire
people while matters of general interest involve
those which are common only to a single
community or to a considerable number of persons
forming part of the community.
PART OF THE RES GESTAE
Res Gestae
Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as
part of res gestae. So, also, statements
accompanying an equivocal act material to the
issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be
received as part of the res gestae(Sec. 42, Rule
130).
It is a Latin phrase which literally means "things
done." As an exception to the hearsay rule, it refers
to those exclamations and statements by either the
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime
immediately before, during or immediately after
the commission of the crime, when the
circumstances are such that the statements were
made as spontaneous reactions or utterances
inspired by the excitement of the occasion, and
there was no opportunity for the declarant to
deliberate and fabricate a false statement (Capila
v. People, G.R. No. 146161, July 17, 2006).
 4. The statement gives a legal significance to the
Reason for admissibility equivocal act (Ibid).
The reason for the rule is human experience. It has
been shown that under certain external NOTE: The reason for the admissibility of verbal
circumstances ofphysical or mental shock, the state acts is that the motive, character and object of an
of nervous excitement which occurs in a spectator act are frequently indicated by what was said by
may produce a spontaneous and sincere response the person engaged in the act.
to the actual sensations and perceptions produced
by the external shock. Part of res gestae vs. Dying Declaration
As the statements or utterances are made under
the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the Part of Res Gestae Dying Declaration
senses, rather than reason and reflection, such It is the event itself A sense of impending
statements or utterances may be taken as which speaks death takes the place
expressing the real belief of the speaker as to the of an oath and the
facts he just observed. The spontaneity of the law regards the
declaration is such that the declaration itself may declarant as testifying
be regarded as the event speaking through the May be made by the Can be made by the
declarant rather than the declarant speaking for killer after or during victim only
himself. the killing or that of a
Requisites for the admissibility of res gestae third person
Spontaneous Statements
1. That there is a startling event or occurrence May precede, or Confined to matters
taking place; accompany or follow occurring after the
2. A statement was made, while the event is taking the principal act homicidal act
place or immediately prior to or subsequent Justification is the Justification is the
thereto; spontaneity of the trustworthiness,
3. The statement was made before the declarant statement being given by the
had time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and person who was
4. The statement relates to the circumstances of aware of his
the startling event or occurrence or that the impending death
statements must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediately attending
circumstances (Sec. 42, Rule 130; Talidano v.
Falcom Maritime & Allied Services, Inc., G.R. No.
172031, July 14, 2008).

NOTE: The reason for the admissibility of

spontaneous statements is trustworthiness and
necessity, because statements are made
instinctively, and because said natural and
spontaneous utterances are more convincing than
the testimony of the same person on the stand. Two types of res gestae

Verbal Acts Verbal Acts Spontaneous

1. The principal act to be characterized must be Statements
equivocal;
2. The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
3. The statement must accompany the equivocal
act; and
61

Utterances which Statements or to testify, who was in a position to know the facts
accompany some act exclamations made therein stated, may be received as prima facie
or conduct to which it immediately after evidence, if such person made the entries in his
is desired to give legal some exciting professional capacity or in the performance of duty
effect; When such act occasion by a and in the ordinary or regular course of business or
has intrinsically no participant or duty (Sec. 43, Rule 130).
definite legal spectator and
significance, or only asserting the Reason for admissibility
an ambiguous one, its circumstances of that What a man has actually done and committed to
legal purport or tenor occasion as it is writing when under obligation to do the act, it
may be ascertained observed by him. being in the course of the business he has
by considering the undertaken, and he being dead, there seems to be
words accompanying no danger in submitting to the consideration of the
it, and these court.
utterances thus enter
merely as verbal part NOTE: Reliability is furnished by the fact that
of the act. regularly kept records typically have a high degree
of accuracy. The law does not fix any precise
The res gestae is the The res gestae is the moment when the entries should be made. It is
equivocal act. startling occurrence. sufficient if the entry was made within a
Verbal act must be May be prior to, reasonable period of time so that it may appear to
contemporaneous simultaneous with, or have taken place while the memory of the facts
with or must subsequent to the was unimpaired.
accompany the startling occurrence.
equivocal act to be Requisites for the admissibility of entries in the
admissible. course of business
1. The person who made the entry must be dead or
unable to testify;
Factors to determine whether statements offered 2. The entries were made at or near the time of the
in evidence as part of the res gestae have been transactions to which they refer;
made spontaneously 3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts
1. The time that has elapsed between the stated in the entries;
occurrence of the act and transaction and the 4. The entries were made in his professional
making of the statement; capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether
2. The place where the statement was made; legal, contractual, moral or religious; and
3. The condition of the declarant when he made 5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
the statement; course of business or duty (Patula v. People, G.R.
4. The presence or absence of intervening No. 164457, April 11, 2012).
occurrences between the occurrence and the
statement relative thereto; and NOTE: The law does not fix any precise moment
5. The nature and circumstances of the statement when the entries should be made as long as the
itself (Francisco, 1992). entry was made within a reasonable period of time
so that it may appear to have taken place while the
memory of the facts was unimpaired.

ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS or THE Proof of regularity of the entries

SHOP-BOOK RULE It may be proved by the form in which they appear
Entries made at, or near the time of transactions to as entries in the books/ledgers. There is no need to
which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable present for testimony the clerk who manually
made the entries. The person who supervised such
clerk is competent to testify that:
1. The account was prepared under his supervision;
and
2. That the entries were regularly entered in the
ordinary course of business (Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: Baptismal certificates are admissible as
entries in the ordinary course of business, even
absent the testimony of the officiating priest or
official recorder because it is one of its transactions
in the exercise of ecclesiastical duties and recorded
in the book of the Church during the course of its
business (Heirs of Conti v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 118464, December 21, 1998.)
When the declarant is alive
GR: Business entries may not be admitted in
evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when
the declarant is alive.
XPN: They may nevertheless be availed of by said
entrant as a memorandum to refresh his memory
while testifying on the transactions reflected
therein.
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 (Sec. 44, Rule 130).
Official record
The original document that is legally recognized
and thus ensuring the quality of a fact when it is
established. It may be a:
1. Register;
2. Cash book; or
3. An official return or certificate (Regalado, 2008).
Reason for admissibility
1. Necessity - due to the impossibility of requiring
the official’s attendance as a witness to testify to
the innumerable transactions occurring in the
course of his duty;
2. Trustworthiness – there is a presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty.
Requisites for the admissibility of entries in
official records
1. Entries were made by a public officer in the
performance of his duties or by a person in the
performance of a duty especially enjoined by law;
2. Entrant had personal knowledge of the facts
stated by him or such facts were acquired by him
from reports made by persons under a legal duty
to submit the same; and
3. Such entries were duly entered in a regular
manner in the official records (Ibid.).
Entries in official record vs. Entries in the course
of business Entries
Entries in Official Entries in the Course
Record of Business
The entrant, if a It is sufficient that the
private individual, entrant made the
must have acted entries pursuant to a
pursuant to a specific duty be it legal,
legal duty specially contractual, moral or
enjoined by law. religious.
Entrant need not be Entrant must be dead
dead or unable to or unable to testify.
testify
Need not be Needs authentication
authenticated
Exception to the best Best Evidence Rule
evidence rule applies
(irremovability of
public records)
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 (Sec. 45, Rule
130).
Reason for admissibility
Because of the usual inaccessibility of the persons
responsible for the compilation of matters
contained in such lists, it would cause the court
63
inconvenience if it would issue summons to these
numerous individuals. Persons responsible for such
lists have no motive to deceive and they further
realize that unless the list, register or periodical or
other published compilation are prepared with
care and accuracy, their work will have no
commercial or probative value.
Requisites for the admissibility of commercial lists
and the like
1. Statements of matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation;
2. Statements must be contained in a list, register,
periodical, or other published compilation;
3. Compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation; and
4. Such is generally relied upon by them.
Examples of commercial lists
1. Trade journals reporting current prices and other
market data
2. Mortality tables compiled for life insurance;
3. Abstracts of title compiled by reputable title
examining institutions or individuals; or
4. Business directories, animal pedigree registers,
and the like (Francisco, 1992).
LEARNED TREATISES
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible
as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a
witness expert in the subject testifies, that the
writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical
or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or
calling as expert in the subject (Sec. 46, Rule 130).
Reason for admissibility
The learned writers have no motive to
misrepresent due to the awareness that his work
will be carefully scrutinized by the learned
members of the profession and that he shall be
subject to criticisms and be ultimately rejected as
an authority on the subject matter if his
conclusions are found to be invalid.
Requisites for the admissibility of learned
treatises
1. When the court can take judicial notice of them;
or
2. When an expert witness testifies that the author
of such is recognized as expert in that profession
(Sec. 46, Rule 130).
TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER TRIAL
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 (Sec. 47, Rule
130).
Requisites for admissibility
1. The witness evidence is dead or unable to
testify;
2. The testimony or deposition was given in a
former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the same parties or those
representing the same interests;
3. The former case involved the same subject as
that in the present case, although on different
causes of action;
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the
former trial is the same issue involved in the
present case; and
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-
examine the witness in the former case (Manliclic
v. Calunan, G.R. No. 150157, January 25, 2007).
NOTE: What may be admitted as evidence is
testimony or deposition. A decision in a previous
case involving the same parties and the same
subject matter does not fall under the exception.
What is considered as a testimony in the former
trial is the “transcript of the witness’ testimony.”
Grounds which make a witness unable to testify in
a subsequent case
1. Death;
2. Insanity or mental incapacity or the former
witness’ loss of memory through old age or
disease;
3. Physical disability by reason of sickness or
advanced age;
4. The fact that the witness has been kept away by
contrivance of the opposite party; or
5. The fact that after diligent search the former
witness cannot be found (Francisco, 1992).

Proof of former testimony

1. If reduced to writing, such writing is the primary
evidence thereof and should be used;
2. The stenographic notes or a copy thereof.

NOTE: The judge’s notes are not evidence of what

the witness said, and, as a rule, they can be used
only to refresh the memory of a witness.
65

IV. BURDEN OF PROOF AND Generally determined Generally determined

PRESUMPTIONS (Rule 131) by the pleadings filed by the developments
by the party of the trial, or by the
provisions of
Definitions substantive law or
1. Burden of Proof- Burden of proof is the duty of procedural rules
a party to present evidence on the facts in which may relieve the
issue necessary to establish his claim or party from presenting
defense by the amount of evidence required by evidence on the facts
law. (Sec. 1) alleged.
2. Burden of Evidence – Burden of evidence is
that logical necessity which rests upon a party
at any particular time during the trial to create
a prima facie case in his favour or to overthrow 3. Prima facie evidence – evidence which, if
one created against him. unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to
- The burden of coming forward with the sustain the proposition it supports or to
evidence- as the trial progress one party establish the facts.
may have presented an evidence that
Burden of proof in;
weighs heavily in his favor and sufficient to
convince the court of the justness of his Criminal cases – lies in the prosecution
claim. If this occurs, the other party has the
burden to come forward with his own A negative fact alleged by the prosecution need not
evidence to counteract whatever positive be proved unless it is an essential ingredient of the
impression which the evidence of the other offense charged. (Domondon, Page 113)
party may have been created in the mind
of court, this duty is called the burden of When burden of proof is on the accused; once an
coming forward, or burden of evidence. accused for murder or homicide admitted his
(Riano, page 54) infliction of the fatal injuries on the deceased, he
assumed the burden to prove by clear, satisfactory
Burden of Proof v. Burden of Evidence and convincing evidence the justifying
circumstances that would avoid his criminal
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence liability. (People v. Fontanilla)
Duty of a party to Duty of the party to Civil cases – lies in the party who substantially
present evidence to go forward with the asserts the affirmative allegations.
establish his claim or evidence to
evidence by the overthrow the prima Any other proceedings – lies in the party who
amount of evidence facie evidence against would be defeated if no evidence were given on
required by him, (Bautista v. either side
law(Supreme Sarmiento, 1985)
Transliner, Inc v. CA) The Burden of Proof lies with the “party who
alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in
Does not shift and The burden of going the prosecution or defense of an action” and may
remains throughout forward with the be determined by the allegation in the pleadings.
the entire case evidence may shift
exactly where the from party to party as Such burden lies on the defendant if he alleges an
pleadings originally the exigencies of the affirmative defense which is not a denial of an
placed it. trial require essential ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of
action.
Infringement cases – rests on the plaintiff, but
when the plaintiff introduces the patent evidence,
and the same is in due form, there is created a
prima facie presumption of its correctness and
validity, the burden of going forward (burden of
evidence) then shifts to the defendant to overcome
the legal presumption.
Labor cases–the burden of proving the payment of
monetary claims rests on the employer.
Termination cases – rests upon the employer to
show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause.
Medical Negligence cases – complainant has the
burden of establishing breach of duty on the part
of the doctors.
Eminent domain cases – the local government that
seeks to expropriate private property has the
burden of proving that the elements have been
complied with.
Insurance cases – the insured’s beneficiary must
prove that the cause of death was due to the
covered peril.
International law- the party who wants a foreign
law to be applied must prove such foreign law.
(Riano, page 52)
Payment – the party who alleges to have made
such payment
Foreclosure Proceedings – the mortgagor, in order
to prove that the foreclosure proceedings were not
validly conducted
Bail Hearing – the prosecution, in order to prove
that evidence of guilt is strong, for offenses
punishable by Death, RP, or life imprisonment
(Rule 114, Sec. 8, ROC)
Competency Test of Child Witness – the party
seeking a competency test, in order to prove the
necessity of competency examination (Sec. 6,
CWER)
Test in Determining Burden of Proof
Ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he
offers no evidence competent to show that facts
averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to
obtain. (Aznar Brothers Realty v. Aying)
EQUIPOSE RULE or EQUIPONDERANCE DOCTRINE
– Where the evidence of the parties is evenly
balanced, or there is doubt on which side the
evidence preponderates, the decision should be
against the party with the burden of proof.
Basic Concepts on Presumption
Presumption is the logical inference of the truth or
falsity at a point in dispute.
Presumption in law is an inference as to the
existence of a fact not actually known, arising from
its usual connection with another which is known.
Classes of Presumption
1. Presumption of fact (hominis) – is a
deduction which reason draws from facts
proved without an express direction to the
effect
2. Presumption of law (juris) – divided into
conclusive and disputable presumptions as
provided by the ROC and other laws
Kinds of Legal Presumptions
1. Conclusive Presumptions
– AKA imperative presumptions;
absolute presumptions; presumptions juris
et de jure.
- are presumptions which always
hold as true and cannot be overcome by
evidence to the contrary.
2. Disputable Presumptions
– AKA prima facie presumptions;
debatable presumptions; rebuttable
presumptions.
- are presumptions of law which
always holds true only as long as they are
not overcome by competent evidence to
the contrary.
67

Inference v. Presumption Instances of Conclusive Presumptions:

Inference Presumption 1. Estoppel in pais - Whenever a party has, by

- a factual conclusionIs a rule of law
that can rationally bedirecting that if a party
drawn from the other proves certain facts
facts (basic facts) at the
trial, the fact finder
must also accept an
additional fact
(presumed fact) as
proven unless
sufficient evidence is
introduced tending to
rebut the presumed
fact.
Need not have a legal Has a definite legal
effect – not mandated effect; mandatory
by the law
(Riano, page 56)
Effect of presumptions
his own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another
to believe a particular thing true, and to act
upon such belief, he cannot, in any
litigation arising out of such declaration,
act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
The fact which the party in estoppel has
represented to be true is conclusively
presumed as against him to be true and he is
not permitted to introduce evidence to the
contrary.
2. Estoppel against Tenant -The tenant is not
permitted to deny the title of his landlord
at the time of commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant between
them.

One need not to introduce evidence to prove the

NOTE: If the title asserted is one that is alleged
fact for a presumption is prima facie proof of the
to have been acquired subsequent to the
fact presumed.
commencement of that relation, the
Conclusive Presumptions presumption will not apply.

Estoppel – is the preclusion in law, which prevents
a man from alleging or denying a fact, in
consequence of which his own previous act,
allegation or denial of a contrary tenor.
Estoppel v. Waiver
If there was a change in the nature of the title
of the landlord during the substinence of the
lease, then the conclusive presumption does
not apply. (e.g. title has expired/conveyed to
another/ defeated by a paramount title)

Estoppel Waiver 3. Conclusiveness of Judgment – The

Equitable estoppel Voluntary and judgment or order of the court when
may arise, in the intentional declared by the court to be conclusive.
absence of any abandonment or
intention on the part relinquishment of a
of the person known right. It must
estopped to relinquish be supported by an
or change any existing agreement founded
right, and it need not upon a valid
be supported by any consideration.
consideration,
agreement, or legal
obligation
Effects of Judgment or Final Order: (Rule 39 Sec. and declaring what evidence shall be sufficient to
47, ROC) overcome such presumption of innocence.

Judgments/Final Orders Effect

Presumption in case of Foreign Judgments:
Conclusive upon the
With respect to the title to the thing, the
In case of judgment or final order upon a specific
probate of a will, or will or administration,
thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive
administration of the or the condition,
upon the title to the thing. (Sec. 48, Rule 39)
estate of the deceased status, or relationship
person, or with respect to of the person
4. Correctness of Legislative Journals
the personal, political, or
legal condition, or status However, the probate
5. Knowledge of the Law –This knowledge is
of a particular person or of a will or grant of
presumed and its ignorance is not a
his relationship to another letters of
defense for its violation.
administration shall
only be prima
Ignorance of the law excuses no one from
facieevidence of the
compliance therewith. (NCC Art. 3)
death of the testator
or intestate.
Disputable Presumptions (JurisTantum)
Conclusive between
The following presumptions are satisfactory if the parties and their
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and With respect to matters successors in
overcome by other evidence (Sec. 3, Rule 131): directly adjudged or any interestby title
other matter that could subsequent to the
1. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; have been raised in commencement of
relation thereto the action or special
All person charged with a criminal offense shall proceeding, litigating
have the following rights: for the same thing
Xxx and under the same
2.) He shall be presumed innocent until the title in the same
contrary is proved. (1987 Consti Art. 3, Sec. 14) capacity
Only that deemed to
Equipose/Equiponderance Doctrine – When the Any other litigation have been adjudged
circumstances are capable of two or more between the same parties in a former judgment
inferences, the presumption of innocence must or their successors in or final order which
prevail, and the court must acquit. interest appears upon its face
to have been so
2. That an unlawful act was done with an adjudged, or which
unlawful intent; was actually and
necessarily included
There is no constitutional objection to a therein or necessary
lawproviding that the presumption of innocence thereto.
may beovercome by a contrary presumption The legislature may providefor prima facie
founded upon theexperience of human conduct, evidence of guilt provided there be arational
connection between the facts proved and
theultimate fact presumed (People vs. Mingoa).
69
3. That a person intends the ordinary
consequences of his voluntary act;
4. That a person takes ordinary care of his
concerns;
5. That evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
Requisites for application of presumption in
suppression of evidence:
a. The evidence is material
b. The party had the opportunity to
produce the same
c. The evidence is available only to said
party.
Instances when such presumption will not apply:
a. Suppression is not willful
b. Evidence withheld is merely
corroborative
c. Evidence is at the disposal of the party
d. The suppression is an exercise of
privilege
6. That money paid by one to another was due
to the latter;
7. That a thing delivered by one to another
belonged to the latter;
8. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor
has been paid;
9. That prior rents or installments had been
paid when a receipt for the later ones is
produced;
10. That a person found in possession of a thing
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is
the taker and the doer of the whole act;
otherwise, that things which a person
possesses, or exercises acts of ownership
over, are owned by him;
The doctrinal rule is that before an inference of
guilt arising from possession of recently stolen
goods canbe made, the following basic facts need
to be proved bythe prosecution, viz.:
(1) the crime was actually committed;
(2) the crime was committed recently;
(3) the stolenproperty was found in the
possession of the accused; and
(4) the accused is unable to satisfactorily
explain hispossession thereof.
For purposes of conclusively proving possession, it
is necessary that
(1) the possession must beunexplained by
any innocent origin;
(2) the possessionmust be fairly recent;
and
(3) the possession must beexclusive
11. That a person in possession of an order on
himself for the payment of the money, or the
delivery of anything, has paid the money or
delivered the thing accordingly;
12. That a person acting in a public office was
regularly appointed or elected to it;
13. That official duty has been regularly
performed;
The presumption of regularity exists when there is
no deviation from the standard conduct of official
duty. Otherwise, where the official act in question
is irregular in its face, an adverse presumption
arises as a matter of course.
14. That a court, or judge acting as such,
whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
15. That all the matters within an issue raised in
a case were laid before the court and passed
upon by it; and in like manner that all
matters within an issue raised in a dispute
submitted for arbitration were laid before
the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
16. That private transactions have been fair and
regular;
17. That the ordinary course of business has
been followed;
18. That there was a sufficient consideration for
a contract;
19. That a negotiable instrument was given or
indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
20. That an endorsement of a negotiable
instrument was made before the instrument
was overdue and at the place where the
instrument is dated;
21. That a writing is truly dated;
22. That a letter duly directed and mailed was
received in the regular course of the mail;
23. That after an absence of seven years, it being
unknown whether or not the absentee still
 lives, he is considered dead for all purposes,
except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead
for the purpose of opening his succession till
after an absence of ten years. If he
disappeared after the age of seventy-five
years, an absence of five years shall be
sufficient in order that his succession may be
opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all
purposes including the division of the estate
among the heirs:
a. A person on board a vessel lost
during a sea voyage, or an aircraft
which is missing, who has not been
heard of for four years since the loss
of the vessel or aircraft;
b. A member of the armed forces who
has taken part in armed hostilities,
and has been missing for four years;
c. A person who has been in danger of
death under other circumstances and
whose existence has not been known
for four years;
d. If a married person has been absent
for four consecutive years, the
spouse present may contract a
subsequent marriage if he or she has
a well-founded belief that the absent
spouse is already dead.
In case of disappearance, where there is
danger of death under the circumstances
hereinabove provided, an absence of only
two years shall be sufficient for the
purpose of contracting a subsequent
marriage.
However, in any case, before marrying
again, the spouse present must institute a
summary proceeding as provided in the
Family Code and in the rules for a
declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee, without prejudice to the effect
of reappearance of the absent spouse.
24. That acquiescence resulted from a belief that
the thing acquiesced in was conformable to
the law or fact;
25. That things have happened according to the
ordinary course of nature and the ordinary
habits of life;
26. That persons acting as copartners have
entered into a contract of co-partnership;
27. That a man and woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
28. That property acquired by a man and a
woman who are capacitated to marry each
other and who live exclusively with each
other as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage or under a void marriage,
has been obtained by their joint efforts, work
or industry.
The presumption that the property is conjugal
property may be rebutted only by strong, clear,
and convincing evidence – there must be strict
proof of exclusive property ownership of one of the
spouses, the burden resting upon the party
asserting it.
29. That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a
woman who are not capacitated to marry
each other and who have acquired property
through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry, such
contributions and their corresponding shares
including joint deposits of money and
evidences of credit are equal.
30. That if the marriage is terminated and the
mother contracted another marriage within
three hundred days after such termination of
the former marriage, these rides shall govern
in the absence of proof to the contrary:
a. A child born before one hundred
eighty days after the solemnization
of the subsequent marriage is
considered to have been conceived
during the former marriage,
provided it be born within three
hundred days after the termination
of the former marriage;
b. A child born after one hundred
eighty days following the
celebration of the subsequent
71
marriage is considered to have
been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born
within the three hundred days
after the termination of the former
marriage.
31. That a thing once proved to exist continues
as long as is usual with things of that nature;
32. That the law has been obeyed;
33. That a printed or published book, purporting
to be printed or published by public
authority, was so printed or published;
34. That a printed or published book, purporting
to contain reports of cases adjudged in
tribunals of the country where the book is
published, contains correct reports of such
cases;
35. That a trustee or other person whose duty it
was to convey real property to a particular
person has actually conveyed it to him when
such presumption is necessary to perfect the
title of such person or his successor in
interest;
36. That except for purposes of succession, when
two persons perish in the same calamity,
such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it
is not shown who died first, and there are no
particular circumstances from which it can be
inferred, the survivorship is determined from
the probabilities resulting from the strength
and age of the sexes, according to the
following rules:
a. If both were under the age of
fifteen years, the older is deemed
to have survived;
b. If both were above the age of sixty,
the younger is deemed to have
survived;
c. If one is under fifteen and the
other above sixty, the former is
deemed to have survived;
d. If both be over fifteen and under
sixty, and the sex be different, the
male is deemed to have survived; if
the sex be the same, the older;
e. If one be under fifteen or over
sixty, and the other between those
ages, the latter is deemed to have
survived.
37. That if there is a doubt, as between two or
more persons who are called to succeed each
other, as to which of them died first,
whoever alleges the death of one prior to the
other, shall prove the same; in the absence
of proof, they shall be considered to have
died at the same time.
Constitutionality of Law Creating Presumptions
There is no constitutional objection to a law
providing that the presumption of innocence may
be overcome by a contrary presumption founded
upon the experience of human conduct, and
declaring what evidence shall be sufficient to
overcome such presumption of innocence.
The legislature may provide for prima facie
evidenceof guilt provided there be a rational
connection between the facts proved and the
ultimate facts presumed. (People vs. Mingoa)
Thus prima facie presumption of guilt under Rule
217, Revised Penal Code, is valid. (Evidence,
Regalado, p. 821)
Presumption of Constitutionality of Law
Every statute is presumed valid.
The presumption is that the legislature intended to
enact a valid, sensible and just law and one which
operates no further than may be necessary to
effectuate the specific purpose of the law. Every
presumption should be indulged in favor of the
constitutionality and the burden of proof is on the
party alleging that there is a clear and unequivocal
breach of the Constitution. (Farias v. The Executive
Secretary)
To justify the nullification of the law or its
implementation, there must be a clear and
unequivocal, not a doubtful, breach of the
Constitution. In case of doubt in the sufficiency of
proof establishing unconstitutionality, the Court
must sustain legislation because to invalidate [a
law] based on x x x baseless supposition is an
affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature
 Negligence of Common Carrier
that passed it but also of the executive which
approved it. Vigilance over Goods Safety of Passengers
Presumed to be Presumed to be
This presumption of constitutionality can be negligent or at fault in negligent or at fault in
overcome only by the clearest showing that there case of loss, case death or injury to
was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and destruction, or passengers
only when such a conclusion is reached by the deterioration
required majority may the Court pronounce, in the
discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the Unless they prove that they observed
challenged act must be struck down.(Lawyers extraordinary diligence.
Against Monopoly vs. Secretary of Budget and
Management) Negligence of Employer

Res Ipsa Loquitur The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is

demandable not only for one's own acts or
The concept of res ipsa loquitur has been explained omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
in this wise: one is responsible.

While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or xxx

presumed, and while the mere happening of an Employers shall be liable for the damages caused
accident or injury will not generally give rise to an by their employees and household helpers acting
inference or presumption that it was due to within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
negligence on defendants part, under the doctrine though the former are not engaged in any business
of res ipsa loquitur, which means, literally, the or industry.
thing or transaction speaks for itself, or in one Xxx(NCC Art. 2180)
jurisdiction, that the thing or instrumentality
speaks for itself, the facts or circumstances No Presumption of Legitimacy or Illegitimacy
accompanying an injury may be such as to raise a
presumption, or at least permit an inference of There is no presumption of legitimacy of a child
negligence on the part of the defendant, or some born after three hundred days following the
other person who is charged with negligence. dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the
spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or
x x x where it is shown that the thing or
illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation.
instrumentality which caused the injury
(RoC Rule 131 Sec. 4)
complained of was under the control or
management of the defendant, and that the The legitimacy of a child born after three hundred
occurrence resulting in the injury was such as in days following the termination of the marriage
the ordinary course of things would not happen if shall be proved by whoever alleges such legitimacy
those who had its control or management used
or illegitimacy. (NCC Rule 131 Sec. 169)
proper care, there is sufficient evidence, or, as
sometimes stated, reasonable evidence, in the
absence of explanation by the defendant, that the
injury arose from or was caused by the defendants
want of care.(Malayan Insurance vs. Rodelio
Alberto)
73
V. Presentation of Evidence
(Rule 132)
Basic Concepts on
Examination of Witnesses or Trial
1. Examination of Witness, Definition – is the
elicitation of information in a court by
question and answer of a witness which
connotes trial conducted before the court.
2. Trial, Definition – is a judicial process of
investigating and determining the legal
controversies starting with the production
of evidence by the plaintiff and ending with
his closing arguments.
3. Nature of Trial – Trial before the court is
adversarial in character, and which
requires the presentation of evidence and
examination of witnesses on the witness
stand.
4. Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial –All
persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
(1987 Consti Art. 3 Sec. 16)
Trial Hearing
Limited only to the Broader in scope as it
presentation of evidence includes the pre-trial
and witnesses before conference, hearing on
the court the motion, and trial
Trial is necessary if there are legal and factual
issues involved in the case which requires
presentation of evidence and witnesses.
Exceptions:
a. In Civil Cases
1. Case falls under Rules on Summary
Procedure;
2. The parties enter into an amicable
settlement or compromise of their
claims in the mediation before the
Philippine Mediation Center,
Judicial Dispute Resolution, or
Alternative Dispute Resolution;
3. Dismissal of the action under Rule
16;
4. Dismissal of the action under Secs.
1,2 and 3 of Rule 17;
5. Dismissal of the action for failure
of the plaintiff to appear during
pre-trial conference under Rule 18;
6. Judgment on the pleadings under
Rule 34;
7. Summary judgment under Rule 35;
8. When the parties to any action
agree, in writing, upon the facts
involved in the litigation, and
submit the case for judgment on
the facts agreed upon, without the
introduction of evidence under
Sec. 6, Rule 30.
b. In Criminal Cases
1. When the accused pleads guilty to
the offense during arraignment
under Rule 116;
2. Plea bargaining during arraignment
or pre-trial conference;
3. When motion to quash on the
ground of double jeopardy or
prescription of action or liability is
granted under Rule 117;
4. When there is a provisional
dismissal under Rule 117:
5. Failure of the prosecution to bring
the accused to trial within the time
prescribed under the Rules;
6. When the case was dismissed due
to the grant of the motion for
judicial determination of probable
cause
Kinds of Trial
Trial on the Merits Trial of substantive
issue
The accused admitted
Inverted Trial the crime but
interposes an
exculpatory defense,
and the burden of
proof is now on him
and he will be the first
to present evidence
Conducted after the
Trial in absentia accused has been claim, counter-claim,
arraigned and he was or third-party
duly notified of the complaint, or of any
trial and his failure to separate issue or of
appear thereat is any number of claims ,
unjustified cross-claims,
A complete re-trial of counterclaims, third-
New Trial or Trial de the case after party complaints or
Novo judgment has been issue
rendered based on the By written consent of
grounds specified both parties, the court
under Sec. 1 Rule 37 Trial by Commissioner may order any or all of
Held in public, in the the issues in a case to
Public Trial presence of the public, be referred to a
or in a place accessible commissioner to be
and open to the agreed upon by the
attendance of the parties or to be
public at large, or of a appointed by the
person who may court. “Commissioner”
properly be admitted includes a referee, an
Speedy Trial Conducted according auditor, and an
to the law of criminal examiner
procedure and the Impartial Trial Conducted by a
rules and regulations, disinterested judge
free from vexatious, without favoring any
capricious delays party
When actions
involving common Order of Trial in Civil Cases as to Presentation of
questions of law or Evidence
Joint or Consolidated fact are pending
Trial before the court, it Subject to the provisions of Sec. 2 of Rule 31, and
may order a joint unless the court for special reasons otherwise
hearing or trial of any directs, the trial shall be limited to the issues stated
or all the matters in in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as follows:
issue in the actions; it
may order all the 1. The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in
actions consolidated; support of his complaint
and it may make such
orders concerning 2. The defendant shall then adduce evidence
proceedings therein in support of his defense, counterclaim,
as may tend to avoid cross-claim, and third-party complaint
unnecessary costs or
delay 3. The third-party defendant, if any, shall
The court, in adduce evidence of his defense,
furtherance of counterclaim, cross-claim, and fourth-party
convenience or to complaint
Separate Trial avoid prejudice, may
order a separate trial
of any claim, cross-
75
4. The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall
adduce evidence of the material facts
pleaded by them
5. The parties against whom any
counterclaim or cross-claim has been
pleaded, shall adduce evidence in support
of their defense, in the order to be
prescribed by the court
6. The parties may then respectively adduce
rebutting evidence only, unless the court,
for good reasons and in furtherance of
justice, permits them to adduce evidence
upon their original case
7. Upon admission of the evidence, the case
shall be deemed submitted for decision,
unless the court directs the parties to
argue or to submit their respective
memoranda or any further pleadings
If several defendants or third-party defendants,
and so forth, having separate defenses appear by
different counsel, the court shall determine the
relative order of presentation of their evidence.
Order of Trial in Criminal Cases as to Presentation
of Evidence
Thirty days from the time the parties have received
the pre-trial order, the trial of the case shall
commence which generally shall be on the
following order:
1. The prosecution shall be the first one to
present its evidence in chief, to prove the
elements of the offense/crime charged in
the information, as well as the civil liability
arising from the crime/offense
2. After the prosecution’s evidence followed
by the presentation of the evidence in
chief for the defense
3. Then presentation of rebuttal by the
prosecution
4. Lastly by the sur-rebuttal evidence by the
accused
Presentation of a Witness
A. Examination in Open Court (Sec. 1)
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial
or hearing shall be done:
1. In open court
Purpose:
 Opportunity to observe the demeanor of
the witness
 Allows adverse party to cross- examination
1. Under oath or affirmation
No special wording is necessary for
an oath or affirmation, provided
that the language used is designed
to impress upon the individual the
duty to tell the truth
Oath – solemn appeal to the Supreme Being in
attestation of the truth of some statement
Affirmation – substitute for an oath, formal
declaration that the witness will tell the truth.
Where the witness refuses to take an oath or give
any information, the testimony may be barred.
(U.S. v.Fowler)
2. Unless the witness is incapacitated
to speak, or the question calls for a
different mode of answer, the
answers of the witness shall be
given orally.
Testimonies need not to be given orally in open
court;
1.Under the Rule on Summary Procedure –
In criminal cases – affidavits of the parties shall
constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses
who executed the same.(Sec 15, Rule on Summary
Procedure)
In civil cases – parties are merely required to
submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other

pieces of evidence on the factual issues, together
with their position paper. (Sec 9, Rule on Summary
Procedure)
2. Depositions need not to be taken in open court;
they may be taken before a notary public or before
any person authorized to administer oaths.(Sec 14,
Rule 23, RoC)
3. In criminal cases, a party may utilize testimony
of a witness who is deceased, out of the country,
unavailable, or unable to testify, in another
proceeding, judicial or administrative, provided it
involved same parties and subject matter and the
adverse party had the opportunity to cross
examine the witness. (Sec. 1 (f), Rule 115, Rules of
Court)
4. Under Judicial Affidavit Rule – the judicial
affidavit shall take place of direct testimonies of
witnesses. (Sec 2, Judicial Affidavit Rule)
A. Proceedings to be Recorded (Sec. 2)
The entire proceeding of a trial or hearing,
including the questions propounded to a
witness, his answers thereto, and the
statements made by the judge or any of the
parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to
the case, shall be recorded by means of
shorthand or stenotype or by other means of
recording found suitable by the court.
Such transcript of the record of the
proceedings made by the official stenographer,
stenotypist, or recorder, and certified as
correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a
correct statement of such proceedings.
B. Rights and Obligations of a Witness (Sec.
3)
A witness must answer questions, although his
answer may tend to establish a case against
him.
However it is the right of the witness:
1. To be protected from irrelevant,
improper, or insulting questions, and
from harsh or insulting demeanor
2. Not to be detained longer than the
interests of justice require
3. Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue
4. Not to give an answer which will tend
to subject him to a penalty for an
offense unless otherwise provided by
law
5. Not to give an answer which will tend
to degrade his reputation, unless it to
be the very fact at issue or to fact from
which the fact in issue would be
presumed. But a witness must answer
to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense.
6. No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself (1987 Consti
Art. 3 Sec. 17)
NOTE: However, under Sec. 14 of RA 6981 (Witness
Protection, Security and Benefit Act), a witness
admitted into the witness protection program
cannot refuse to testify or give evidence or
produce books, documents, records or writings
necessary for the prosecution of the offense or
offenses for which he has been admitted on the
ground of the right against self-incrimination.
(Evidence, Riano)
If the witness is the accused, he may totally refuse
to take the stand. A mere witness cannot
altogether refuse to take the stand. Before he
refuses to answer, he must wait for the
incriminating question. (Bagadiong v. Gonzales)
C. Order of Examination of an Individual
Witness (Sec. 4)
The order in which the individual witness may
be examined is as follows:
1. Direct examination by the proponent –
is the examination-in-chief of a witness
77
by the party presenting him on the
facts relevant to the issue(Sec. 5)
NOTE:
Accused as witness v. mere witness
If the witness is the accused, he may
totally refuse to take the stand.
A mere witness cannot altogether refuse
to take the stand unless there is an
incriminating question (Bagadiong v.
Gonzales).
2. Cross-examination by the opponent –
upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-
examined by the adverse party:
a. As to any matters stated in the
direct examination
b. Matters connected therewith
Note:
American Rule - cross-examination must be
confined to the matters inquired about in
the direct examination.
English Rule - a witness may be cross-
examined not only upon matters testified
to by him on his direct examination, but
also on all matters relevant to the issue.
A witness on cross examination with
sufficient fullness and freedom may be
tested on:
a. His accuracy and truthfulness
and freedom from interest or
bias, or the reverse
b. Eliciting all important facts
bearing upon the issue(Sec. 6)
When cross-examination is not and
cannot be done or completed due to
causes attributable to the party who
offered the witness, the uncompleted
testimony is thereby rendered
incompetent and should be stricken
from the record. (Bachrach Motor Co.,
Inc., et al. vs. CIR, et al.,L-26136)
3. Re-direct examination by the
proponent – after the cross
examination of the witness has been
concluded, he may be re-examined by
the party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers given during
the cross-examination. (Sec. 7)
Note: Questions on matters not dealt
with during the cross-examination may
be allowed by the court in its discretion
4. Re-cross examination by the opponent
– upon the conclusion of the re-direct
examination, the adverse party may re-
cross-examine the witness on:
a. Matters stated in his re-direct
examination
b. Such other matters as may be
allowed by the court in its
discretion (Sec. 8)
5. Recalling the Witness – after the
examination of a witness by both sides
has been concluded, the witness
cannot be recalled without leave of the
court. The court will grant or withhold
leave in its direction, as the interests of
justice may require. (Sec. 9)
Day one Examination Rule– a witness has to
be fully examined in one (1) day only, shall be
strictly adhered to subject to the court’s
discretion during trial o whether or not to
extend the direct and/or cross-examination for
justifiable reasons.
Most Important Witness Rule – determine the
most important witnesses to be heard and limit
the number of witnesses.
Examination of a child witness; live-linked
television
The examination of a child witness presented in a
hearing or any proceeding shall be done in open
court (as opposed to Competency Examination of
the Child where only specified persons are allowed stated.
to attend.) Harmless Question is a question which
is of small
However, the court may exclude the public and importance or has
persons who do not have a direct interest in the no relation to the
case, including the members of the press if the fact in issue
court determines that to testify in open court Open Question is a question which
would cause psychological harm to the child, allows a witness to
hinder ascertainment of truth, or result in his answer the way he
inability to communicate due to embarrassment, wants to
fear, or timidity. Trick Question is a question which
leaves the witness in
An application may be made for the testimony of a no-win situation
the child to be taken in a room outside the Undeniable is a question that
courtroom and be televised to the court courtroom Question the cross-examiner
by live-linked television. The application may be can ask of the
made by the prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad witness, the which,
litem at least 5 days before the trial date. (Section the latter cannot
25, Rules on Examination of a Child Witness) deny

Records regarding a child – shall be confidential As a general rule, leading questions are
and kept under seal. Except upon written request NOT allowed except:
and order of the court, a record shall only be
released to the following; a. On cross-examination;
1. Prosecuting Attorney b. On preliminary matters;
2. Defense Counsel c. When there is a difficulty in getting
3. Guardian ad litem direct and intelligible answers from
4. Agents of the investigating law a witness who is ignorant, or a
enforcement agencies child of tender years, or is feeble of
5. Other persons as determined by court. mind, or a deaf-mute;
d. Of an unwilling or hostile witness;
e. Of a witness who is an adverse
D. Leading and Misleading Questions party or an officer, director, or
managing agent of a public or
Leading Question Is a question which private corporation or of a
suggest to the partnership or association which is
witness the answer an adverse party.
which the examining
party desires NOTE: In examination of a child, the court may
allow leading questions in all stages of examination
Misleading One which: under the condition that the same will further the
Question 1. Assumes as interest of justice.
true a fact not
yet testified to Impeachment of Witnesses
by the witness;
or A. Impeachment of Adverse party’s Witness
2. Contrary to that
which he has A witness may be impeached by the party against
previously whom he was called, by:
79
a. Contradictory evidence;
b. By evidence that his general reputation
for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or
by evidence that he has made at other
times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony. But not by evidence
of particular wrongful acts , except that it
may be shown by the examination of the
witness;
c. The record of the judgment, that he has
been convicted of an offense.
d. Deposition against the testimony of a
deponent witness (Rule 23. Sec. 4, par.a)
NOTE:
Contradictory evidence refers to other testimony
of the same witness, or other evidence presented
by him in the same case NOT the testimony of
others.
Prior inconsistent statement refers to statements,
oral or documentary, made by the witness sought
to be impeached on occasion other than the trial in
which he is testifying.
Evidence of the good character of a witness
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been
impeached. (Rule 132, Sec. 14)
Impeachment by inconsistent statements (Laying
the predicate)
Elements:
1. The alleged statements must be related to
the witness including the circumstances of
the times and places and the persons
present. If the statements are in writing,
they must be shown to him; and
2. He must be asked whether he made such
statements and also to explain them if he
admits making those statements.
NOTE: The reading of the prior inconsistent
statement must be verbatim, not a mere summary.
B. Impeachment of Party’s Own Witness
As a general rule, a party is not allowed to impeach
his own witness, except:
a. of an unwilling or hostile witness
b. of a witness who is an adverse party or an
officer, director or managing agent of a public or
private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party.
NOTE:
A witness is considered unwilling or hostile when
so declared by the court upon:
a. Adequate showing of his adverse
interest;
b. Unjustified reluctance to testify;
c. His having misled the party into calling
him to the witness stand.
Exclusions and Separation of Witnesses
On any trial, the judge may:
1. Exclude from the court any witness not at the
time under examination, so that he may not hear
the testimony of other witnesses;
2. He may also cause witnesses to be kept separate
and to be prevented from conversing with one
another until all shall have been examined.
NOTE: This rule applies ONLY to witnesses NOT to
parties in the case. (Tan p. 394)
This may be made by the judge:
a. If the evidence to be produced during
trial is of such character as to be offensive
to decency or public morals
b. On motion of the accused
Except: court personnel and counsel of the parties.
Reference to a Memorandum by Witnesses
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact, by:
1. Anything written or recorded by himself or
under his direction at the time when the fact

occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any
other time when the fact was fresh in his memory
and knew that the same was correctly written or
recorded;
2. In such case the writing or record must be
produced and may be inspected by the adverse
party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the
witness upon it, and may read it in evidence.
Requirements:
1. Such memorandum should be written at
the time the fact occurred or immediately
thereafter or at any time when the event
or fact was fresh in his memory.
2. The witness affirms that the facts was
correctly written or record.
3. The memorandum must be produced and
may be inspected by the adverse party.
Revival of Past Recollection Rule
A witness may testify from such writing or record,
though he retain no recollection of the particular
facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or
record correctly stated the transaction when made;
but such evidence must be received with
caution. (Rule 132, Sec. 16)
Rule when only a part of a transaction,
conversation, writing or record is given in
evidence
The whole of the same subject may be inquired
into by the other(Rule 132, Sec. 17)
Rule when a detached act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record is given in
evidence
Any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or
record necessary to its understanding may also be
given in evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 17)
Right to Inspect Writing
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may
be inspected by the adverse party. (Rule 132, Sec.
18)
Authentication and Proof of Documents
Authentication, Definition – A proper or legal
attestation. Acts done with a view of causing an
instrument to be known and identified.
(Domondon, p. 276)
A. Classes of Documents
a. Public
a. The written official acts, or records of
the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;
b. Documents acknowledge before a
notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to the
entered therein.
b. Private
All other writings. (Rule 132, Sec. 19)
B. Proof of Private Documents
Before any private document offered as authentic
is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either:
a. By anyone who saw the document
executed or written; or
b. By evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be
identified as that which it is claimed to be. (Rule
132, Sec. 20)
How photographs authenticated
How customs authenticated
How wills authenticated
When authentication not required:
1. Ancient Document Rule - The document is
ancient i.e. more than thirty years old, produced
81
from the custody in which it would naturally be
found if genuine, and is unblemished by any
alterations or circumstances of suspicion. (Rule
132, Sec. 21);
2. The genuineness and authenticity of an
actionable document have not been specifically
denied under oath by the adverse party;
3. The genuineness and authenticity of the
document have been admitted;
4. The document is not being offered as genuine.
(Anna Lerima Patula vs. People)
Proof of genuineness of signature:
The testimony of the very person whose signature
is disputed is a competent proof of the
genuineness of such signature.
NOTE: There is no preferential rule that such
testimony of the writer is the only competent
proof; it is merely the best evidence. (affects only
the weight/probative value)
Proof of handwriting of a person:
By testimony of a witness who:
1. Believes it to be the handwriting of such person
because he has seen the person write, or
2. 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.
3. 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. (Rule 132, Sec. 22)
Registration of contracts:
For purposes of registration and convenience, acts
and contracts which have for their object the
creation, transmission, modification, or
extinguishment of real rights over immovable
property must appear in a public document.
Examples:
a) Donation of immovable
b) Donation of movable with a values
exceeding 5, 000 pesos
c) A partnership where immovable property
or real rights are contributed.
Foreign judgments; divorce
A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce
decree itself.
Church registries
Church registries of birth, marriages, and death
made subsequent to the promulgation of General
Order No. 68 promulgated on December 18, 1889
are no longer public writings, nor are they kept by
duly authorized public officials.
They are private writings and their authenticity
must, therefore, be proved.
C. Proof of Public Documents
Documents consisting of entries in public records
made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated.
All other public documents are evidence, even
against a third person, of the fact which gave rise
to their execution and of the date of the
latter. (Rule 132, Sec. 23)
Proof of Official Record
The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for
any purpose, may be evidenced by:
a. An official publication thereof or
b. By a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has
the custody. (Rule 132, Sec. 24)
Persons Authorized To Issue Certification If
Document Is In Foreign Country
a. A secretary of the embassy or legation,
b. Consul general, consul,
c. Vice consul,
d. Consular agent or
e. Any officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept, and authenticated by the
seal of his office. (Rule 132, Sec. 24)
D. Rule on Attestation of Document
Whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the
attestation must state, in substance, that:
1. The copy is a correct copy of the original, or a
specific part thereof, as the case may be.
2. The attestation is under the official seal of the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the
clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of
such court. (Rule 132, Sec. 25)
E. Irremovability of Public Record
Any public record, an official copy of which is
admissible in evidence, must not be removed from
the office in which it is kept, except upon order of
a court where the inspection of the record is
essential to the just determination of a pending
case. (Rule 132, Sec. 26)
NOTE: The certificate and attestation are required
because of the general rule on the “Irremovability
of Public Record” embodied in Section 26, Rule
132.
Notary Public in a foreign country is not one of
those who can issue the certificate. (Lopez v. CA)
F. Rule on Public Record of a Private Document
An authorized public record of a private document
may be proved by
1. The original record, or
2. By a copy thereof, attested by the legal
custodian of the record, with an appropriate
certificate that such officer has the custody. (Rule
132, Sec. 27)
G. Rule on Proof of Lack of Record
In case the office has no record or entry of an
official record, it can be proved subject to the
following requirements:
1. A written statement signed by an officer having
the custody of an official record or by his deputy
that after diligent search no record or entry of a
specified tenor is found to exist in the records of
his office,
2. Accompanied by a certificate as above provided.
(Rule 132, Sec. 28)
H. Rule on Impeachment of Public Record
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence
of:
a. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
officer,
b. Collusion between the parties, or
c. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect
to the proceedings. (Rule 132, Sec. 29)
I. Rule on Proof of Notarial Documents
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved
and certified as provided by law:
1. May be presented in evidence without further
proof;
2. The certificate of acknowledgment being prima
facie evidence of the execution of the instrument
or document involved. (Rule 132, Sec. 30)
NOTE:
Notarized documents enjoy presumption of
regularity but not validity of its contents.
83
Improperly notarized documents are not public
documents.
J. Rule on Alterations in a Document
The party producing a document as genuine which
has been altered and appears to have been altered
after its execution, in a part material to the
question in dispute, must:
1. Account for the alteration.
2. He may show that the alteration was made by
another, without his concurrence, or was made
with the consent of the parties affected by it, or
was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that
the alteration did not change the meaning or
language of the instrument.
If he fails to do that, the document shall not be
admissible in evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 31)
K. Rule on Seal
There shall be no difference between sealed and
unsealed private documents insofar as their
admissibility as evidence is concerned. (Rule 132,
Sec. 32)
L. Rule on Documentary Evidence in an Unofficial
Language
Documents written in an unofficial language shall
not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied
with a translation into English or Filipino.
To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or
their attorneys are directed to have such
translation prepared before trial. (Rule 132, Sec.
33)
Importance of Knowing Whether a Document is
Public or Private:
Determines how they may be presented in
evidence in court.
Public document is admissible in court without
further proof of its due execution and authenticity.
Private document, because it lacks the official and
sovereign character of a public document, or
solemnities prescribed by the law, requires
authentication.
Notarial seal converts a document from a private
to public document.
Chemistry report of a public officer showing a
positive result of paraffin test is a public document.
(Kummer v. People)
Picture Seat Plan prepared by Civil Service
Commission in implementing examination, is a
public document. (CSC v. Vergel de Dios)
Offer and Objection
Offer of Evidence, Definition – as used in sec. 35 of
Rule 132, must be understood to mean
presentation or introduction of evidence.
Hence, a document or article is not evidence when
it is simply marked for identification. (People vs.
Whipkey)
1. Rule on Offer of Evidence
The court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified. (Rule 132,
Sec. 34)
The purpose must be specified because such
evidence may be admissible for several purposes
under the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may
be admissible for one purpose and not for another,
otherwise, the adverse cannot interpose the
proper objection. (People vs. Diano)
The Rules of Procedure and jurisprudence do not
sanction the grant of evidentiary value to evidence
which was not formally offered. “It is well to
remember that good intentions do not win cases,
evidence does.” (Jose R. Catacutan vs. People)
Exception to rule on formal offer of evidence:
1. In a summary proceeding (because there is
no full blown trial)
2. Documents judicially admitted or taken
judicial notice of;
3. Documents, affidavits and depositions used
in rendering a summary judgment;
 c. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected
4. Documents or affidavits used in deciding
to within three (3) days after notice of the offer
quasi-judicial or administrative cases.
unless a different period is allowed by the court.
5. Lost objects previously marked, identified,
described in the record, and testified to by d. In any case, the grounds for the objections must
the witnesses who had been subjects of be specified. (Rule 132, Sec. 36)
cross-examination in respect to said
objects. (Tabuena v. CA) NOTE: Objection to admissibility of evidence
cannot be made for the first time on appeal.
Provided; Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and
a) The evidence must have been duly may be validly considered by the court in arriving
identified by testimony duly recorded; and at its judgment.
b) It must have been incorporated in the
records of the case. (People v. Napat-a) Objection based on the Statute of Fraud must be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity.
NOTE: Objection to Admissibility of Depositions
Evidence attached to motion for reconsideration Subject to the provisions of Sec. 29 of the RoC,
on the decision by the Court of Appeals should be objections may be made in the following occasions:
refused to be considered (Sps. Tan vs. Republic)
a. At the trial
2. When to make an Offer
b. Hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition
1. As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer or part thereof for any reason which would require
must be made at the time the witness is called to the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were
testify. then present and testifying.
2. Documentary and object evidence shall be
offered after the presentation of a party's Kinds of Objections
testimonial evidence.
As to Oral Written
Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by form Objections Objections –
the court to be done in writing. (Rule 132, Sec. 35) –made made in writing
orally
3. Rules on Objection As to Specific General or
reasons Objections “Broadside”
Objections must be made as follows:
relied – states Objections –
a. Objections to evidence offered orally must be upon the when on its face,
made immediately after the offer is made. specific there appears
ground no purpose for
b. Objection to a question propounded in the relied which the
course of the oral examination of a witness shall be upon evidence offered
made as soon as the grounds therefor shall could not have
become reasonably apparent. been admissible
(e.g.
irrelevant/imma
terial)
As to Exhibits or Questions asked
the document by the
85

main s or proponent 14. Hearsay evidence;

object objects – during trial – 15. Parol evidence;
of the Document Testimonial 16. Best evidence rule;
objecti ary and Evidence 17. Privileged communication between husband
ons Object and wife;
evidence 18. Privileged communication between attorney-
As to Seasonabl Continuing client;
number e or Single Objections –
19. Privileged communication between doctor-
of Objections repetition on the
patient;
objecti - raised line of
ons every questioning is 20. Privileged communication between priest-
opportune unnecessary penitent;
time on 21. Privileged communication on state secrets;
every 22. Lack of basis;
question 23. Self-incriminating question;
propound 24. Argumentative or harassing question;
ed when 25. Illegally obtained evidence;
circumsta 26. Disqualification by reason of spousal immunity;
nces call 27. Disqualification by reason of the Dead Man’s
for it Statute;
As to Overruled Sustained Noted 28. Parental and filial privilege.
actions Objections Objections – or
taken – denied granted by the Deferre 4. Repetition of an Objection
by the by the court d
court court Objecti When it becomes reasonably apparent in the
ons – course of the examination of a witness that the
ruling question being propounded are of the same class
by the as those to which objection has been made,
court is whether such objection was sustained or
reserve overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the
d objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party
to record his continuing objection to such class of
Specific Grounds for Objections: questions. (Rule 132, Sec. 37)

1. Irrelevant/immaterial evidence; 5. Ruling

2. Incompetent evidence; The ruling of the court must be given immediately
3. Opinion of witness; after the objection is made, unless the court
4. Leading question; desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself
5. Misleading question; on the question presented; but the ruling shall
6. Compound question; always be made during the trial and at such time as
7. General question; will give the party against whom it is made an
8. Question calling for narration; opportunity to meet the situation presented by the
9. Vague question; ruling.
10. Hypothetical question;
11. Embarrassing question; The reason for sustaining or overruling an
12. Question on admitted matters; objection need not be stated. However, if the
13. Question already answered; objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling
sustaining the objection on one or some of them
must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.
(Rule 132, Sec. 38)
“will be taken into consideration” “under
advisement” “submitted” “objections are noted’
“evidence is admitted subject to objections”
“admitted for whatever they may be worth” are
not proper rulings.
6. Striking Out of an Answer
Reasons:
1. To allow the court to know the nature of
the testimony or the documentary
evidence and convince the trial judge to
permit the evidence or testimony.
2. Even if he is not convinced to reverse the
earlier ruling, tender is made to create and
preserve a record for appeal.

Instances when the court may order the striking Formal offer of Offer of proof
out of an answer are as follows: evidence
1. Should a witness answer the question before the Offer of the testimony A process by which a
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its of a witness or proponent of excluded
objection to the same, and such objection is found documentary and object evidence tenders the
to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the evidence. same.
objection and

2. Answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or

otherwise improper. (Rule 132, Sec. 39) Additional evidence after the case is rested;

A motion to strike may be availed of in the RoC does not prohibit a party from requesting the
following instances; court to allow it to present additional evidence
even after it has rested its case. (Republic v.
a) When the answer is premature Sandiganbayan)
b) Irrelevant
c) Unresponsive
d) The witness becomes unavailable for cross-
examination through no fault of cross-
examining party
e) When the testimony was allowed
conditionally and the condition for its
admissibility was not fulfilled.

7. Tender of Excluded Evidence (Offer of Proof)

An offeror whose evidence excluded may tender

such evidence.

Documents –the offeror may have the same

attached to or made part of the record.

If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may

state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of
the proposed testimony. (Rule 132, Sec. 40)
87
VI. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (Rule
133)
A. WEIGHT AND SUFFUECUENCY OF EVIDENCE
GENERALLY
Weight of evidence is the probative value that the
court gives to a particular evidence admitted to
prove a fact in issue, and particular evidence
admitted only if it is relevant and it is not excluded
by law or the rules. (Tan, 2014)
Tan
1. If there is an inconsistency between the affidavit
and the testimony of a witness, the latter should
be given more weight since affidavits being
taken ex-parte are usually incomplete and
inaccurate.
2. Positive identification of the accused prevails
over incomplete entry in the blotter.
Summary of quantum of evidence required for
different cases:
a. Criminal cases – proof beyond reasonable
doubt
b. Civil cases – preponderance of evidence
c. Administrative cases – substantial evidence
d. Extradition cases – clear and convincing
evidence
Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
2. Clear and convincing evidence
3. Preponderance of evidence
4. Substantial evidence
Regalado
1. Secs. 1 and 2 give the rules on the requisite
quantum of evidence in civil and criminal cases.
The last two sentences of Sec. 1 suggest the
factors which the court may take into
consideration in determining the weight to be
given to testimonial evidence, and these factors
apply to both civil and criminal cases.
2. Evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not only
proceed from a credible source but must, in
addition, be credible in itself. And by this is
meant that it shall be natural, reasonable and
probable as to make it easy to believe.
3. Facial expressions are not necessarily indicative
of one’s feelings.
4. The failure of a party to present merely
corroborative or cumulative evidence does not
give rise to any adverse or unfavorable
presumption.
5. When a witness makes two sworn statements
and these two statements incur in the gravest
contradictions, the court cannot accept either
statement as proof. This is different from the
situation wherein the testimony of two
witnesses contradict each other, in which case
the court shall adopt such testimony which it
believe to be true.
6. The record of a preliminary investigation
constitutes no part of the final proceedings in a
cause, unless it is presented in evidence, and
the facts adduced therein are evidence only for
the purpose of testing the credibility of
witnesses.
7. While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an
accomplice is admissible, such testimony comes
from a polluted source and must be scrutinized
with great caution as it is subject to grave
suspicion. Conspiracy can be proved by
circumstantial evidence but it must be proved
with as much certainty as the crime itself.
8. Corroboration is not required or expected in the
crime of rape which, as a rule, is committed
without anybody else being present except the
rapist and the victim.
9. Tax declarations or the payment of real estate
taxes on the land are not conclusive evidence of
ownership of the declarant or payor.

10. There is no doctrine that, in every instance,
non-flight by the accused is an indicator of
innocence.
What shall be considered in arriving at decision;
CASES:
B. PREPODERANCE OF EVIDENCE
SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how
determined. – In civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. In determining where
the preponderance or superior weight of evidence
on the issues involved lies, the court may consider
all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts
to which they are testifying, the nature of the
facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their interest or
want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately
appear upon trial. The court may also consider the
number of witnesses, though the preponderance
is not necessarily with the greater number.
Preponderance of evidence means the “greater or
superior weight of evidence”. It is the evidence
that is more convincing and more credible than the
one offered by the adverse party.
It is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to
be synonymous with the term “greater weight of
the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible
evidence.”
The concept of preponderance of evidence refers
to evidence that is of greater weight or more
convincing, than that which is offered in opposition
to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.
(Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v.
Custodio)
1. It is a quantum of evidence applicable to civil
cases.
2. How determined? The court may consider the
following: (F-W-N)
a. All the facts and circumstances of the case;
b. The witnesses’ (M-I-M-N-P-I-C)
i. Manner of testifying
ii. Their intelligence
iii. Their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they are
testifying
iv. The nature of the facts to which they
testify
v. The probability or improbability of
their testimony
vi. Their interest or want of interest
vii. And also their personal credibility so
far as the same may legitimately
appear upon trial
c. The court may also consider the number of
witnesses, thought the preponderance is
not necessarily with the greater number
(Sec. 1, Rule 133)
3. To persuade by the preponderance of evidence
is not to take the evidence quantitatively but
qualitatively. (McDonald v. Union Pacific)
4. Preponderance of evidence is required in
actions brought to recover ill-gotten wealth.
(Republic v. Bakunawa)
5. Although there is no direct evidence to prove
forgery, (annotated SPA at the back of the lost
TCT) preponderance of evidence indubitably
favors the heirs of Felix xxx Preponderance of
evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis,
means probability of the truth. It is evidence
which is more convincing to the court as
worthier of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto. (Heirs of the late Felix
Bucton v. Bacero)
6. To establish the invalidity of a mortgage,
preponderance of evidence is essential to
prove a case. (Ramos v. Obispo)
7. As a general rule, the number of witnesses
should not in and by itself determine the
weight of evidence, but in case of conflicting
89
testimonies of witnesses, the numerical factor
may be given certain weight. (Regalado)
8. EQUIPOSE RULE
Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances
are capable of to or more explanations, one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt,
then the evidence does not fulfill the test of
moral certainty and is not sufficient to support
a conviction. The equipoise rule provides that
where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly
balances, the constitutional, presumption of
innocence tilts the scales in favor of the
accused. (People v. Urzais)
9. Positive testimony vs. Negative testimony
Positive Testimony Negative Testimony
It is when the witness It is when a witness
affirms that a fact did or states that he did not
did not occur. see or know of the
occurrence of a fact.
It has greater weight It has lesser weight than
than negative testimony positive testimony
since the witness because there is only a
represents of his total disclaimer
personal knowledge the personal knowledge.
presence or absence of
a fact.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
Evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of
fact a firm belief or conviction as to allegations
sought to be established; it is intermediate, being
more than preponderance, but not to the extent
of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable
doubt as in criminal cases.
An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the
standard of proof required in granting or denying
bail can neither be proof beyond reasonable doubt
in criminal cases not the standard of proof of
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While
administrative in character, the substantial
evidence used in administrative cases cannot
likewise apply given the object of extradition law
which is to prevent the prospective extradite from
fleeing our jurisdiction. (Government of Honking
Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr.)
 Clear and positive evidence = Proof beyond
reasonable doubt (People v. Tubongbanua)
Some Jurisprudential Pronouncement on Clear
and Convincing Evidence:
 There should be clear and convincing
evidence to prove the charge of bias and
partiality of judge. (Rivera v. Mendoza)
 Fraud is never presumed but must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence, mere
preponderance of evidence not even being
adequate (Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.)
 Forgery cannot be presumed; it should be
proved by clear and convincing evidence, and
whoever alleges it has the burden of proving
the same (Sumbad v. CA)
 The established legal principle in actions for
annulment or reconveyance of title is that a
party seeking it should establish not merely
by a preponderance of evidence, but by clear
and convincing evidence that the land sought
to be reconveyed is his (Manotok Relaty, Inc.
of v. CLT Realty Development Corp.)
 It is a well-settled doctrine that when an
accused invokes self-defense, the onus is on
him to establish by clear and convincing
evidence his justification for the killing.
(People v. Tomolin)
 An allegation of frame-up and extortion by
police officers must be substantiated by clear
and convincing evidence. (People v. Boco)
 For alibi to prosper, it must also be proved by
clear and convincing evidence that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at
the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission and commit the crime. (People v.
Agunos)
 A notarized document, enjoys the
presumption of due execution. Ony clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary can
overcome this presumption. (Viaje v.
Pamintel)
 The person claiming moral damages must
prove the existence of bad faith by clear and
 convincing evidence. (Resolution of the SC in
Cual v. Leonis Navigation)
 The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties will stand if the
defense failed to present clear and
convincing evidence that the police officers
did not properly perform their duty or that
they were inspired by an improper motive.
(People v. Concepcion)
 It is doctrinally settled that a person who
seeks confirmation of an imperfect or
incomplete title to a piece of land on the
basis of possession by himself and his
predecessors-in-interest shoulders the
burden of proving by clear and convinving
evidence, compliance with the requirement
of the applicable law. (Republic v. Imperial
Credit Corporation)
 The proving of bad faith by clear and
convincing evidence rests on the one alleging
it. (UNICAN v. NEA)
 Paternity and filiation requires clear and
convincing evidence (Perla v. Baring)
 Presumption that the property is conjugal
property may be rebutted by clear, positive
and convincing evidene. (Dewara v. Lamela)
C. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
SECTION 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a
criminal case, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required
quantum of evidence in order to convict an
accused.
The basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, which
simply means that the evidence of the prosetion
was not sufficient to sustain the guilt of the
accused-appellant beyond the point of moral
certainty. Proof beyond reasonable doubt,
however, is a burden particular to the prosecution
and does not apply to exculpatory facts as may be
raised by the defense; the accused is not required
to establish matters in mitigation or defense
beyond a reasonable doubt, nor is he requires to
establish the truth of such matters by a
preponderance of the evidence, or even to a
reasonable probability. (People vs. Urzais)
1. In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the
guilt of the accused lies with the prosecution
because of the presumption that the accused is
presumed innocent until the contrary is proven
(Art. III, Bill of Rights).
2. General Rule: The obligation to convince the
trier of facts to show the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt is upon the
prosecution, throughout the trial.
Exception: However, when the accused invokes
a justifying circumstance like for instance, self-
defense, the burden of proof rests upon the
defense to prove that the killing was justified.
(Riano, 2009)
3. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
such a degree of proof that excludes all
possibility of error. Only MORAL CERTAINTY is
required. (Sec. 2, Rule 133)
4. Reasonable doubt is that state of the case
which, after a comparison of all the evidence,
does not lead the judge to have in his mind, a
moral certainty of the truth of the charge.
5. Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule
that the conviction of the accused but rest, not
on the weakness of the defense, but on the
strength of the prosecution.
6. When a prima facie case is established by the
prosecution in a criminal case, as in the case at
bar, the burden of proof does not shift to the
defense. It remains throughout the trial with the
91
party upon whom it is imposed- the
prosecution. It is the burden of evidence which
shifts from party to party depending upon the
exigencies of the case in the course of the trial.
This burden of going forward with the evidence
is met by evidence which balances that
introduced by the prosecution. Then the
burden shifts back.
7. May the uncorroborated testimony of a
witness be the basis of conviction? In the
affirmative case, state the the exception if any.
Yes. The uncorroborated testimony of a single
eyewitness is sufficient basis for conviction, if
such testimony is credible and positive and
produces a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. More so when there is no indication of a
sinister scheme to prevaricate. (People v.
Ramirez)
The exception is in treason cases where “No
person shall be convicted of treason unless on
the testimony of two witnesses at least to the
same overt act or on confession of the accused
in open court.”(RPC, Art.114, 2nd par.)
(Domondon)
8. In determining the defense of alibi to prosper,
two requisites must concur:
i. The appellant was at a different place at
the time the crime was committed, and
ii. It was physically impossible for him to be
at the crime scene at the time of its
commission. (Domondon)
9. Motive
General Rule: The prosecution need not prove
motive on the part of the accused when the
latter has been positively identified as the
author of the crime.
Exception: It becomes relevant only when the
accused has not been positively identified and
proof thereof becomes essential only when the
evidence of the commission of the crime is
purely circumstantial or is inconclusive.
Herrera
10. Totality of Circumstances Test- Factors to
be considered:
a) The witness’ opportunity to view the
criminal at the time of the crime
b) The witness’ degree of attention at that
time
c) The accuracy of any prior description given
by the witness
d) The level of certainty demonstrated by the
witness at the identification
e) The length of time between the crime and
the identification
f) The suggestiveness of the identification
procedure
11. The first duty of the prosecution is not prove
the crime but to prove the identity of the
criminals. For even if the commission of the
crime can be established, without proof of
identity of the criminal beyond reasonable
doubt there can be no conviction.
12. Identification by the sound of voice of the
person is sufficient and acceptable means of
identification where it is established that the
witness and the accused had known each other
personally and closely for a number of years.
(US v. Manabat)
13. Wicklamps, flashlight, even moonlight, and
starlight may, in proper situations, be sufficient
illumination to identify another. (Vide People v.
Briones)
14. The Constitution mandates that an accused in a
criminal case shall be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proven beyond reasonable
doubt. xxx .When the circumstance are capable
of two or more inferences, as in this case, one
of which is consistent with innocence and the
other is compatible with guilt, the presumption
of innocence must prevail, and the court must
acquit. (People v De Guzman)
15. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will
prosper even though the accused innocence
may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests
on the strength of the evidence of the
prosecution and not on the weakness of the
defense. (People v. Angus, Jr.)
16. Evidence during hearing for application for
bail is not sufficient to convict.
17. "[T]he hearing of an application for bail should
be summary or otherwise in the discretion of
the court. By 'summary hearing' [is] meant
such brief and speedy method of receiving and
considering the evidence of guilt as is
practicable and consistent with the purpose of
the hearing which is merely to determine the
weight of the evidence for the purpose of bail.
In such a hearing, the court 'does not sit to try
the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as
to the weight that ought to be allowed to the
evidence for or against accused, nor will it
speculate on the outcome of the trial or on
what further evidence may be therein offered
is admitted.' . . . The course of the inquiry may
be left to the discretion of the court which may
confine itself to receiving such evidence as has
reference to substantial matters avoiding
unnecessary thoroughness in the examination
and cross-examination of witnesses and
reducing to a reasonable minimum the amount
of corroboration particularly on details that are
not essential to the purpose of the hearing."
(Tambunting v. CA)
18. Inevery criminal prosecution, however, the
identity of the offender, likethe crime itself,
must be established by proof beyond
reasonabledoubt. (People v. Wagas)
19. Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical
acts constituting the crime itself, the elements
of conspiracy must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. (Cruz v. People)
D. EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
SECTION 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient
ground for conviction. – An extrajudicial
confession made by an accused, shall not be
sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
General Rule: Extrajudicial Confession is not
sufficient for conviction.
Exception: Sufficient if corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti.
*See discussion in extrajudicial confession.
1. Corpus delicti means “the body or substance of
the crime.” It is the actual commission by
someone of the particular crime charged.
2. It is made up of two things:
a. The existence of a certain act or result
forming the basis of the criminal charge
b. And the existence of a criminal agency as the
cause of the act or result
3. Corpus Delicti for the following crimes:
 Theft: that the property was lost by the
owner and that is was lost by a felonious
taking. The failure to recover the property
does not detract from the fact that a crime
may be established without recovery of the
stolen object.
 Illegal possession of firearm are (a) the
existence of the firearm, and (b) that it has
been actually held with animus possidendi
by the accused without the corresponding
license therefor.
 Murder, the fact of death Is the corpus
delicti-where there is doubt as to the
identity of a cadaver, in the absence of any
other evidence, there is no corpus delicti.
 The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in
this case, constitutes the very corpus
delicti of the offense and in sustaining a
conviction under Republic Act No. 9165,
the identity and integrity of the corpus
delicti must definitely be shown to have
been preserved. (People v. Alcuizar)
 Homicide, the death certificate and
necropsy report need not be submitted to
prove the fact of death which can be
established by testimonial evidence.
 In case of arson there must be evidence
that the burning was intentionally done
not merely the fact that a fire has
occurred.
93
 Corpus delicti in robbery with homicide
was established by the necropsy report
and the robbery by testimonial evidence.
4. Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was
made without counsel, but it was
spontaneously made by the accused
immediately after the assault, the same is
admissible not under the confession rule, but
as part of the res gestae, aside from the
consideration that no custodial investigation
was involved.
5. When the accused was mere told of his
constitutional rights and asked if he
understood what he was told, but he was
never asked whether he wanted to exercise or
avail himself of such rights, his extrajudicial
confession is inadmissible.
6. A promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a
confession if given by the offended party or by
the fiscal, but not if given by a person whom
the accused could not have reasonably
expected to be able to comply with such
promise, such as an investigator who is not a
prosecuting officer, or could not bind the
offended party which was a corporation.
7. Where the accused voluntarily made a second
extrajudicial confession after he had been
maltreated in order to extort the first
confession, such second confession is
admissible only if it can be proved that he was
already relieved of the fear generated by the
previous maltreatment.
8. Signature of the accused in the receipt of the
property seized considered as extra judicial
confession – inadmissible in evidence.
E. CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE
SECTION 4. Circumstantial evidence, when
sufficient,-Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if: (1-F-C)
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances
is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which
proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts
in issue may be established by inference.
1. Four Basic Guidelines in the Appreciations of
Circumstantial Evidence:
a) It should be acted upon with caution
b) All the essential facts must be consistent
with the hypothesis of guilt
c) The facts must exclude every other theory
but that of guilt
d) The facts must establish such a certainty of
guilt of the accused as to convince the
judge beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused is the one committed the offense.
Regalado
2. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction even in capital offenses, except
when the law specifies the species and the
quantum of evidence as, in treason. (Art. 114,
RPC)and formerly, for certain subversive
activities punishable by prision mayor to
death (Sec. 7, RA 1700).
3. It is also submitted that circumstantial
evidence would not suffice to sustain a
conviction for falsification, bigamy and libel
through written publications, and the
documents involved must be presented. In
bigamy direct evidence of the first marriage is
necessary. The same doctrine has been applied
in actions for adultery, parricide, and other
cases where the issue of marriage is primarily
involved.
4. It has also been held that while motive of the
accused is generally immaterial not being an
element of the crime, such motive becomes
important when the evidence of the crime is
purely circumstantial.
Tan
5. Conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial
evidence not only direct evidence.
 There are instances when, although a
witness may not have actually witnessed the
commission of a crime, he may still be able
to positively identify a suspect or accused as
the perpetrator of a crime as when, for
instance, the latter is the person last seen
with the victim immediately before and right
after the commission of the crime. This is the
type of positive identification, which forms
part of circumstantial evidence.
6. Penetration in the crime of rape can be
established by circumstantial evidence in the
absence of direct evidence.
7. Circumstantial evidence must be established by
chain of events.
8. Two types of Positive Identification:
a. that by direct evidence, through an
eyewitness to the very commission of the
act
b. that by circumstantial evidence, such as
where the accused is last seen with the
victim immediately before or after the crime.
(Domondon)
F. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
SECTION 5. Substantial evidence. – In cases filed
before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a
fact may be deemed established if it is supported
by substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
1. This degree of evidence applies to
administrative cases, i.e., those filed before
administrative and quasi-judicial bodies and
which requires that in order to establish a fact,
the evidence should constitute that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
2. Substantial evidence is more an a mere scintilla
of evidence or relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, even if other minds,
equally reasonable, might conceivably opine
otherwise.
3. In claims for workmen’s compensation, the
degree of proof required is merely substantial
evidence. Likewise in agrarian cases.
4. In one case, while recognizing the rule that in
administrative proceedings, complainants have
the burden of proof of proving the allegations
in their complaints by substantial evidence, the
Supreme Court held that administrative
proceedings against judges are highly penal in
character and are to be governed by the rules
applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of
proof required to support administrative
charges against judges should thus be more
than substantial and requires proof beyond
reasonable doubt. (Daducao v. Laquindanum)
5. This quantum of proof was later extended to
an administrative case filed against a sheriff
for harassment and misconduct where the
court held that administrative proceedings
against judicial employees, are by nature,
highly penal in character and are to be
governed by the rules governing criminal cases.
6. A similar ruling was made in another case
where a judge was administratively charged
with sexual harassment by a court employee.
The Court ruled:
While substantial evidence would
ordinarily suffice to support a finding of
guilt, the rule is different where the
proceedings involve judges charged with
grave offenses. Administrative proceedings
against judges are highly penal in character
and are to be governed by the rules
applicable to criminal cases. The quantum
of proof required to support the
administrative charges or to establish the
ground/s for removal of judicial officer
95

should thus be more than substantial; they administrative or

must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. quasi-judicial bodies
(Alcuizar v. Carpio)

7. A different quantum of evidence was however, 10. In a petition for a writ of amparo, the parties
used by the Court in a case where a judge was shall establish their claims by substantial
charged with “unbecoming conduct and/or evidence. (Sec. 17, Rule on the Writ of amparo)
harassment” used the “substantial evidence
rule.” Declared the Court: 11. Effect of failure to prove administrative
Administrative charges against members of liability on the criminal case:It is indeed a
the judiciary must be supported at least by fundamental principle…that administrative
substantial evidence or such relevant cases are independent from criminal actions
evidence as a reasonable mind might for the same act or omission. Thus, an
accept as adequate to support a absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar
conclusion. (Gutierrez v. Belen) to an administrative prosecution, or vice
versa. One thing is administrative liability;
8. In an administrative case against an OIC-Clerk quite another thing is the criminal liability for
of Court for unexplained wealth, the quantum the same act. (Paredes v. CA)
of proof required to establish a respondent’s
malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable Domondon
doubt but substantial evidence, i.e., that 12. Administrative or quasi-judicial bodies which
amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable require only substantial evidence: (to name a
mind might accept as adequate to support a few)
conclusion. (Alejandro v. Martin) a. National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC)
9. In another case against a process server for b. Commission on Audit (COA)
dereliction of duty, conduct prejudicial to the c. Boar of Medicine (BOM)
best interest of the service, incompetence and d. Professional Regulation Commission
absence without official leave, the Court (PRC)
followed the “substantial-evidence-rule.”
(Necesario v. Dinglasan) 13. Generally, findings of fact by administrative
agencies and quasi-judicial bodies are generally
Preponderance of Substantial evidence accorded great respect, if not finality, by the
evidence courts by reason of the special knowledge and
expertise of said administrative agencies and
It is the evidence that It is required in order quasi-judicial bodies over matters falling under
is more convincing to establish a fact, the their jurisdiction. (Doctrine of great respect
and more credible evidence should and finality)
than the one offered constitute that Exceptions:
by the adverse party. amount of relevant a) When the finding is grounded entirely on
It means that the evidence which a speculations, surmise or conjecture
evidence as a whole reasonable mind b) When inference made is manifestly absurd,
adduced by one side is might accept as mistaken or impossible
superior to that of the adequate to support a c) When the judgment is premised on a
other conclusion misrepresentation of facts
d) When there is grave abuse of discretion in
the appreciation of facts
It applies in civil cases It applies to cases e) When the findings of fact are conflicting
filed before
 f) When the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based
g) When the facts set forth in the petition as
well as in the petitioner’s main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondents
14. Probable cause for a search warrant is defined
as such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discrete and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed
and that objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be searched.
Probable cause demands more than bare
suspicion; it require less than evidence which
would justify conviction.
G. POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER
EVIDENCE
SECTION 6. Power of the court to stop further
evidence. -The court may stop the introduction of
further evidence upon any particular point when
the evidence upon it is already so full that more
witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably
expected to be additionally persuasive. But this
power should be exercised with caution.
but the court may direct that the matter be heard
wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.
1. While the court may hear and rule upon
motions solely on the basis of affidavits or
counter-affidavits, if the affidavits contradict
each other on matters of fact, the court can
have no basis to make its findings of fact and
the prudent course is to subject the affiants to
cross-examination so that the court can decide
whom to believe. (Regalado)
2. Examples:
a) A Motion to Lift an Order of Default must
be supported by an Affidavit of Merits
stating fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence and a meritorious
defense
b) A Motion for Summary Judgement may be
proved on the basis of affidavits
c) In a Motion to Postpone, an affidavit of the
doctor or a medical certificate under oath
is necessary
d) Motion for Bail when bail is not a matter of
right since prosecutor must prove that the
evidence of guilt is strong

1. The court has the power to stop the

introduction of testimony which will merely be
cumulative.(Regalado)

2. An arbitrary or unreasonable limitation of the

number of witnesses as to the main facts or
issues or those the sole issue is, no doubt, an
abuse of judicial discretion, and in numerous
cases appellate courts have reversed such
limiting trial court rulings that are found to be
arbitrary and unreasonable. (Herrera, 1999)

G. EVIDENCE ON MOTION

SECTION 7. Evidence on motion. – When a motion

is based on facts not appearing of record, the
court may hear the matter on affidavits or
depositions presented by the respective parties,