EVIDENCE REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PER:
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: SECTION 9, RULE 130
EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS. — When the terms
of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered
as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify,
explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in
issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in
the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
or their successors in interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
PAROLE EVIDENCE – It is any evidence aliunde (extrinsic
evidence which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a
complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document.
It may refer to testimonial, real or documentary evidence;
***It is evidence outside of the agreement of the parties; while
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE prevents the presentation of such
parol evidence.
RATIONALE FOR PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: It is designed to
give certainty to a transaction which has been reduced to
writing, because written evidence is much more certain and
accurate than that which rests on fleeting memory only.
Moreover, it gives stability to written statements, removes the
temptation and possibility of perjury and prevents possible
fraud.
1. There must be a valid contract;
2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing.
“Agreement” includes wills;
3. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in-
interest; and
4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement.
***The rule will not be applied if the party or privy of a party
to the case is a complete stranger to the contract; he is not
bound by this rule and can introduce extrinsic evidence
against the efficacy of the writing.;
QUESTION: Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the
recovery of a sum of money based on a promissory note
executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged that
although the promissory note says that it is payable within
120 days, the truth is that the note is payable immediately
after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he may upon
request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay the
note. During the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is
that the agreement between him and Lucio is for the latter
to pay immediately after ninety day’s time. Also, since the
original note was with Lucio and the latter would not
surrender to Pedro the original note which Lucio kept in a
place about one day’s trip from where he received the notice
to produce the note and in spite of such notice to produce
the same within six hours from receipt of such notice, Lucio
failed to do so. Pedro presented a copy of such the note
which was executed at the same time as the original and
with identical contents.
a. Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be
allowed to testify as to the true agreement or contents
of the promissory note? Why?
ANSWER: Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his complaint
that the promissory note does not express the true intent
 #GOALDIGGERS
and agreement of the parties. This is an exception to the OPINION RULE: SECTION 48-50, RULE 130
parol evidence rule (Sec. 9[b] Rule 130).
b. Over the objection of Lucio, can Pedro present a Section 48. GENERAL RULE. — The opinion of witness is not
copy of promissory note and have it admitted as valid admissible, except as indicated in the following sections.
evidence in his favor? Why?
Section 49. OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS. — The opinion
ANSWER: Yes, the copy in the possession of Pedro is a of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
duplicate original and with identical contents (Sec. 4[b] experience or training which he shown to posses, may be
Rule 130). Moreover, the failure of Lucio to produce the received in evidence.
original of the note is excusable because he was not given
Section 50. OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESSES. —
reasonable notice, as requirement under the Rules before
secondary evidence may be presented (Sec. 6 Rule 130).
OPINION – A person’s thought, belief, or inference especially a
witness’s view about facts in dispute, as opposed to personal
BEST EVIDENCE RULE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE knowledge of the facts themselves.
The original document is not Presupposes that the original
available or there is a dispute document is available in court GENERAL RULE: The opinion of witness is not admissible;
as to whether said writing is EXCEPTIONS:
original. 1. Opinion of expert witness; and
Prohibits the introduction of Prohibits the varying of the 2. Opinion of ordinary witnesses.
secondary evidence in lieu of terms of a written agreement ***Opinion testimony involving questions of law or the
original document regardless
ultimate fact in issue is NOT ADMISSIBLE.
of whether it varies the
contents of the original EXPERT WITNESS – He is one who belongs to the profession
Applies to all kinds of writings Applies only to written
or calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry related
agreements (contracts) and
wills and who possesses special knowledge on questions on which
Can be invoked by any party Can be invoked only when the he proposes special knowledge to express an opinion.
to an action whether he has controversy is between the
***Before such witness may be allowed to testify, his
participated in the writing parties to the written
involved agreement, their privies, or qualification must first be established by the party presenting
any party affected thereby like him;
a cestui quie trust

***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK JOSE RIZAL

UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW

***Expert testimony is NOT ADMISSIBLE as to matter not in
issue;
DEGREE OF SKILL OR KNOWLEDGE
There is no definite standard in determining the degree
of skill or knowledge that a witness must possess in order to
testify as an expert as long as the following are present:
1. Training and education;
2. Particularity, first-hand familiarity with the facts of
the case; and
3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon which
his opinion is based.
NOTE: An expert witness may base his opinion either on the
first-hand knowledge of the facts or on the basis of
hypothetical questions where the facts are presented to him
hypothetically and on the assumption that they are true,
formulates his opinion on such hypothesis.
The probative force of the testimony of an expert does
not lie in a mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather
in the aid that he can render to the courts in showing the
facts which serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons
upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded.
QUESTION: In a case where the issue involves forgery, two
expert witness were presented by the plaintiff, the NBI
official and a handwriting expert from the PNP. The NBI
official testified that the signatures in the deed of sale
and the other sample signatures are the same. However,
the PNP handwriting expert declared that the person who
signed are not the same person. The lower court gave
credit and based the ruling on the testimony of the PNP
***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
#GOALDIGGERS
handwriting expert on the fact that the said witness has
better credentials than the NBI witness. Is the ruling
valid, because of the fact that the court based the ruling
on the credentials?
ANSWER: NO. While credentials of an expert witness play a
factor in the evidentiary and persuasive weight of his
testimony, the same cannot be the sole factor in determining
its value. The judge must conduct his own independent
examination of the signatures under scrutiny.
*** Opinions of handwriting experts are not binding upon
courts, especially when the question involved is mere
handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be
determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the
questioned signatures with those of the currently existing
ones.
OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNES - That which is given by a
witness who is of ordinary capacity and who has by
opportunity acquired a particular knowledge which is outside
the limits of common observation and which may be of value
in elucidating a matter under consideration. (SECTION 50,
RULE 130)
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may
be received in evidence regarding — (H-I-M-I)
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has
adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
JOSE RIZAL
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW
 #GOALDIGGERS
QUESTION: At Nolan’s trial for possession and use of the (c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14,
prohibited drugs, known as “shabu” his girlfriend Kin,
testified that on a particular day, she would see Nolan very CHARACTER – The aggregate of the moral qualities which
prim and proper, alert and sharp, but that three days after, belong to and distinguish an individual person; the general
he would appear haggard, tired and overly nervous at the result of one’s distinguishing attributes.
slightest sound he would hear. Nolan objects to the GENERAL RULE: Character evidence is NOT admissible in
admissibility of Kim’s testimony on the ground that Kim evidence.
merely stated her opinion without having been first EXCEPTIONS:
qualified as expert witness. Should you as a judge exclude 1. In certain criminal cases;
the testimony of Kim? (1994 Bar) 2. In civil cases; and
3. In case the character of a witness has been previously
ANSWER: No, the testimony of Kim should not be excluded.
impeached.
Even though Kim is not an expert witness, Kim may testify
CRIMINAL CASES
on her impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
AS TO THE AS TO THE AS TO THE
appearance of a person
ACCUSED PROSECUTION OFFENDED
PARTY
CHARACTER EVIDENCE – SECTION 51, RULE 130
He may prove his They may not His good or bad
CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT GENERALLY
good moral prove the bad moral character
ADMISSIBLE; exceptions: —
character which is moral character of may be proved as
(a) In Criminal Cases:
pertinent to the the accused which long as it tends to
(1) The accused may prove his good moral
moral trait involved is pertinent to the establish in any
character which is pertinent to the moral trait
in the offense moral trait involved reasonable degree
involved in the offense charged.
charged in the offense the probability or
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not
charged, unless in improbability of
prove his bad moral character which is pertinent
rebuttal when the the offense
to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
accused opens the charged.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the
issue by
offended party may be proved if it tends to
introducing
establish in any reasonable degree the probability
evidence of his
or improbability of the offense charged.
good moral
(b) In Civil Cases:
character.
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case
is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of
CIVIL CASES
character involved in the case.

***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK JOSE RIZAL

UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW
 #GOALDIGGERS
The moral character of either party thereto cannot be violation of the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. As
proved unless it is pertinent to the issue of character involved defense counsel, you object. The trial court asks you on
in the case. what ground/s. Respond. (2010 Bar)
***Personal opinion as to the character is excluded as
evidence. However, reputation in the community is ANSWER: The objection is on the ground that the fact
admissible. sought to be elicited by the prosecution is irrelevant
and immaterial to the offense under prosecution and
QUESTION: Don was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly trial. Moreover, the Rules do not allow the prosecution to
beating up Vilma to death with an iron pipe. May the adduce evidence of bad moral character of the accused
prosecution introduce evidence that Vilma had a good pertinent to the offense charged, except on rebuttal and
reputation for peacefulness and non-violence?
only if it involves a prior conviction by final judgment.
Why? (2002 Bar)
RULE 131 – BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
ANSWER: NO. The prosecution may introduce evidence of the
good or even bad moral character of the victim if it tends to
BURDEN OF PROOF - the duty of a party to present evidence
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
improbability of the offense charged. In this case, the
defense by the amount of evidence required by law. 
evidence is not relevant.
BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
QUESTION: May Don introduce evidence of specific
Burden of proof or “onus Burden of evidence is that
violent acts by Vilma? Why? (2002 Bar)
probandi” traditionally refers logical necessity which rests
to the obligation of a party to upon a party at any particular
ANSWER: Yes, Don may introduce evidence of specific the litigation to persuade the time during the
violent acts by Vilma. Evidence that one did or did not do a court that he is entitled to trial to create a prima facie
certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he relief. case in his favor or to
did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another overthrow one created against
time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or him.
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or Duty of a party to present Duty of the party to go
usage, and the like. evidence to establish his forward with the evidence to
claim or evidence by the overthrow the prima facie
QUESTION: In a prosecution for murder, the prosecutor amount of evidence required evidence against him
asks accused Darwin if he had been previously arrested for by law, which is
preponderance of evidence in

***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK JOSE RIZAL

UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW
 #GOALDIGGERS
civil cases GENERAL RULE: The examination of witnesses presented in
Does not shift and remains The burden of going forward a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath
throughout the entire case with the evidence may shift or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak,
exactly where the pleadings from party to party as the or the questions calls for a different mode of answer, the
originally placed it. exigencies of the trial require answers of the witness shall be given orally. (SECTION 1,
Generally determined by Generally determined by the RULE 132)
the pleadings filed by the developments of the trial, or
party. by the provisions of RIGHTS OF A WITNESS (PDEA-R)
substantive law or procedural 1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
rules which may relieve the questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
party from presenting 2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice
evidence on the facts alleged. require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to
PRESUMPTIONS the issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a
These are inferences of the existence or non-existence of penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law (right
a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of against self-incrimination);
other facts.
NOTE: This refers to immunity statutes wherein the witness
KINDS OF PRESUMPTIONS is granted immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses
1. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS – JURIS ET DE JURE; admitted in his testimony, e.g. under Sec. 8, R.A. 1379, the
(SECTION 2, RULE 131) law providing for the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
***refers to a presumption which is irrebuttable and property; and under P.D. 749, in prosecutions for bribery and
any evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not graft. (Regalado, 2008)
admissible. This presumption is in reality a rule of 5. Not to give an answer, which will tend to degrade his
substantive law. reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact
2. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS – JURIS TANTUM from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a
(SECTION 3, RULE 131) witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
***refers to a presumption which is satisfactory if conviction for an offense. (SEC. 3, RULE 132)
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome
by other evidence. OBLIGATION OF A WITNESS IN OPEN COURT
GENERAL RULE: A witness must answer questions, although
RULE 132 – EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. (SEC.
3, RULE 132)

***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK JOSE RIZAL

UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW

EXCEPTIONS: 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.
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.
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.
PURPOSES OF EACH STAGE OF THE EXAMINATION
***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
#GOALDIGGERS
1. Direct examination – SECTION 5; Examination in chief of
a witness by a party presenting him on the facts relevant to
the issue.
*To elicit facts about the client’s cause of action or
defense. (Riano, 2016)
2. Cross examination –SECTION 6; Examination by the
adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct
examination or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness
and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom
from interest, or bias or the reverse and to elicit all important
facts bearing upon the issue.
a. To bring out facts favorable to counsel’s client not
established by the direct testimony; and
b. To enable counsel to impeach or to impair the
credibility of the witness.
3. Re-direct examination – SECTION 7; Re-examination by
the party calling him to explain or supplement his answers
given during the cross-examination. Questions on matters not
dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by the
court in its discretion.
a. To afford opportunity to the witness to explain
or supplement his answers given during the cross-
examination; and
b. To rehabilitate a witness whose credibility has
been damaged. (Ibid.)
4. Re-cross examination – SECTION 8; Re-examination by
the adverse on matters stated in his re-direct examination and
also on such matters as maybe allowed by the court in its
discretion.
a. To overcome the proponent’s attempt to rehabilitate
the witness; and
b. To rebut damaging evidence brought out during
redirect examination.
JOSE RIZAL
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW

RECALLING THE WITNESS – SECTION 9, RULE 132
GENERAL RULE: After the examination of a witness by both
sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled
without leave of court. The court will grant or withhold leave
in its discretion, as the interests of justice may require.
9, Rule 132)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. The examination has not been concluded; or
2. If the recall of the witness was expressly reserved
by a party with the approval of the court. In these
two cases the recall of a witness is a matter of right.
LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS – SECTION 10,
RULE 132
LEADING QUESTION - It is one which suggests to the
witness the answer which the examining party desires. A
leading question is GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED.
The test whether a question is leading or not is the
suggestiveness of the conduct.
WHEN IS A LEADING QUESTION ALLOWED (CUPDAJ)
1. On Cross-examination;
2. Of an UNWILLING witness or hostile witness;
3. On Preliminary matters;
4. When there is Difficulty in getting direct and intelligible
answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender
years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
NOTE: A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile
only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of
his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify or his
having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.
(Sec. 12, Rule 132)
5. Of a witness who is an ADVERSE party or an officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation
***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
#GOALDIGGERS
or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party
(Sec. 10, Rule 132); or
6. In all stages of examination of a child if the same will
further the interests of JUSTICE.
MISLEADING QUESTION - It is one which assumes as true
a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to
that which he has previously stated. It is NOT ALLOWED
IN ANY TYPE OFEXAMINATION.
METHODS OF IMPEACHING THE ADVERSE PARTY’S
WITNESS
IMPEACHMENT OF A WITNESS – It is a technique employed
usually as part of cross-examination to discredit a witness
by attacking his credibility.
WAYS OF IMPEACHING AN ADVERSE PARTY’S WITNESS
(I-C-E)
1. By CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE;
2. By EVIDENCE that the general reputation for truth,
honesty or integrity of the witness is bad; or
3. By evidence that the witness has made at other times
statements INCONSISTENT with his present testimony. (SEC.
11, RULE 132)
NOTE: The other modes of impeaching a witness are:
1. By involving him during cross-examination in
contradiction;
2. By showing the impossibility or improbability of his
testimony;
3. By proving action or conduct of the witness inconsistent
with his testimony; and
4. By showing bias, interest or hostile feeling against the
adverse party.
JOSE RIZAL
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW

IMPEACHMENT OF A WITNESS BY EVIDENCE OF
PARTICULAR WRONGFUL ACTS
GENERAL RULE: A witness may not be impeached by
evidence of particular wrongful acts.
EXCEPTION: If it may be shown by the examination of the
witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been
convicted of an offense. (SEC. 11, RULE 132)
IMPEACHMENT BY A PARTY OF HIS OWN WITNESS
GENERAL RULE: The party producing a witness is not
allowed to impeach his credibility.
EXCEPTION: The witness is an:
1. Unwilling or hostile witness so declared by the court;
2. Adverse party; or
3. Officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or association which is an
adverse party. (SEC. 12, RULE 132)
NOTE: In these instances, such witnesses may be impeached
by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been
called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad
character.
HOW THE WITNESS IS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE OF
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS (LAYING THE PREDICATE)
LAYING THE PREDICATE - It is the duty of a party trying to
impugn the testimony of a witness by means of prior or
subsequent inconsistent statements, whether oral or in
writing, to give the witness a chance to reconcile his
conflicting declarations, such that it is only when no
reasonable explanation is given by him that he should be
deemed impeached.
***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
#GOALDIGGERS
LAYING THE PREDICATE IN IMPEACHING A WITNESS BY
EVIDENCE OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
1. The prior inconsistent statements must be related to him,
with the circumstances of the times and places and the
persons present;
2. The witness must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them; and
3. If the statements be in writing it must be shown to
witness before any question is put to him concerning them.
(SEC. 13, RULE 132)
INAPPLICABILITY OF THE RULE
If the prior inconsistent statement appears in a
deposition of the adverse party, and not a mere witness,
that adverse party who testifies may be impeached
without laying the predicate, as such prior statements
are in the nature of admissions of said adverse party.
The reasons for laying the predicate are:
1. To avoid unfair surprise to the adversary;
2. To save time, as an admission by the witness may make the
extrinsic proof necessary; and
3. To give the witness, in fairness to him, a chance to explain
the discrepancy.
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.
(SEC. 14, RULE 132)
IN A CRIMINAL CASE, the accused may prove his
good moral character relevant to the offense charged even
before his character is attacked. However, the prosecution
JOSE RIZAL
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW
 #GOALDIGGERS
cannot initiate proof of the bad character of the accused. It 7. The document is not being offered as genuine (Sec. 20,
can only do so by way of rebuttal. Rule 132).

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS: For the purpose of their
AUTHENTICATION – It is the process of proving the due presentation evidence, documents are either PUBLIC OR
execution and genuineness of a document. PRIVATE.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT PRIVATE DOCUMENT
NOTE: Not only objects but also documents introduced WHAT COMPRISES IT
in evidence need to be authenticated. It is a preliminary 1. The written official acts, or All other writings are private
step in showing the admissibility of an evidence. records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies
WHEN AUTHENTICATION IS NOT REQUIRED and tribunals, and public
1. The writing is an ancient document (Sec. 21, Rule 132); officers, whether of the Philippines,
2. The writing is a public document or record (Sec. 19, Rule or of a foreign country;
132); 2. Documents acknowledged before
a notary public except last wills
NOTE: A private document required by law to be recorded, and testaments; and
3. Public records, kept in the
while it is transformed into a public document by the “public
Philippines, of private documents
record” thereof, is not included in this enumeration. Such required by law to be
recording does not make the private writing itself a public entered therein (Sec. 19, Rule
document so as to make it admissible without authentication, 132).
e,g. birth certificate recorded in the NSO is a public record, AS TO AUTHENTICITY AND ADMISSIBILITY AS EVIDENCE
but it is still a private document. Admissible as evidence without Before any private document
need of further proof of its offered as authentic is
3. The writing is a notarial document acknowledged, proved or genuineness and due execution received in evidence, its due
certified (SEC. 30, RULE 132); execution and authenticity
4. The genuineness and authenticity of an actionable must first be proved.
document have not been specifically denied under oath by an AS TO PERSONS BOUND
adverse party (Sec 8, Rule 8); Evidence even against third Binds only the parties who
persons, of the fact which gave rise executed them or their
5. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial
to its due execution and to the date privies, insofar as due
to the issue; of the latter execution and date of the
6. The genuiness and authenticity of the document have been document are concerned
admitted (Sec 4, Rule 129); or AS TO VALIDITY OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS
Certain transactions must be

***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK JOSE RIZAL

UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW

contained in a public document;
otherwise they will not be given
any validity.
HOW TO PROVE 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. (SECTION 20, RULE 132)
HOW TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF A HANDWRITING
It may be proved by:
1. A witness who actually saw the person writing the
instrument;
2. A person who is familiar or has acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person, his opinion as to the handwriting
being an exception to the opinion rule;
3. A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting
from the admitted genuine specimens thereof; or
4. Expert witness
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE
When a public officer in the performance of his duty makes an
entry in the public record, the document of such entry is
deemed prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the entry.
Its probative value may either be substantiated or nullified by
other competent evidence.
NOTE: Public or official records of entries made in excess of
official duty are not admissible in evidence. As to matters
***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
#GOALDIGGERS
which the officer is not bound to record, his certificate, being
extrajudicial, is merely the statement of a private person.
PROOF OF PUBLIC RECORDS
Written official acts, or records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, e.g. a written foreign law, may be evidenced by:
1. IF IT IS WITHIN THE PHILIPPINES:
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.
2. IF IT IS KEPT IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY:
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
with a certificate that such officer has the custody. The
certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy
or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or
consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of
the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which
the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office (Sec. 24, Rule 132) (2009 Bar).
NOTE: Upon failure to comply with the abovementioned
requirements, courts will apply the doctrine of processual
presumption.
IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDICIAL RECORD: (WCF)
1. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
2. Collusion between the parties (e.g. legal separation,
annulment cases); or
3. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
proceedings (Sec. 29, Rule 132).
JOSE RIZAL
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW

NOTE: Fraud refers to extrinsic fraud, which is a ground for
annulment of judgment.
QUESTION: Lino was charged with illegal possession of
firearm. During trial, the prosecution presented in
evidence a certification of the PNP Firearms and
Explosives Office attesting that the accused had no
license to carry any firearm. The certifying officer,
however, was not presented as a witness. Is the
certification of the PNP Firearm and Explosives Office
without the certifying officer testifying on it admissible in
evidence against Lino? (2003Bar)
ANSWER: YES. Section 28, Rule 130 provides that “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, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is
admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain
no such record or entry.” The records of the PNP Firearm and
Explosives Office are a public record. Hence, notwithstanding
that the certifying officer was not presented as a witness for
the prosecution, the certification he made is admissible in
evidence against Lino.
NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS
Documents acknowledged before a notary public is
considered a public document and enjoy the presumption of
regularity. A notarized document is entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face.
The document may be presented in evidence without
further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima
facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document
involved (Sec. 30, Rule 132).
***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
#GOALDIGGERS
HOW TO EXPLAIN ALTERATIONS IN A DOCUMENT
A party producing a document as genuine which has
been altered and appears to have been altered after its
execution must account for the alteration. He may show that
the alteration: (ACID)
1. Was made by Another, without his concurrence;
2. Was made with the Consent of the parties affected by it;
3. Was otherwise properly or Innocently made; or
4. Did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.
NOTE: Failure to do at least one of the above will make
the document inadmissible in evidence (SEC. 31, RULE 132).
*** Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be
admitted as evidence unless accompanied with a translation
into English or Filipino (Sec. 33, Rule 132).
OFFER AND OBJECTION
GENERAL RULE: The court shall consider only the evidence
which has been formally offered. The purpose for which
the evidence is offered must be specified. (SEC. 34, RULE
132)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Marked exhibits not formally offered may be admitted
provided it complies with the following requisites:
a. Must be duly identified by testimony duly recorded;
and
b. Must have been incorporated in the records of the
case;
2. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, where no full
blown trial is held in the interest of speedy administration of
justice;
3. In summary judgments under Rule 35 where the judge
based his decisions on the pleadings, depositions, admissions,
affidavits and documents filed with the court;
JOSE RIZAL
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW
 #GOALDIGGERS
4. Documents whose contents are taken judicial notice of by 1. The testimony of Matet should be excluded because its
the court; purpose was not initially stated and it was not formally
5. Documents whose contents are judicially admitted; offered in evidence; and
6. Object evidence which could not be formally offered 2. Matet's testimony is not admissible against Aiza
because they have disappeared or have become lost after they pursuant to the rule on "res inter alios acta." (2003 Bar)
have been marked, identified and testified on and described in Rule on the motion for demurrer to evidence on the above
the record and became the subject of cross-examination of the grounds.
witness who testified on them during the trial;
7. Documents and affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial or ANSWER:
administrative cases. 1. The demurrer to evidence should be denied because the
defense counsel did not object to her testimony despite the
PURPOSES OF OFFER OF EVIDENCE fact that the prosecutor forgot to state its purpose and offer it
1. To notify the party of possible objection, and for the offeror in evidence. Moreover, the defense counsel thoroughly cross-
to make necessary correction at the trial level to meet the examined Matet and thus waived the objection.
objection; 2. The res inter alios acta rule does not apply because Matet
2. To allow the trial judge to rule properly; and testified in open court and was subjected to cross-
3. To lay basis for appeal so that the appellate court can examination
decide intelligently.
NOTE: A formal offer is necessary, since judges are required WHEN TO MAKE AN OFFER:
to base their findings of fact and their judgment solely and TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE DOCUMENTARY AND
strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. OBJECT EVIDENCE
Offer must be made at the time Must be made after the
QUESTION: Aiza and Matet were charged with murder. the witness is called to testify. presentation of party’s
Upon application of the prosecution, Matet was (2009Bar) testimonial evidence, and before
discharged from the Information to be utilized as a State resting his case.
witness. The prosecutor presented Matet as witness but (Sec. 35, Rule 132)
forgot to state the purpose of his testimony much less Every time a new witness is The evidence is only offered
called to testify, there must be once, after all the testimonial
offer it in evidence. Matet testified that she and Aiza
an offer of evidence. evidence are offered and prior to
conspired to kill the victim but it was Aiza who actually the resting of the case for a
shot the victim. The testimony of Matet was the only party.
material evidence establishing the guilt of Aiza. Matet was
thoroughly cross-examined by the defense counsel. After NOTE: The presentation of a
the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a motion documentary or object evidence
for demurrer to evidence based on the following grounds: for marking and

***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK JOSE RIZAL

UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW

identification during trial is not
the offer contemplated in the
rules.
NOTE: The offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the
court to be in writing. (Sec. 35, Rule 132)
OBJECTION
WAYS OF IMPEACHING THE EVIDENCE OF THE
PROPONENT
1. By objection and without objection, the objection is waived
and the evidence is admitted (Sec. 36, Rule 132); or
2. By motion to strike (Sec. 39, Rule 132)
PURPOSES OF OBJECTIONS
1. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause harm
to a client’s cause;
2. To protect the record, i.e. to present the issue of
inadmissibility of the offered evidence in a way that if the trial
court rules erroneously, the error can be relied upon as a
ground for a future appeal;
3. To protect a witness from being embarrassed on the stand
or from being harassed by the adverse counsel;
4. To expose the adversary’s unfair tactics like his
consistently asking obviously leading questions;
5. To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own
errors and at the same time warn the court that a ruling
adverse to the objector may supply a reason to invoke a
higher court’s appellate jurisdiction; and
6. To avoid a waiver of the inadmissibility of an otherwise
inadmissible evidence.
TIME WHEN OBJECTION SHOULD BE MADE
Objection to evidence offered orally must be made
immediately after the offer is made. Objection to a question
***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
#GOALDIGGERS
propounded during the oral examination of a witness shall be
made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become
reasonably apparent. An offer of evidence in writing shall be
objected to within 3 days after notice of the offer unless a
different period is allowed by the court. In any case, the
grounds for objection must be specified. (Sec. 36, Rule
132)
CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION RULE
It requires that a specific and timely objection be made
to the admission of evidence. Objections to the admission of
evidence must be made seasonably, at the time it is
introduced or offered, otherwise they are deemed waived,
and will not be entertained for the first time on appeal.
KINDS OF OBJECTIONS
1. Irrelevant– The evidence being presented is not relevant to
the issue (e.g. when the prosecution offers as evidence the
alleged offer of an insurance company to pay for the damages
suffered by the victim in a homicide case);
2. Incompetent – The evidence is excluded by law or rules
(Sec. 3, Rule 138) (e.g. evidence obtained in violation of the
Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and
seizures);
3. Specific objections– e.g. parol evidence and best evidence
rule;
4. General objections – e.g. continuing objections
(Sec. 37)
a. objection to a question propounded in the course of
the oral examination of the witness; and
b. objection to an offer of evidence in writing;
5. Formal– One directed against the alleged defect in the
formulation of the question (e.g. ambiguous questions,
leading and misleading questions, repetitious questions,
multiple questions, argumentative questions); and
JOSE RIZAL
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW

6. Substantive– One made and directed against the very
nature of evidence (e.g. parol, not the best evidence hearsay,
privileged communication, not authenticated, opinion, res
inter alios acta).
NOTE: Objections to admissibility of evidence cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal. When a party desires the
court to reject the evidence offered he must so state in the
form of objection. Without objection, he cannot raise the
question for the first time on appeal.
STRIKING OF AN ANSWER (SECTION 39, RULE 132)
Modes of excluding inadmissible evidence
1. OBJECTION – when the evidence is offered;
NOTE: Objections may be waived because the right to object
is merely a privilege which the party may waive. However,
such waiver only extends to the admissibility of the evidence.
It does not involve an admission that the evidence possesses
the weight attributed to it by the offering party.
2. MOTION TO STRIKE OUT OR EXPUNGE:
a. When the witness answers prematurely before there
is reasonable opportunity for the adverse party to
object, and such objection is found to be meritorious;
b. When the answers are incompetent, irrelevant, or
improper (Sec. 39, Rule 132);
c. When the witness becomes unavailable for cross-
examination through no fault of the cross-examining
party;
d. When the answer is unresponsive;
e. When the testimony was allowed conditionally and
the condition for its admissibility was not fulfilled;
f. When a witness has volunteered statements in such a
way that the party has not been able to object thereto;
***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
#GOALDIGGERS
g. When a witness testifies without a question being
addressed to him;
h. When a witness testifies beyond the ruling of the
court prescribing the limits within which he may
answer; or
i. Uncompleted testimonies where there is no
opportunity for the other party to crossexamination.
NOTE: A direct testimony given and allowed without a prior
formal offer may not be expunged from the record. When such
testimony is allowed without any objection from the adverse
party, the latter is estopped from questioning the non-
compliance with the requirement.
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
It is the probative value given by the court to particular
evidence admitted to prove a fact in issue.
Section 1. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, how
determined. — In civil cases, the party having 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 there are testifying,
the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same
may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also
consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance
is not necessarily with the greater number. (1a)
JOSE RIZAL
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW

*** 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”. It means probability of the
truth, evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto.
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,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly.
Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
***Moral Certainty is that degree of certainty which will justify
the trial judge in grounding on it his verdict. It is a certainty
that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies
the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act
conscientiously upon it.
QUESTION: Prosecution witnesses positively identified
Johnny as the assailant of Chris. Hence, he was
convicted of Homicide. However, he contends that
the State failed to present sufficient evidence against
him in court. He sufficed that should the knife he
held during a fight against his longtime enemies,
brothers Chris and Michael, had been presented, it
would show the difference that Chris’ knife, although
smaller than Johnny’s, had more blood stains but
which size fits best on the mortal wound inflicted on
himself. It would thereby be ascertained that Chris
accidentally stabbed himself upon losing his balance
during such aggressive fight. Is Johnny’s contention
***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
#GOALDIGGERS
meritorious?
ANSWER: NO. The non-identification and non-presentation of
the weapon actually used in the killing did not diminish the
merit of the conviction on the ground that other competent
evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had directly and
positively identified and incriminated Johnny as the assailant
of Chris. The presentation of the weapon is not a prerequisite
for conviction. Positive identification of the accused is
sufficient for the judgment of conviction despite the non-
presentation of the weapon used in the commission of the
offense.
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. (3)
Section 4. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN
SUFFICIENT. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(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. (5)
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,
JOSE RIZAL
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW

or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion .  the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly
Degree of evidence required to disprove the prima facie
case established by the party having the burden of proof
A prima facie case need not be countered by a
preponderance of evidence nor by evidence of greater weight.
Defendant's evidence which equalizes the weight of plaintiff's
evidence or puts the case in equipoise is sufficient. As a
result, plaintiff will have to go forward with the proof. Should
it happen that at the trial the weight of evidence is equally
balanced or at equilibrium and presumptions operate against
plaintiff who has burden of proof, he cannot prevail.
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
In determining the sufficiency of evidence, what matters
is not the number of witnesses but the credibility and the
nature and quality of their testimonies. The testimony of a
lone witness is sufficient to support a conviction if found
positive and credible.
FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS (IN RELATION TO
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS)
Literally, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus means “false
in one thing, false in everything.”
If the testimony of a witness on a material issue is
willfully false and given with an intention to deceive, the jury
may disregard all the witness’ testimonies.
The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not
strictly applied in this jurisdiction. It deals only with the
weight of the evidence and is not a positive rule of law.
***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
#GOALDIGGERS
Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when
disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented
at the trial.
CORPUS DELICTI -It is the actual commission by someone of
the particular crime charged. It refers to the fact of the
commission of the crime, not to the physical body of the
deceased or to the ashes of a burned building. The corpus
delicti may be proven by the credible testimony of a sole
witness, not necessarily by physical evidence.
ELEMENTS OF CORPUS DELICTI
1. Proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and
2. A person’s criminal responsibility for the act.
NOTE: The identity of the accused is not a necessary element
of the corpus delicti..
QUESTION: Jose Mariposa was charged with violation of
Sec. 4, Art. 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He was
apprehended thru a buy-bust operation. During trial the
prosecution failed to produce the marijuana sticks that
Mariposa sold during the entrapment operation. Is there a
need to produce the marijuana sticks to convict the
accused?
ANSWER: YES. The elements necessary for a charge of illegal
sale of marijuana are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefore. It is indispensable that
the identity of the marijuana whichconstitutes the corpus
delicti must be established before the court. During the trial,
the sticks of marijuana were never presented as evidence to
prove that appellant indeed sold the same during the
JOSE RIZAL
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW
 #GOALDIGGERS
entrapment operation. It is indispensable in every prosecution
for illegal sale of marijuana, a prohibited drug, is the
submission of proof that the sale for the illicit drug took place
between the poseur-buyer and the seller thereof, and the
presentation further of the marijuana, the corpus delicti, as
evidence in court.

***USE AT YOUR OWN RISK JOSE RIZAL

UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL
OF LAW