USC College of Law - Third Year Evidence SY 2011-2012: PART 1 - Syllabus Based Notes

USC College of Law – Third Year
EVIDENCE MIDTERMS SY 2011-2012
This reviewer consists of 3 Parts: Part 1 – Syllabus Based Notes, Part 2 – Cases Part 3 - Transcriptions God
Bless! :)
PART 1 - Syllabus Based Notes
Object/Real Evidence
- addressed to the senses of the court, it’s the real thing; tangible things not perception of the witness or a
recollection of that perception; not visual alone; covers entire range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell
and touch. Physical evidence ranks higher than testimonial evidence.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY:

1. Requires object be both relevant and competent.
2. For object not to be excluded, the same must pass test of authentication.
To authenticate
2.1. is it the real thing? It must be shown object is same object as subject matter of lawsuit or one involved to
prove an issue in case
2.2. There must be someone who should identify the object to be the actual thing involved in the litigation.
3. Authentication must be made by a competent witness
4. Object must be formally offered in evidence.
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

1. Objects that have readily identifiable marks – unique objects
2. Objects that are made readily identifiable – objects made unique
3. Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked – non-unique objects
Documentary evidence
- does not exclusively refer to writings; has 2 categories
1. Writings – instantly recognizable documents like written contracts and wills
2. Any other material containing modes of written expressions offered as proof of contents – not traditionally
considered as writings but are actually objects.
I. Real and Demonstrative Evidence

A. Rule 130; Sec.1; Sec.2
Rules of Admissibility
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
SECTION 1.Object as evidence. — Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the
court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by
the court. (1a)
“Section 1. Object as Evidence – Object as evidence are those addresses to the senses of the court.
when an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibit to, examined or viewed by the court.”
- Object evidence does not refer to the perception of the witness and a recollection of that
perception.
- It is not a reconstruction of the past.
- It is the real thing itself. It consists of tangible things.
- Object appeals directly to the senses of the court. it enables the court to have its first hand
perception of the evidence.
CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  1

Chain of Custody
- Purpose: guaranty 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.
- As called chain, there must be links to the chain. The links are the people who actually handle
or had custody of object.
- 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 to be.
Chain of Custody in Drug Cases
- “Chain of Custody” means 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.
- 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.
Procedure In Custody and Handling of Seized Dangerous Drugs Sec.21 of RA 9165
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a

(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an
ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four
(24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil society groups and any
elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition
and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of
lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate
purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the
subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be
submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s
shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe
all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case
the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to
the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction
of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's
RA 9165 Sec.21 (a) Implementing Rules
SEC. 21. x x x (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
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.
- Admissibility of this type of evidence largely depends on laying the proper foundation for the
evidence.
- Q: does the evidence sufficiently and accurately represent the object it seeks to demonstrate or
represent? If it does, the evidence would be admissible.
TYPES OF DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE

1. Photographs
- When instructive to the understanding of the case will be admitted in evidence
- Must be relevant and competent, its competent when 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.
- Under 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
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.
2. Motion pictures and recordings
- Rules that apply to photographs generally apply to motions pictures and recordings
- Under 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 court
3. Diagrams, models and maps
- Indicate relative locations or positions of objects and persons
- Aside from required 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.
4. X-ray pictures
- Also called “skiagraphs” 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.
5. Scientific tests, demonstrations and experiments

- Granting these is a matter of judicial discretion
EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS

- These refer to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, and
other forms of electronic communication, the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
- These communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the
same or by one who has personal knowledge thereof.
View of an Object or Scene
 it is well recognized that the court has an inherent power to order a view when there is a need to
do so
 it means going out of the courtroom to observe places and objects
 a view disrupts the usual trial process and is time consuming
 an inspection or view outside the courttoom should be made in the presence of the parties or at
least previous notice to them

6. Scientific Evidence
(1) Polygraph or lie detector test
 A polygraph test operates on the principle that stresses causes physiological changes in the body in
which can be measured to indicate whether the subject of the examination is telling the truth.
 During examination, sensors are attached to the subject so that the polygraph can mechanically record
the subjects’s phsysiological responses to a series of questions.
 Court rejects results of polygraph test because it has not attained scientific acceptance as a reliable
and accurate means of ascertaining the truth or deception.
(2) Rule on DNA Evidence (AM No. 06-11-5-SC)

(2.1) Guidelines for DNA Analysis
DNA Evidence
 “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, is molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living
organisms
In People vs Vallejo – court cnoisdered the case as the 1 breakthrough of DNA as admissible and
st

authoritative evidence in Philippine jurisprudence.
 Guidelines in assessing probative value of DNA Evidence:
a) How the samples were collected
b) How they were handled
c) The possibility of combination of samples
d) The procedure followed in analyzing samples
e) Whether the proper standards and procedure were followed in conducting the tests
f) Qualification of analyst who conducted the test
Rule on DNA Evidence

- It applies whenever DNA evidence is offered, used or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in
a) Criminal actions
b) Civil actios
c) Special proceedings
NOTE: When a matter is not governed by the Rules on DNA Evidence, Rules of Court shall apply
“DNA” – deozyrobonucleic acide which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body
“DNA profile” – genetic information derived from DNA testing of biological obtained from a person where such
biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person.
 DNA profiles are not open for public scrutiny.
 DNA profiles and results of other information obtained from DNA testing are confidential.
 Whoever discloses without court order shall be liable for indirect contempt.
 Except upon court order, DNA profiles shall only be released to any of ff:
a) 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
e) Other persons as determined by the court
NOTE: person may request that his DNA info may be disclosed to person designated in his request and such
request must be in writing, verified and filed with the court that allowed DNA testing. (sec11); trial court is
mandated to preserve the DNA evidence in its totality (sec12)
“DNA Evidence” – totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic information directly generated from
DNA testing of biological samples.

Significance of DNA
 Uniqueness of a person
Order of DNA Testing

 A person who has legal interest in the litigation may file an application before the appropriate court, at
any time.
 There must be a showing of:
a) Biological sample exist that has relevance to the case
b) Biological sample
b.1 was not previously subjected to the DNA testing requested or
b.2 if it was previously subjected to DNA testing, the results may require confirmation for
good reasons.
c) DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique

d) DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the
proper resolution of the case
e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting
the accuracy and integrity of the case.
- when the above are complied with, court may now issue an order if appropriate to
i. take biological samples from any person or crime scene evidence and\
ii. impose reasonable conditions on the testing to protect the integrity of the biological sample
and the liability of the test results
NOTE: court may motu propio order DNA testing
Court Order is Required

- Only if there is a pending litigation but not before the litigation.
Order of DNA Testing

- It is not appealable
- It is immediately executor
- Remedy is a petition for certiorari which shall not in any way stay the implementation thereof unless
higher court issues an injunctive order
- The grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence
of any competent of the DNA Evidence that may be obtained as a result of the testing. Court has to
evaluate probative value of the proposed evidence before its admission
Matters in Determining Probative Value of DNA Evidence:

a) Chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and
the possibility of contamination of the samples
b) 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) 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 on forensic casework and its credibility shall be properly established
d) Reliability of the testing result
Post Conviction DNA Testing

- Means test after conviction
- Available to the

a. prosecution
b. person convicted by final and executor judgment provided that the ff reqs are met:
1. Biological sample exist
2. Such sample is relevant to the case
3. Testing would probably result in the reversal of judgment of conviction
- Post DNA testing may be available without need of prior court order
- If results of DNA testing are favorable to the convict, he may file a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in the court of origin but it can also be filed either in CA, SC or with any member of said
courts. A hearing may be conducted by said courts. Petition for habeas corpus may also be filed by
prosecution.
II. Best Evidence Rule

- Original document rule or primary evidence rule
- Comprehends a situation where evidence offered is substitutionary in nature when what should be
offered is the original evidence.
- The original of a writing must, as a general proposition be produced
- 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 the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document, no evidence shall be admissible other
than the original thereof.
Requisites for Best Evidence Rule:

1. subject matter must involve a document
2. subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document
- BER applies only when the purpose is to establish the terms of a writing.
- subject inquiry is the contents of a writing, not the truth of a writing
- when document is involved in the inquiry but the document us only collaterally in issue, the BER does
not apply
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.
Reason for BER

- the need to present to the court the exact words of writing where a slight variation of words may
mean a great difference in rights
- prevention or detection of fraud
- to avoid unintentional or intentional mistaken transmissions of the contents of a document through
the introduction of selected portions of a writing to which the adverse party has no full access.
- To prevent possible erroneous interpretations or distortions of a writing
Waiver
- BER may be waived if not raised in trial.
Steps to Apply BER:

1. Determine the matter inquired into.
 If inquiry involves document and its contents are the subject if same inquiry, BER applies
and must therefore be complied with.
2. If original cannot be presented. 2 stages:
i. Finding an adequate legal excuse for the failure to present the original
ii. Presenting a secondary evidence sanctioned by Rules of Court

Excuses for Not Presenting BER

- The excuses for 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 the inquiry.
- The instances are mentioned in Rule 130 sec. 3
A. Rule 130, Secs 2-8; Rule 132, Secs. 25 and 27
RULE 130
Sec. 3.Original document must be produced ; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents
of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the
following cases:
(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
Loss, Destruction of Unavailability of the Original

- Secondary evidence like a copy of the original is admissible as an exception if the original
writing has been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the part
of the party offering the secondary evidence.
RULE 132
Sec. 25.What attestation of copy must state . — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested
for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of
the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be 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. (26a)
Sec. 26.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
B. Secondary Evidence
- Secondary evidence refers to evidence other than the original instrument or document itself.
- Secondary evidence like a copy of the original is admissible as an exception if the original writing
has been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the part of the
party offering the secondary evidence.
Sec. 5.When original document is unavailable . — When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the
cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a
recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
(4a)
Sec. 6.When original document is in adverse party's custody or control . — If the document is in the
custody
CHRIS T., BADZ or under
N., TERCEL the2 T.,
M., CAN control
TET of
adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after 8
such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary
evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a)
Rule 130 Sec.5

- Secondary evidence may be admitted only by laying the basis for its production. Requisites:
1. Offeror must prove execution and existence of original documents
2. Offeror must show the cause of its unavailability
3. Offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his bad faith
Correct Order of Proof (may change at sound discretion of court)

1. Existence
2. Execution
3. Loss
4. Contents
- The due execution and authenticity of the document must be proved either
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker
- Before secondary evidence can be presented, it imperative that all the originals of a deed must be
accounted for.
- The BOP in establishing loss or destruction of the original is on the proponent of the secondary
evidence
- The loss of original need not be shown to be beyond all possibility of mistake
- A reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient like by showing that there was a bona fide and diligent
but fruitless search for the document
Order of Presentation of Secondary Evidence

a. A copy of the original
b. Recital of the contents of the document in some authentic document
c. By testimony of witness
Note: Under Rules of Court, a copy of the original is the best secondary evidence. If it is available, other secondary
evidence will not be admitted.
- 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 if offered in evidence, the secondary
evidence becomes primary evidence.
Original is in Custody of the Adverse Party
- After showing that original document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party does
not ipso factp authorize the introduction of secondary evidence to prove its contents.
- The party who seeks to present secondary evidence must lay a basis for its introduction.
- Laying the basis requires proof of the ff:
(a) That the original exists
(b) That said document is under the custody or control of 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 the reasonable notice
When the Original Consists of Numerous Accounts

- Secondary evidence is admissible
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 whole
- Main reason for this exception lies in the determination by court that the production of the original
writings and their examination in court would result in great loss of time considering that the evidence
desired from the voluminous records accounts is only the general result of the whole like a summary
itself may be admitted if the underlying documents are so voluminous and intricate as to make an
examination of all of them impracticable.
Meaning of Original
Sec. 4.Original of document. —

(a)The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
(b)When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical
contents,
Section all such
5. Definition of copies
Terms-are
Forequally regarded
the purposes of as
thisoriginals.
Act, the following terms are defined, as follows:
(c)When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or
(a) "Addressee" refers to a person who is intended by the originator to receive the electronic data message or
electronic document, but does not include a person acting as an intermediary with respect to that electronic
data message
- or
In electronic data document."Computer"
laymen, original refers
means 1 one written
st
but tounder
any device
rules oforcourt,
apparatus
when singly
entry or
is interconnected
repeated in the
which, by electronic,
regular electro-mechanical,
course of business, optical and/or
one being magnetic
copied impulse,at or
from another other the
or near means with
time of the sameall
transaction,
function, can receive, record,
the entries transmit,
are equally store, as
regarded process, correlate, analyze, projects, retrieve, and/or produce
originals.
information, data, text, graphics, figures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one
or more of -these functions.
Requisites to be considered originals:
a. There must be entries made and repeated in the regular course of business
(b) "Electronic data message"
b. Entries mustrefers
be attoorinformation generated,
near the time sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or
of the transactions.
similar means.
ORIGINALS UNDER THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(c) -"Information
Sec1 ruleand Communications
4 of System" evidence,
the rules on electronic refers to a
thesystem
originalforof generating, sending,
the electronic receiving,
documents is itsstoring,
printoutoror
otherwise processing
output readableelectronic
by sight documents and includes
or other means, provided the
it iscomputer
shown tosystem or other
reflect data similar device by or in
accurately.
which
- data is recorded
the copies or printout
of the stored and any procedures
or output related
readable by sight toreferred
the recording or immediately
to in the storage of electronic
precedingdocument.
paragraph
are also deemed originals where the copies were executed at or about the same time with identical
(d) "Electronic
contents signature" refers toproduced
or is a counterpart any distinctive mark,
by the same characteristic
impression as theand/or
originalsound
or fromin the
electronic from,or
same matrix
representing the means
by other identity and
of awhich
person and attached
accurately to or logically
reproduces original. associated
(sec2 rule with the electronic
4 electronic data message or
evidence)
electronic document or any methodology or procedures employed or adopted by a person and executed or
adoptedPRINTOUT
ORIGINAL by such OF
person with theTRANSMISSIONS
FASCIMILE intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or
electronic
- in document.
MCC vs Ssangyong, court in this case concluded that the terms electronic data message and
electronic document as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 do not include a facsimile
(e) "Electronic document"
transmission refers be
and cannot to information or the
considered as representation
electronic evidence.of it information,
is not the data, figures,
functional symbolsof oran
equivalent
other modes
originalofunder
written
theexpression, described
Best Evidence or however
Rule and represented,
is not admissible by whichevidence.
as electronic a right is established or an
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be prove and affirmed, which is receive, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, Commerce
C. Electronic retrieved orAct
produced electronically.
(RA 8792), Secs. 5,6, 15
(f) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crossover
public channels into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key.
(g) "Intermediary" refers to a person who in behalf of another person and with respect to a particular electronic
document sends, receives and/or stores provides other services in respect of that electronic data message or
electronic document.
(h) "Originator" refers to a person by whom, or on whose behalf, the electronic document purports to have been
D. Rules on Electronic Evidence, Rule 2, Sec.1; Rule 3; Rule 4

RULE 2
SECTION 1. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows:
(a) “Asymmetric or public cryptosystem” means a system capable of generating a secure key pair, consisting of
a private key for creating a digital signature, and a public key for verifying the digital signature.
(b) “Business records” include records of any business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and
calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit, or for legitimate purposes.
(c) “Certificate” means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature which purports to confirm the
identity or other significant characteristics of the person who holds a particular key pair.
(d) “Computer” refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-
mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other means with the same function, can receive, record, transmit, store,
process, correlate, analyze, project, retrieve and/or produce information, data, text, graphics, figures, voice, video,
symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one or more of these functions.
(e) “Digital Signature” refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document
or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial
untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public key can accurately determine:

(i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer’s public key;
and
(ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made.
(f) “Digitally signed” refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature
verified by the public key listed in a certificate.
(g) “Electronic data message” refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or
similar means.
(h) “Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or
output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic
document. For purposes of these Rules, the term “electronic document” may be used interchangeably with
electronic data message”.
(i) “Electronic key” refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crosses over
public channels into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key.
(j) “Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristics and/or sound in electronic form.
Representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message
or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or
adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or
electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures.
(k) “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions,
streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not
recorded or retained.
(l) “Information and Communication System” refers to a system for generating, sending, receiving, storing or
otherwise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or
other similar devices by or in which data are recorded or stored and any procedure related to the recording or
storage of electronic data message or electronic document.
(m) “Key Pair” in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private key and its mathematically related public key
such that the latter can verify the digital signature that the former creates.
(n) “Private Key” refers to the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature.
(o) “Public Key” refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature.
RULE 3

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

SECTION 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents. – Whenever a rule of
evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing,
such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules.
SEC. 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on
admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by
these Rules.
SEC. 3. Privileged communication. – The confidential character of a privileged communications is not solely on
the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document.
RULE 4
BEST EVIDENCE RULE

SECTION 1. Original of an electronic document. – An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of
an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately.
SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals . – When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by
other equivalent techniques which is accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be
regarded as the equivalent of the original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original
if:
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original.
- The terms “electronic data message” and “electronic document” as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act
of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission and cannot be considered as electronic evidence.
- It is a functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic
evidence.
III. PAROL EVIDENCE

a. Sec.9 Rule 130
Sec. 9.Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors
in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts
in issue in his pleading:
(a)An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c)The validity of the written agreement; or
Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
(1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal
representation, or who has acted beyond his powers;
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following
b. Art. 1403,
cases an Civil Code hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note
agreement
or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence,
therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its
contents:
(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making
thereof;
(b) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another;
(c) An agreement made in consideration of marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry;
(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in action, at a price not less than
five hundred pesos, unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods and chattels, or
Contracts and the Parol Evidence

- has direct application to the law on contracts
- applies only to contracts which the parties have decided to set forth in writing
- when the agreement is merely oral, Parol Evidence should not be applied
- when parties execute a written contract, the parol evidence rule ipso facto comes into play
Parol Evidence
- The terms parol means something “oral” verbal but with reference to contracts,
- “parol evidence” – means extraneous evidence or evidence aliunde
- in Rules of Court – the terms refers not only to oral but also written evidence which are outside or extraneous
to the written contract between parties
- parol evidence rule becomes operative when the issues in the litigation are the terms of a written agreement
- basic question for PER to apply: what have the parties agreed upon?
- Ans: look into agreement, only contents of written agreement are admissible in evidence
- provisions in sec.9 considers the written agreement as embodiment of all the terms of said agreement; ie. total
integration of said agreement
- under Rules of Court, written agreement represents final expression of the agreement and any extraneous
evidence or “parol:evidence is inadmissible for the ff purposes:
a. to modify
b. to explain
c. to add to the terms of the written agreement
- GR: PER forbids any addition or contradiction of 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 is designed to
a. give certainty to written transactions
b. to preserve the reliability
c. to protect the sanctity of written agreements
- PER does not apply to oral agreements
- there must be a writing and that writing must embody an agreement, which includes wills
- written agreement may be public or private, the rule does not specify
- written agreement need not be in any particular form or be signed by both parties
- as GR, bills, notes and other instruments of similar nature, are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parol
or extrinsic evidence

Application of the Rule only to Parties and their Successors in Interest

- only the parties are bound by the parol evidence rule.
- it refers to suits between parties to the contract and their successors in interest
- the rule does not bind strangers to the contract
- it applies only to those who are privy, party successors in interest
- thus, total stranger to the writing is not bound by its terms and is allowed to introduce extrinsic or parol
evidence against the efficacy of the writing
Application of the Rule to Wills

- PER applies to wills, no evidence of the terms of the will other than the contents of the will itself
- express trust concerning an immovable property or any interest therein may not be proved by parol evidence
How to introduce Parol Evidence

- introducing parol evidence means – offering the extrinsic or extraneous evidence that would modify, explain or
add to the terns of the written agreement but parol evidence may only be allowed, if any of the matters
mentioned above is put in issue in the pleadings.
- without complying with the requirement: PUTTING IN ISSUE IN THE PLEADINGS, parol evidence cannot be
introduced
- parol evidence does not per se bar the introduction of parol evidence so long as the pleader puts in issue in
the pleadings an of the matters set forth in the rule, such as:
1. mistake or imperfection of the writing
2. failure to express true agreement of the parties
3. existence of subsequent agreements
- key words: puts in issue in the pleading
- unless duly pleaded, party will be barred from offering extrinsic evidence over the objection of the adverse party
- although Parol evidence is admissible to explain meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose of
incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in writing
unless there has been fraud or mistake
- evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict, defeat
operation of a valid contract
Prior, Contemporaneous, Subsequent Agreements

- the rule forbidding admission of extrinsic evidence did not prohibit proof of an agreement entered into after the
written instrument was executed, notwithstanding that such agreement may have the effect of adding, changing,
or modifying the written agreement of the parties
- parol evidence on subsequent agreements may be admitted – this means that existence of another agreement
after the execution of the original written agreement may be introduced
- subsequent agreement could be invoked only if its existence is put in issue in pleading
Intrinsic Ambiguity in Writing

- it is the raising of the issue in party’s pleading on intrinsic ambiguity which will authorize the introduction of
parol evidence
- intrinsic or latent ambiguity – means one which is not apparent on the face of document but which lies in the
person or thing which is the subject of the document or deed
- document is clear on its face but extraneous matters to the agreement create an ambiguity
- if ambiguity is patent or extrinsic, parol evidence will not be admitted even if it is put in issue in pleading
- patent or extrinsic – appears on very face of instrument and arise from defective, obscure or insensible language
used
Mistake or Imperfection in the Writing and Failure to Express the True Agreement of the Parties

- admission of evidence aliunde may be justifie when there is mistake or imperfection in the written agreement,
this mistake must be put in issue in pleading by a party who wants to prove the defect in the writing
- some reasons for failure to express true intention of parties
1. fraud
2. inequitable conduct or accident
3. ignorance
4. lack of skill
5. negligence or
6. bad faith on the part of person drafting the instrument
- when there is a meeting of the minds but true intention is not expressed in the instrument, one of parties may
ask for reformation and in which parol evidence may be introduced
- if no meeting of minds, because of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, accident, proper remedy is action for
annulment because contract has been rendered voidable
- reformation is for reforming the instrument not the contract
- reformation cannot be done in ff:
a. simple donations
b. wills
c. when agreement is void
Best Evidence Rule vs Parol Evidence Rule
BER PER
1. establishes preference for original document over 1. not concerned with primacy of evidence but
a secondary evidence thereof presupposes that the original is available
2. precludes admission of secondary evidence if 2. precludes admission of other evidence to prove
original document is available terms of document other than contents of
3. can be invoked by any litigant to an action document itself for the purpose of varying the
whether or not said litigant is a party to the terms of the writing
document involved 3. can only be invoked by parties to the document
4. applies to all forms of writing and their successors in interest
4. applies to written agreements (contract) and wills
Waiver of the Parole Evidence

- parol evidence may be waived by failure to invoke the benefits of the rule
- may be made by failure to object to the introduction of evidence aliunde
- inadmissible evidence may be rendered admissible by failure to object
- failure to object to the evidence presented by adverse party operates as a waiver of the protection of parol
evidence rule
Probative Value
- even if parol evidence is admitted, such admission would not mean that the court would give probative value
to the parol evidence and admissibility is not equivalent of probative value or credibility
PART III - CASES
SECOND BATCH The admissibility of these photographs is being

questioned by appellants for lack of proper identification
1. SISON v. PEOPLE by the person or persons who took the same.
TOPIC: Admissibility of Photographs 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 xxx
admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying
the scene at the time of the crime. Needless to stress, the unnamed person who delivered
the suspected shabu and the recipient of it at the
The photographer, however, is not the only witness who laboratory were no-show in court to testify on the
can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness circumstances under which they handled the specimen
of the photograph as a faithful representation of the or whether other persons had access to the specimen
object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by before actual testing.
the testimony of the person who made it or by other
competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it And C/I Geronimo, the analyzing forensic chemist, was
subject to impeachment as to its not also presented. Then, too, no one testified on how
accuracy. Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the specimen was cared after following the chemical
the photographer or by any other competent witness analysis. As the Court observed aptly in People v. Ong,
who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. "[T]hese questions should be answered satisfactorily to
determine whether the integrity of the evidence was
2. PP v. CERVANTES compromised in any way. Otherwise, the prosecution
cannot maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of
TOPIC: Chain of Custody Rule appellants beyond reasonable doubt."
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drug, 3. PP v. DE LA CRUZ

what is crucial is the identity of the buyer and seller,
the object and its consideration, the delivery of the TOPIC: Chain of Custody Rule; Noncompliance with
thing sold, and the payment for it. Implicit in these Sec. 21 of RA 9165
cases is first and foremost the identity and existence,
coupled with the presentation to the court of the traded In the case at bar, the Court finds that the arresting
prohibited substance, this object evidence being an officers failed to strictly comply with the guidelines
integral part of the corpus delictiof the crime of prescribed by the law regarding the custody and control
possession or selling of regulated/prohibited drug. There of the seized drugs despite its mandatory terms. While
can be no such crime when nagging doubts persist on there was testimony regarding the marking of the seized
whether the specimen submitted for examination and items at the police station, there was no mention
presented in court was what was recovered from, or whether the same had been done in the presence of
sold by, the accused. Essential, therefore, in appropriate appellant or his representatives. There was likewise no
cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be mention that any representative from the media, DOJ or
established with moral certainty. This means that on top any elected official had been present during the
of the key elements of possession or sale, the fact that inventory or that any of these people had been required
the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first to sign the copies of the inventory. Neither does it
place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit appear on record that the team photographed the
must likewise be established with the same degree of contraband in accordance with law.
certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.
Now, the prosecution cannot seek refuge in the proviso

xxx of the IRR in the absence of proof of entitlement to
such leniency. The prosecution rationalizes its oversight
As the Court distinctly notes in this case, of the by merely stating that the integrity and evidentiary value
individuals who came into direct contact with or had of the seized items were properly preserved in
physical custody of the seized regulated items, only accordance with law. The allegation hardly sways the
PO3 Ramos testified for the specific purpose of Court save when it is accompanied by proof. According
identifying the evidence. In the witness box, however, to the proviso of the IRR of Section 21(a) of R.A. No.
he did not indicate how he and his companions, right 9165, non-compliance with the procedure shall not
after the buy bust, handled the seized plastic bag and render void and invalid the seizure of and custody of
its contents. He did not name the duty desk officer at the drugs only when: (1) such non-compliance was
Camp Vicente Lim to whom he specifically turned over under justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the
the confiscated bag and sachets at least for recording.
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly evidence seized must be shown to have been
preserved by the apprehending team. Clearly, there preserved.
must be proof that these two (2) requirements were met
before any such non-compliance may be said to fall In the present case, the prosecution apparently did not
within the scope of the proviso. Significantly, not only want to accept that the police had committed lapses in
does the present case lack the most basic or the handling of the seized materials and thus did not
elementary attempt at compliance with the law and its bother to present any explanation to justify the non-
implementing rules; it fails as well to provide any observance of the prescribed procedures. It likewise
justificatory ground showing that the integrity of the failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of
evidence had all along been preserved. the items adduced were not tainted as the discussions
below will show. The non-observance by the police of
4. PP v. SANCHEZ the required procedure cannot therefore be excused.
TOPIC: Noncompliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 TOPIC: Chain of Custody Rule
Other than the markings that SPO2 Sevilla alleged,it is Significantly, this was the only testimony in the case
clear that no physical inventory and no photograph of that touched on the chain of custody of the seized
the seized items were taken in the presence of the evidence. It failed to disclose the identities of the desk
accused or his counsel, a representative from the media officer and the investigator to whom the custody of the
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elective drugs was given, and how the latter handled these
official. Based on the above testimony, SPO2 Sevilla - materials. No reference was ever made to the person
the prosecution's lone witness - also did not mark the who submitted the seized specimen to the PNP Crime
plastic sachet of shabu immediately upon seizure; it Laboratory for examination. Likewise, no one testified on
was only marked upon arrival at the police station. how the specimen was handled after the chemical
Thus, other than the stipulation regarding the handling analysis by the forensic chemist. While we are aware
and results of the specimen at the forensic laboratory, that the RTC's Order of August 6, 2003 dispensed with
SPO2 Sevilla's testimony and the evidence he identified the testimony of the forensic chemist because of the
constitute the totality of the evidence for the prosecution stipulations of the parties, we view the stipulation to be
on the handling of the allegedly seized items. confined to the handling of the specimen at the forensic
laboratory and to the analytical results obtained. The
We recognize that the strict compliance with the stipulation does not cover the manner the specimen
requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not was handled before it came to the possession of the
always be possible under field conditions; the police forensic chemist and after it left his possession. To be
operates under varied conditions, many of them far from sure, personnel within the police hierarchy (as SPO2
ideal, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties Sevilla's testimony casually mentions) must have
of the procedures in the handling of confiscated handled the drugs but evidence of how this was done,
evidence. The participation of a representative from the i.e., how it was managed, stored, preserved, labeled
DOJ, the media or an elected official alone can be and recorded from the time of its seizure, to its receipt
problematic. For this reason, the last sentence of the by the forensic laboratory, up until it was presented in
implementing rules provides that " non-compliance with court and subsequently destroyed - is absent from the
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as evidence adduced during the trial. To repeat an earlier
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized observation, even the time and place of the initial
items are properly preserved by the apprehending marking of the alleged evidence are not at all certain
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such as the testimony on this point varies.
seizures of and custody over said items. " Thus, non-
compliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of xxx
R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
prosecution's case; police procedures in the handling of
standard because it is almost always impossible to
confiscated evidence may still have some lapses, as in
obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes
the present case. These lapses, however, must be
indispensable and essential when the item of real
recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable
evidence is not distinctive and is not really identifiable,
grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the
or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is
critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its planting of evidence under Section 29 and on
uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case allegations of robbery or theft.
the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
contamination and even substitution and exchange. In TOPIC: Presumption of Regularity
other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to
fungibility, alteration or tampering - without regard to The court apparently banked also on the presumption of
whether the same is advertent or otherwise not - regularity in the performance that a police officer like
dictates the level of strictness in the application of the SPO2 Sevilla enjoys in the absence of any taint of
chain of custody rule. irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to
falsify his testimony. Admittedly, the defense did not
TOPIC: Venues of the Physical Inventory and adduce any evidence showing that SPO2 Sevilla had
Photography any motive to falsify. The regularity of the performance
of his duties, however, leaves much to be desired given
Thus, the venues of the physical inventory and the lapses in his handling of the allegedly confiscated
photography of the seized items differ and depend on drugs as heretofore shown.
whether the seizure was made by virtue of a search
warrant or through a warrantless seizure such as a An effect of this lapse, as we held in Lopez v. People,
buy-bust operation. is to negate the presumption that official duties have
been regularly performed by the police officers. Any
In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and
inventory and photograph must be conducted in the should make the presumption unavailable. There can be
place where the search warrant was served. On the no ifs and buts regarding this consequence considering
other hand, in case of warrantless seizures such as a the effect of the evidentiary presumption of regularity on
buybust operation, the physical inventory and the constitutional presumption of innocence.
photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police
station or office of the apprehending officer/team, People v. Santos instructively tells us that the
whichever is practicable; however, nothing prevents the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
apprehending officer/team from immediately conducting duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of
the physical inventory and photography of the items at innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
the place where they were seized, as it is more in
keeping with the law's intent of preserving their integrity 5. PP v. GARCIA
and evidentiary value.
TOPIC: Noncompliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165
TOPIC: “Marking” of Seized Evidence
Thus, other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing and the police investigator (whose identity was not
rule do not expressly specify is the matter of "marking" disclosed), no physical inventory was ever made, and
of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure no photograph of the seized items was taken under the
that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its
same evidence subjected to inventory and photography implementing rules. We observe that while there was
when these activities are undertaken at the police testimony with respect to the marking of the seized
station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency items at the police station, no mention whatsoever was
with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the made on whether the marking had been done in the
"marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they presence of Ruiz or his representatives. There was
are the same items that enter the chain and are likewise no mention that any representative from the
eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be media and the Department of Justice, or any elected
done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator official had been present during this inventory, or that
(2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates any of these people had been required to sign the
the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious copies of the inventory.
and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the
apprehending officers from harassment suits based on xxx

To be sure, Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers

some flexibility in complying with the express TOPIC: Noncompliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165
requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165, i.e.,"non-compliance with these Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with
requirements under justifiable grounds as long as the Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team .
custody over said items." In Sanchez, we clarified that Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest
this saving clause applies only where the prosecution illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
explained the cited justifiable grounds. We also stressed preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value
in Sanchez, that in such case, the prosecution must of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in
show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
evidence seized have been preserved. accused.
These conditions were not met in the present case, as xxx

the prosecution, in the first place, did not even
recognize the procedural lapses the police committed in In the present case, by PO2 Dano's claim, he
handling the seized items. Had the prosecution done immediately marked the seized items which were
so, it would not have glossed over the deficiencies and brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination. By his
would have, at the very least, submitted an explanation admission, however, he did not conduct an inventory of
and proof showing that the integrity and evidentiary the items seized. Worse, no photograph of the items
value of the seized items have been preserved. was taken. There was thus failure to faithfully follow the
requirements of the law.
TOPIC: Chain of Custody Rule
xxx
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard because it is almost always impossible to IN FINE, as the failure to comply with the aforesaid
obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes requirements of the law compromised the identity of the
indispensable and essential when the item of real items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the
evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, crimes charged against appellant, his acquittal is in
or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is order.
critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its
uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case 7. PP v. DEL MONTE
the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
contamination and even substitution and exchange. In TOPIC: Noncompliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165
other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to
fungibility, alteration or tampering - without regard to In People v. Pringas, we explained that non-compliance
whether the same is advertent or otherwise not - with Section 21 will not render an accused’s arrest
dictates the level of strictness in the application of the illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
chain of custody rule. inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
In the present case, while PO1 Garcia duly testified on the seized items as the same would be utilized in the
the identity of the buyer and seller, on the consideration determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
that supported the transaction, and on the manner the In the case at bar, appellant never questioned the
sale took place, the prosecution's evidence failed to custody and disposition of the drug that was taken from
establish the chain that would have shown that the him. In fact, he stipulated that the drug subject matter
marijuana presented in court was the very item seized of this case was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime
from Ruiz at the time of his arrest. Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan for laboratory
examination which examination gave positive result for
6. BONDAD v. PP methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. We

thus find the integrity and the evidentiary value of the 9. ADAMCZUK v. HOLLOWAY
drug seized from appellant not to have been
compromised. TOPIC: Admissibility of Photographs
We would like to add that non-compliance with Section The map or photograph must first, to be admissible, be
21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory made a part of some qualified person's testimony.
and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or Someone must stand forth as its testimonial sponsor; in
seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in other words, it must be verified. There is nothing
evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of anomalous or exceptional in this requirement of
Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the verification; it is simply the exaction of those testimonial
issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules . qualities which are required equally of all witnesses; the
For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law application merely takes a different form.
or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such
law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only In other words, if a witness is familiar with the scene
to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the photographed and is competent to testify that the
courts. photograph correctly represents it, it should, if relevant,
be admitted....
We do not find any provision or statement in said law
or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility 10. PEOPLE V. VALLEJO
of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-
compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. TOPIC: DNA Evidence
The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said
section, is not of admissibility, but of weight – DNA is an organic substance found in a person's cells
evidentiary merit or probative value – to be given the which contains his or her genetic code. Except for
evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said identical twins, each person's DNA profile is distinct and
evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in unique.
each case.
xxx
8. STATE v. TATUM
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence,
TOPIC: Authentication of Photographs therefore, courts should consider, among others things,
the following data: how the samples were collected,
What quantum of authentication do courts require before how they were handled, the possibility of contamination
a photograph may be admissible in evidence? of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, whether the proper standards and procedures
It is simply this – that some witness (not necessarily the were followed in conducting the tests, and the
photographer) be able to give some indication as to qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
when, where, and under what circumstances the
photograph was taken, and that the photograph 11. PEOPLE VS. CARPO, ET AL.,
accurately portray the subject or subjects illustrated.
TOPIC: Polygraph Examinations; Lie Detectors
Witness Pentecost testified that she recognized the
background shown in the picture as that of the food xxx the accused filed anAddendum to Appellant’s
store, and, as mentioned previously, she also testified Brief urging that the favorable result of their lie detector
as to the store's standard procedure of "regiscoping" tests with the NBI be admitted into the records.
each individual who cashed a check at the store. Phillip
Dale testified at length concerning the Regiscope A lie detector test is based on the theory that an
process. The testimony of these two witnesses taken individual will undergo physiological changes, capable of
together amounted to a sufficient authentication to being monitored by sensors attached to his body, when
warrant the admission of the photograph (both the print he is not telling the truth. The Court does not put credit
and the negative) into evidence. and faith on the result of a lie detector test inasmuch
as it has not been accepted by the scientific community

as an accurate means of ascertaining truth or appellants were not convicted on the sole basis of the
deception. paraffin test.
12. PP VS. YATAR Paraffin tests, it must be emphasized, merely

corroborate direct evidence that may be presented by
TOPIC: DNA Evidence the prosecution.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, 14. AIR FRANCE V.

therefore, courts should consider, among others things, CARRASCOSO
the following data: how the samples were collected,
how they were handled, the possibility of contamination TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule; When not applicable
of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, whether the proper standards and procedures Petitioner charges that the finding of the Court of
were followed in conducting the tests, and the Appeals that the purser made an entry in his notebook
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. reading "First class passenger was forced to go to the
tourist class against his will, and that the captain
13. PP VS. CAJUMOCAN refused to intervene" is predicated upon evidence which
is incompetent. We do not think so. The subject of
TOPIC: Paraffin Tests inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident.
Testimony on the entry does not come within the
As to the first issue, appellant alleges that the trial proscription of the best evidence rule. Such testimony is
court failed to give consideration to the results of the admissible.

chemical test indicating that appellant was negative of

gunpowder nitrates consequent to the paraffin test 15. PEOPLE V. TAN
conducted.
TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule; Admissibility of Duplicate
Paraffin tests, in general, have been rendered Original without the production of the original
inconclusive by this Court. Scientific experts concur in
the view that the paraffin test has proved extremely It is alleged that the invoice sought to be introduced,
unreliable in use. It can only establish the presence or which were produced by the use of carbon sheets, and
absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; still, the test which thereby produced a facsimile of the originals,
alone cannot determine whether the source of the including the figures and the signatures on the originals,
nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The are regarded as duplicate originals and may introduced
presence of nitrates should be taken only as an as such, even without accounting for the non-production
indication of a possibility or even of a probability but of the originals.
not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun, since
nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other 16. PEOPLE VS. TANDOY
than gunpowder.
TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule; Buy-bust money
In People v. Abriol, et al., we reiterated the rule on the
admissibility of this kind of evidence: Under the second assigned error, the accused-appellant
A paraffin test could establish the presence or absence invokes the best evidence rule and questions the
of nitrates on the hand. However, it cannot establish admission by the trial court of the xerox copy only of
that the source of the nitrate was the discharge of the marked P10.00 bill.
firearms. Nitrates are also found in substances other
than gunpowder. A person who tests positive may have The Solicitor General, in his Comment, correctly refuted
handled one or more substances with the same positive that contention thus:
reaction for nitrates such as explosives, fireworks,
fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and leguminous xxx
plants. Hence, the presence of nitrates should only be
taken as an indication of a possibility that a person has The best evidence rule applies only when the contents
fired a gun. However, it must be borne in mind that of the document are the subject of inquiry. Where the

issue is only as to whether or not such document was of the best evidence, is applicable to the present case.
actually executed, or exists, or in the circumstances And certainly the copies of the weekly where the
relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best libelous article was published, and its translation,
evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. The
is admissible. newspaper itself is the best evidence of an article
published in it.
Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by
the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its 19. COMPANIA MARITIMA V. ALLIED
existence and not its contents, other substitutionary
evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is therefore TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule; Voluminous Accounts or
admissible without the need of accounting for the Documents
original.
The company argues that the accountants' reports are
17. U.S. V. GREGORIO admissible in evidence because of the rule that "when
the original consists of numerous accounts or other
TOPIC: Falsification documents which cannot be examined in court without
great loss-of time and the fact sought to be established
In criminal proceedings for the falsification of a from them is only the general result of the whole", the
document, it is indispensable that the judges and courts original writings need not be produced.
have before them the document alleged to have been
simulated, counterfeited, or falsified, in order that they That rule cannot be applied in this case because the
may find, pursuant to the evidence produced in the voluminous character of the records, on which the
cause, whether or not the crime of falsification was accountants' reports were based, was not duly
committed, and also, at the same time, to enable them established.It is also a requisite for the application of
to determine the degree of each defendant's liability in the rule that the records and accounts should be made
the falsification under prosecution. Through the lack of accessible to the adverse party so that the company, of
the original document containing the memorandum the summary may be tested on cross-examination.
alleged to be false, it is improper to hold, with only a
copy of the said original in view, that the crime What applies to this case is the general rule "that an
prosecuted was committed; and although, judging from audit made by, or the testimony of, a private auditor, is
the testimony of the witnesses who were examined in inadmissible in evidence as proof of the original
the two consolidated causes, there is reason to records, books of accounts, reports or the like".
entertain much doubt as to the defendants' innocence,
yet, withal, this case does not furnish decisive and That general rule cannot be relaxed in this case
conclusive proof of their respective guilt as coprincipals because the company failed to make a preliminary
of the crime charged. Defendants in a criminal cause showing as to the difficulty or impossibility attending the
are always presumed to be innocent until their guilt be production of the records in court and their examination
fully proven, and, in case of reasonable doubt and and analysis as evidence by the court.
when their guilt is not satisfactorily shown, they are
entitled to a judgment of acquittal. In view of the 20. VILLA REY TRANSIT V. FERRER
evidence produced in both of the aforesaid criminal
causes, said causes can only be terminated by such a TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule; Exceptions; Admissibility of
finding. Secondary Evidence
18. FISCAL OF PAMPANGA V. REYES Exhibits 6 to 19 and Exh. 22, which are photostatic
copies of ledger entries and vouchers showing that
TOPIC: Libel Villarama had co-mingled his personal funds and
transactions with those made in the name of the
The general rules regarding the admissibility of evidence Corporation, are very illuminating evidence. Villarama
are applicable to cases of libel or slander. The has assailed the admissibility of these exhibits,
evidence must be relevant, and not hearsay. This being contending that no evidentiary value whatsoever should
so, the rule of procedure which requires the production be given to them since "they were merely photostatic

copies of the originals, the best evidence being the the introduction of such secondary evidence, the
originals themselves." xxx proponent must establish the former existence of the
instrument. The correct order of proof is as
Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides follows: Existence; execution; loss; contents although
for the requisites for the admissibility of secondary this order may be changed if necessary in the
evidence when the original is in the custody of the discretion of the court. The sufficiency of proof offered
adverse party, thus: (1) opponent's possession of the as a predicate for the admission of an alleged lost
original; (2) reasonable notice to opponent to produce deed lies within the judicial discretion of the trial court
the original; (3) satisfactory proof of its existence; and under all the circumstances of the particular case.
(4) failure or refusal of opponent to produce the original 1. In the case at bar, the existence of an alleged
in court. Villarama has practically admitted the second sale of a parcel of land was proved by the
and fourth requisites. presentation of a xeroxed copy of the alleged
deed of absolute sale.
As to the third, he admitted their previous existence in
the files of the Corporation and also that he had seen 2. In establishing the execution of a document the
some of them. Regarding the first element, Villarama's same may be established:
theory is that since even at the time of the issuance of a. by the person or persons who executed it;
the subpoena ducestecum, the originals were already b. by the person before whom its execution was
missing, therefore, the Corporation was no longer in acknowledged; or
possession of the same. However, it is not necessary c. by any person who was present and saw it
for a party seeking to introduce secondary evidence to executed; or
show that the original is in the actual possession of his d. who, after its execution, saw it and
adversary. It is enough that the circumstances are such recognized the signatures; or
as to indicate that the writing is in his possession or e. by a person to whom the parties to the
under his control. Neither is it required that the party instrument had previously confessed the
entitled to the custody of the instrument should, on execution thereof.

being notified to produce it, admit having it in his We agree with the trial court's findings that
possession. Hence, secondary evidence is admissible petitioners have sufficiently established the due
where he denies having it in his possession. The party execution of the alleged deed of sale through the
calling for such evidence may introduce a copy thereof testimony of the notary public.
as in the case of loss. For, among the exceptions to
the best evidence rule is "when the original has been 3. After the due execution of the document has
lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court." The been established, it must next be proved that
originals of the vouchers in question must be deemed said document has been lost or destroyed. The
to have been lost, as even the Corporation admits such destruction of the instrument may be proved by
loss. Viewed upon this light, there can be no doubt as any person knowing the fact. The loss may be
to the admissibility in evidence of Exhibits 6 to 19 and shown:
22. a. by any person who knew the fact of its loss;
or
21. DE VERA V. AGUILAR b. by any one who had made, in the judgment
of the court, a sufficient examination in the
TOPIC: Admissibility of Secondary Evidence; How to place or places where the document or
establish existence, execution, loss papers of similar character are usually kept
by the person in whose custody the
The crux of this case is whether or not the petitioners document lost was, and has been unable to
have satisfactorily proven the loss of the original deed find it;
of sale so as to allow the presentation of the xeroxed c. or who has made any other investigation
copy of the same. which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the
We rule in the negative. instrument is indeed lost.
Secondary evidence is admissible when the original However, all duplicates or counterparts must be
documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to accounted for before using copies. For, since all the

duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing itself Significantly, and as discussed earlier, respondents
to be proved, no excuse for non-production of the failed to deny specifically the execution of the
writing itself can be regarded as established until it promissory note. This being the case, there was no
appears that all of its parts are unavailable ( i.e. lost, need for petitioner to present the original of the
retained by the opponent or by a third person or the promissory note in question. Their judicial admission
like). with respect to the genuineness and execution of the

promissory note sufficiently established their liability to

In the case at bar, Atty. EmilianoIbasco, Jr., notary petitioner regardless of the fact that petitioner failed to
public who notarized the document testified that the present the original of said note.
alleged deed of sale has about four or five original
copies. Hence, all originals must be accounted for Indeed, when the defendant fails to deny specifically
before secondary evidence can be given of any one. and under oath the due execution and genuineness of
This petitioners failed to do. Records show that a document copied in a complaint, the plaintiff need not
petitioners merely accounted for three out of four or five prove that fact as it is considered admitted by the
original copies. defendant.
22. THE CONSOLIDATED BANK VS. DEL MONTE 23. ARCEO VS. PP
MOTOR WORKS
TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule; Violation of BP 22
TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule; When not applicable;
Failure to deny the genuiness and due execution Petitioner’s insistence on the presentation of the check
in evidence as a condition sine qua non for conviction
Bearing in mind that the risk of mistransmission of the under BP 22 is wrong. Petitioner anchors his argument
contents of a writing is the justification for the “best on Rule 130, Section 3, of the Rules of Court,
evidence rule,” we declare that this rule finds no otherwise known as the best evidence rule. However,
application to this case. It should be noted that the rule applies only where the content of the document
respondents never disputed the terms and conditions of is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is the
the promissory note thus leaving us to conclude that as execution or existence of the document or the
far as the parties herein are concerned, the wording or circumstances surrounding its execution, the best
content of said note is clear enough and leaves no evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence
room for disagreement. In their responsive pleadings, is admissible.
respondents’ principal defense rests on the alleged lack
of consideration of the promissory note. In addition, The gravamen of the offense is the act of drawing and
respondent Morales also claims that he did not sign the issuing a worthless check. Hence, the subject of the
note in his personal capacity. These contentions clearly inquiry is the fact of issuance or execution of the
do not question the “precise wording” of the promissory check, not its content.
note which should have paved the way for the
application of the “best evidence rule.” It was, therefore, Here, the due execution and existence of the check
an error for the Court of Appeals to sustain the were sufficiently established. Cenizal testified that he
decision of the trial court on this point. presented the originals of the check, the return slip and
Besides, the “best evidence rule” as stated in our other pertinent documents before the Office of the City
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is not absolute. As Prosecutor of Quezon City when he executed his
quoted earlier, the rule accepts of exceptions one of complaint-affidavit during the preliminary investigation.
which is when the original of the subject document is in The City Prosecutor found a prima facie case against
the possession of the adverse party. As pointed out by petitioner for violation of BP 22 and filed the
petitioner in its motion to inhibit, had it been given the corresponding information based on the documents.
opportunity by the court a quo, it would have sufficiently Although the check and the return slip were among the
established that the original of Exhibit “A” was in the documents lost by Cenizal in a fire that occurred near
possession of respondents which would have called into his residence on September 16, 1992, he was
application one of the exceptions to the “best evidence nevertheless able to adequately establish the due
rule.” execution, existence and loss of the check and the

return slip in an affidavit of loss as well as in his when the original is in the custody or under the control
testimony during the trial of the case. of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and
the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. To
24. SY VS. COURT OF APPEALS warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence when
the original of a writing is in the custody or control of
TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule; Marriage License the adverse party, Section 6 of Rule 130 provides that
the adverse party must be given reasonable notice, that
We note that their marriage certificate and marriage he fails or refuses to produce the same in court and
license are only photocopies. So are the birth that the offeror offers satisfactory proof of its existence.
certificates of their son Frederick and daughter Farrah
Sheryll. Nevertheless, these documents were marked as The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the
Exhibits during the course of the trial below, which custody or control of the party against whom it is
shows that these have been examined and admitted by offered does not warrant the admission of secondary
the trial court, with no objections having been made as evidence. The offeror must prove that he has done all
to their authenticity and due execution. in his power to secure the best evidence by giving
notice to the said party to produce the document. The
Likewise, no objection was interposed to petitioner's notice may be in the form of (1) a motion for the
testimony in open court when she affirmed that the date production of the original or (2) made in open court in
of the actual celebration of their marriage was on the presence of the adverse party or (3)
November 15, 1973. We are of the view, therefore, that via a subpoena ducestecum, provided that the party in
having been admitted in evidence, with the adverse custody of the original has sufficient time to produce
party failing to timely object thereto, these documents the same. When such party has the original of the
are deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it or
therein. refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be
admitted.
25. MAGDAYAO VS. PP
26. HEIRS OF TEODORO DELA CRUZ VS. CA
TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule; Violation of BP 22
TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule
NOTE: The contents of the check are at issue in this
case While we concur with the Court of Appeals' finding that
Exhibit "A" (a mere photocopy of the original carbon
We agree with the petitioner that it was incumbent upon copy) does not prove that the sale of the land indeed
the prosecution to adduce in evidence the original copy occurred, still we are constrained to reverse its decision
of PNB Check No. 399967 to prove the contents in view of the circumstances present in this case.
thereof, more specifically the names of the drawer and
endorsee, the date and amount and the dishonor To begin with, Atty. SevillanoTabangay, the notary
thereof, as well as the reason for such dishonor. public who notarized the deed of sale, testified that the
Section 3, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence document has about five (5) copies. Hence, it is
specifically provides that when the subject of inquiry is imperative that all the originals must be accounted for
the contents of the document, no evidence shall be before secondary evidence can be presented. These
admissible other than the original thereof. xxx As long petitioners failed to do. Moreover, records show that
as the original evidence can be had, the court should none of these five copies was even presented during
not receive in evidence that which is substitutionary in the trial. Petitioners' explanation that these copies were
nature, such as photocopies, in the absence of any lost or could not be found in the National Archives was
clear showing that the original writing has been lost or not even supported by any certification from the said
destroyed or cannot be produced in court. Such office.
photocopies must be disregarded, being inadmissible
evidence and barren of probative weight. It is a well-settled principle that before secondary
evidence can be presented, all duplicates and/or
Furthermore, under Section 3(b), Rule 130 of the said counterparts must be accounted for, and no excuse for
Rules, secondary evidence of a writing may be admitted the non-production of the original document itself can

be regarded as established until all its parts are An "electronic document" refers to information or the
unavailable. representation of information, data, figures, symbols or

other models of written expression, described or

27. MEYERS VS. UNITED STATES however represented, by which a right is established or
an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be
TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
As applied generally in federal courts, the [best evidence] electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and
rule is limited to cases where the contents of a writing any printout, readable by sight or other means which
are to be proved.Here there was no attempt to prove the accurately reflects the electronic data message or
contents of a writing; the issue was what Lamarre had electronic document.
said, not what the transcript contained. The transcript
made from shorthand notes of his testimony was, to be The rules use the word "information" to define an
sure, evidence of what he had said, but it was not the electronic document received, recorded, transmitted,
only admissible evidence concerning it. Roger's testimony stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
was equally competent, and was admissible whether This would suggest that an electronic document is
given before or after the transcript was received in relevant only in terms of the information contained
evidence. Statements alleged to be perjurious may be therein, similar to any other document which is
proved by any person who heard them, as well as by a presented in evidence as proof of its contents.
reporter who recorded them in shorthand. However, what differentiates an electronic document
from a paper-based document is the manner by which
28. SEILER VS. LUCAS FILM LTD the information is processed; clearly, the information
contained in an electronic document is received,
TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule applicable to drawings recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced electronically.
We hold that Seiler's drawings were "writings" within the
meaning of Rule 1001(1); they consist not of "letters, A perusal of the information contained in the
words, or numbers" but of "their equivalent." To hold photocopies submitted by petitioner will reveal that not
otherwise would frustrate the policies underlying the rule all of the contents therein, such as the signatures of
and introduce undesirable inconsistencies into the the persons who purportedly signed the documents,
application of the rule. may be recorded or produced electronically. By no
stretch of the imagination can a person’s signature
As we hold xxx that the best evidence rule applies to affixed manually be considered as information
Seiler’s drawings, Seiler was required to produce the electronically received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
original drawings unless excused by the exceptions set processed, retrieved or produced. Hence, the argument
forth in Rule 1004. xxx of petitioner that since these paper printouts were
produced through an electronic process, then these
In the instant case, the condition of fact which Seiler photocopies are electronic documents as defined in the
needed to prove was that the originals were not lost or Rules on Electronic Evidence is obviously an erroneous,
destroyed in bad faith. Had he been able to prove this, if not preposterous, interpretation of the law. Having
his reconstructions would have been admissible and their thus declared that the offered photocopies are not
accuracy would have been a question for the jury. In tantamount to electronic documents, it is consequential
sum, since admissibility of the reconstructions were that the same may not be considered as the functional
dependent uon a finding that the originals were not lost equivalent of their original as decreed in the law.
or destroyed in bad faith, the trial judge properly held the
hearing to determine its admissibility 30. MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES VS. SSANYONG
CORPORATION
29. NPC V. CODILLA
TOPIC: Electronic Evidence; Facsimile Transmissions;
TOPIC: Electronic Evidence Not admissible as electronic evidence
We, therefore, conclude that the terms "electronic data

message" and "electronic document," as defined under TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule; When original in the
the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a custody of the adverse party
facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile
transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. The only actual rule that the term "best evidence"
It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the denotes is the rule requiring that the original of a
Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic writing must, as a general proposition, be produced and
evidence. secondary evidence of its contents is not admissible
except where the original cannot be had.
Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data
message" or an "electronic document," and cannot be xxx
considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with
greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission In our view, the trial court correctly allowed the
not electronic evidence. In the present case, therefore, presentation of the photocopied documents in question
Pro Forma Invoice Nos. xxx which are mere photocopies as secondary evidence. Any suggestion that BF failed
of the original fax transmittals, are not electronic evidence, to lay the required basis for presenting the photocopies
contrary to the position of both the trial and the appellate of Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19 instead of their
courts. originals has to be dismissed. The stenographic notes
of the xxx exchanges between xxx counsel for BF and
31. NUEZ VS. CRUZ-APAO ESHRI xxx, reveal that BF had complied with the
requirements.
TOPIC: Ephemeral electronic communications; How
proven Four factual premises are readily deducible from the
xxx exchanges, to wit: (1) the existence of the original
"Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone documents which ESHRI had possession of; (2) a
conversations, text messages . . . and other electronic request was made on ESHRI to produce the
forms of communication the evidence of which is not documents; (3) ESHRI was afforded sufficient time to
recorded or retained." produce them; and (4) ESHRI was not inclined to
produce them.
Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, "Ephemeral electronic communications shall Clearly, the circumstances obtaining in this case fall
be proven by the testimony of a person who was a under the exception under Sec. 3 (b) of Rule 130. In
party to the same or who is not a party but who has other words, the conditions sine qua non for the
personal knowledge thereof . . . ." In this case, presentation and reception of the photocopies of the
complainant who was the recipient of said messages original document as secondary evidence have been
and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified met. These are: (1) there is proof of the original
on their contents and import. Respondent herself document's execution or existence; (2) there is proof of
admitted that the cellphone number reflected in the cause of the original document's unavailability; and
complainant's cellphone from which the messages (3) the offeror is in good faith.
originated was hers. Moreover, any doubt respondent
may have had as to the admissibility of the text THIRD BATCH
messages had been laid to rest when she and her
counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text 1. BALUYOT V. POBLETE
messages between her and complainant. It is also well
to remember that in administrative cases, technical rules TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule
of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. We
have no doubt as to the probative value of the text Even if petitioner had properly raised the issue
messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lack regarding the real date of maturity of the loan, it is a
thereof of respondent in this case. long-held cardinal rule that when the terms of an
agreement are reduced to writing, it is deemed to
32. EDSA SHANGRI-LA v. BF CORPORATION contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of
such terms can be admitted other than the contents of
the agreement itself. In the present case, the

promissory note and the real estate mortgage are the clearly refers to the terms of an agreement and
law between petitioner and private respondents. It is not provides that "there can be, between the parties and
disputed that under the Promissory Note dated July 20, their successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of
1981, the loan shall mature in one month from date of the agreement other than the contents of the writing."
the said Promissory Note.
The statement in Exhibit I of the petitioner's receipt of
Petitioner makes much of the testimony of Atty. Edwina the P28,000.00 is just a statement of fact. It is a mere
Mendoza that the maturity of the loan which petitioner acknowledgment of the distinct act of payment made by
incurred is one year. However, evidence of a prior or the private respondent. Its reference to the amount of
contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not P28,000.00 as consideration of the "pakyaw" contract
admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of does not make it part of the terms of their agreement.
a valid contract. While parol evidence is admissible to Parol evidence may therefore be introduced to explain
explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve Exhibit I, particularly with respect to the petitioner's
the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional receipt of the amount of P28,000.00 and of the date
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at when the said amount was received.
all in writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake.
In the instant case, aside from the testimony of Atty. 3. ENRIQUEZ V. RAMOS
Mendoza, no other evidence was presented to prove
that the real date of maturity of the loan is one year. In TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; Exception; Parol
fact there was not even any allegation in the Complaint Evidence permissible if there is allegation in the
and in the Memorandum filed by petitioner with the trial pleadings that agreement does not express true intent
court to the effect that there has been fraud or mistake
as to the date of the loan’s maturity as contained in Section 22, Rule 123 of the RoC, which provides that
the Promissory Note of July 20, 1981. when the terms of an agreement had been reduced to
writing it is to be considered as containing all that has
2. CRUZ V. CA been agreed upon and that no evidence other than the
terms there can be admitted between the parties, holds
TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; When not applicable true only if there is no allegation that the agreement
does not express the intent of the parties. If there is
The rule, however, is not applicable in the case at bar, and this claim is in issue in the pleadings, the same
Section 7, Rule 130 is predicated on the existence of a may be the subject parole evidence. The fact that such
document embodying the terms of an agreement, but failure has been put in issue in this case is patent in
Exhibit D does not contain such an agreement. It is the answer wherein defendant has specifically pleaded
only a receipt attesting to the fact that on May 4, 1982, that the contract of sale in question does not express
the petitioner received from the private respondent the the true intent of the parties with regard to the
amount of P35,000. It is not and could have not been construction of the roads.
intended by the parties to be the sole memorial of their xxx
agreement. As a matter of fact, Exhibit D does not We find no error in the conclusion reached by the court
even mention the transaction that gave rise to its a quo for indeed [the construction of the roads] is the
issuance. At most, Exhibit D can only be considered a condition to be expected by a person who desires to
casual memorandum of a transaction between the purchase a big parcel of land for purposes of
parties and an acknowledgment of the receipt of money subdivision. In a subdivision the main improvement to
executed by the petitioner for the private respondent's be undertaken before it could be sold to the public is
satisfaction. A writing of this nature, as Wigmore feeder roads as otherwise it would be inaccessible and
observed is not covered by the parol evidence rule. valueless and would offer no attraction to the buying
public.
TOPIC: Statement of Fact v. Terms
4. CANUTO V. MARIANO
A distinction should be made between a statement of
fact expressed in the instrument and the terms of the TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; Exception; Subsequent
contractual act. The former may be varied by parol oral agreement for the extension of the redemption
evidence but not the latter. 5 Section 7 of Rule 130 period

defendant company. The contract contained no such

The rule forbidding the admission of parol or extrinsic condition and the court declined to receive parol
evidence to alter, vary, or contradict a written evidence thereof.
instrument does not apply so as to prohibit the
establishment by parol of an agreement between the 6. LAND SETTLEMENT V. GARCIA
parties in writing, entered into subsequent to the time
when the written instrument was executed, TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; Exception; If the
notwithstanding such agreement may have the effect of agreement does not express the true intent of the
adding to, changing, modifying, or even altogether parties
abrogating the contract of the parties as evidenced by The subject of agreement alluded to in the second
the writing; for the parol evidence does not in any way paragraph of the above letter, was the condition to be
deny that the original agreement of the parties was that complied with or the consideration given for the
which the writing purports to express, but merely goes extension of time, within which the Garcia spouses pay
to show that the parties have exercised their right to their account. The lower court should have admitted the
change or abrogate the same, or to make a new and parol evidence sought to be introduced to prove the
independent contract. It makes no difference how soon failure of the document in question to express the true
after the execution of the written contract the parol one intent and agreement of the parties. It should not have
was made. If it was in fact subsequent and is otherwise improvidently and hastily excluded said parol evidence,
unobjectionable it may be proved and enforced. knowing that the subject-matter treated therein, was one
of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule. When the
5. YU-TEK V. GONZALES operation of the contract is made to depend upon the
occurrence of an event, which, for that reason is a
TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; Application condition precedent, such may be established by parol
evidence. This is not varying the terms of the written
[Defendant] alleges that the court erred in refusing to contract by extrinsic agreement, for the simple reason
permit parol evidence showing that the parties intended that there is no contract in existence; there is nothing
that the sugar was to be secured from the crop which to which to apply the excluding rule "... This rule does
the defendant raised on his plantation, and that he was not prevent the introduction of extrinsic evidence to
unable to fulfill the contract by reason of the almost show that a supposed contract never became effective
total failure of his crop. This case appears to be one to by reason of the failure of some collateral condition or
which the rule which excludes parol evidence to add to stipulation, pre-requisite to liability"
or vary the terms of a written contract is decidedly
applicable. There is not the slightest intimation in the The rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict
contract that the sugar was to be raised by the a writing, does not extend so far as to preclude the
defendant. Parties are presumed to have reduced to admission of extrinsic evidence, to show prior or
writing all the essential conditions of their contract. contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between
While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways the parties, but such evidence may be received,
to explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot regardless of whether or not the written agreement
serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract contains reference to such collateral agreement. In the
additional contemporaneous conditions which are not case at bar, reference is made of a previous
mentioned at all in the writing, unless there has been agreement, in the second paragraph of letter Exhibit L,
fraud or mistake. and although a document is usually to be interpreted in
the precise terms in which it is couched, Courts, in the
In an early case this court declined to allow parol exercise of sound discretion, may admit evidence of
evidence showing that a party to a written contract was surrounding circumstances, in order to arrive at the true
to become a partner in a firm instead of a creditor of intention of the parties.
the firm. Again, in [a case], a contract of employment
provided that the plaintiff should receive from the 7. LECHUGAS V. CA
defendant a stipulated salary and expenses. The
defendant sought to interpose as a defense to recovery TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; When not applicable
that the payment of the salary was contingent upon the
plaintiff's employment redounding to the benefit of the

As explained by a leading commentator on our Rules of

Court, the parol evidence rule does not apply, and may This principle notwithstanding, petitioner would have the
not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation Court rule that this case falls within the exceptions,
against the other, where at least one of the parties to particularly that the written agreement failed to express
the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written the true intent and agreement of the parties. This
instrument in question and does not base a claim on argument is untenable.
the instrument or assert a right originating in the
instrument or the relation established thereby. Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the
xxx meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose of
The petitioner's reliance on the parol evidence rule is incorporating into the contract additional
misplaced. The rule is not applicable where the contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at
controversy is between one of the parties to the all in the writing unless there has been fraud or
document and third persons. The deed of sale was mistake. Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous
[10]
executed by LeonciaLasangue in favor of Victoria verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary,
Lechugas. The dispute over what was actually sold is contradict or defeat the operation of a valid contract.
between petitioner and the private respondents. In the 10. RAYMUNDO V. LUNARIA
case at bar, through the testimony of LeonciaLasangue,
it was shown that what she really intended to sell and TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; Exceptions
to be the subject of Exhibit A was Lot No. 5522 but
not being able to read and write and fully relying on We agree with petitioners' claim that the parol evidence
the good faith of her first cousin, the petitioner, she just rule does not apply to the facts of this case. First, the
placed her thumbmark on a piece of paper which parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or
petitioner told her was the document evidencing the contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by
sale of land. The deed of sale described the disputed testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, " at
lot instead. or before" the execution of the parties' written
agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon
8. SILVANO GAJE V. PATRICIA VDA DALISAY by the parties, varying the purport of the written
contract. Notably, the claimed verbal agreement was
[10]
TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; When not applicable agreed upon not prior to but "subsequent to" the written
agreement. Second, the validity of the written
Petitioners’ contention that the Deeds of Sale indicating agreement is not the matter which is being put in issue
the name of Dalisay, Jr. as vendee is the best here. What is questioned is the validity of the claim that
evidence to prove his ownership of the parcels of land a subsequent verbal agreement was agreed upon by
does not hold water. In the case at bar, Patricia, is not the parties after the execution of the written agreement
party to the Deeds of Sale. The rule excluding extrinsic which substantially modified their earlier written
evidence in the construction of writings is inapplicable in agreement.
a case where one of the parties to the case is a
stranger to the contract. Patricia, the widow of Dalisay, 11. CAYUGAN V. SANTOS
Sr., is a stranger to the said Deeds of Sale; thus, the
trial court properly admitted extrinsic evidence adduced TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule
by respondent against its efficacy, and can be deemed
competent to defeat the deed. Parol evidence is competent and admissible in support
of allegations that an instrument in writing, purporting
9. SEA OIL V. AUTOCORP on its face to transfer the absolute title to property, or
to transfer the title with a mere right to repurchase
TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; Application under specified conditions reserved to the vendor, was
in truth and in fact given merely as a security for the
The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to, or repayment of a loan; and upon proof of the truth of
contradiction of, the terms of a written agreement by such allegations, the courts in this jurisdiction have
testimony or other evidence purporting to show that power to enforce the agreement or understanding in this
different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying regard, in accord with the true intent of the parties at
the purport of the written contract. the time when it was executed. xxx

.
In this jurisdiction, as in the United States, the 13. ROBLES V. LIZARRA-CRUZ
existence of an oral agreement or understanding such
as that alleged in the complaint in the case at bar TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; When not applicable
cannot be maintained on vague, uncertain, and
indefinite testimony, against the reasonable presumption In the case before us the deed of conveyance purports
that prudent men who enter into such contracts will to transfer to the defendant only such interests in
execute them in writing, and comply with the formalities certain properties as had come to the conveyors by
prescribed by law for the creation of a valid mortgage. inheritance. Nothing is said concerning the rights in the
But where the evidence as to the existence of such an hacienda which the plaintiff had acquired by lease or
understanding or agreement is clear, convincing, and concerning the things that he had placed thereon by
satisfactory, the same broad principles of equity operate way of improvement or had acquired by purchase.
in this jurisdiction as in the United States to compel the
parties to live up to the terms of their contract. xxx The verbal contract which the plaintiff has established in
this case is therefore clearly independent of the main
12. SPS AMONCIO V. BENEDICTO contract of conveyance, and evidence of such verbal
contract is admissible under the doctrine above stated.
TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; When not applicable The rule that a preliminary or contemporaneous oral
agreement is not admissible to vary a written contract
The so-called "parol evidence" forbids any addition to or appears to have more particular reference to the
contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by obligation expressed in the written agreement, and the
testimony purporting to show that, at or before the rule had never been interpreted as being applicable to
signing of the document, other terms were orally agreed matters of consideration or inducement. In the case
on by the parties. Under the aforecited rule, the terms before us the written contract is complete in itself; the
of the written contract are conclusive upon the parties oral agreement is also complete in itself, and it is a
and evidence aliunde is inadmissible to vary an collateral to the written contract, notwithstanding the fact
enforceable agreement embodied in the document. that it deals with related matters.
However, the rule is not absolute and admits of
exceptions 14. WILLEX PLASTIC V. CA
The present case does not appear to fall under any of TOPIC: Parol Evidence Rule; Waiver
the given exceptions. However, a party to a contract
may prove the existence of any separate oral It has been held that explanatory evidence may be
agreement as to any matter which is not inconsistent received to show the circumstances under which a
with its terms. This may be done if, from the document has been made and to what debt it relates.
circumstances of the case, the court believes that the At all events, Willex Plastic cannot now claim that its
document does not convey entirely the whole of the liability is limited to any amount which Interbank, as
parties' transaction. creditor, might give directly to Inter-Resin Industrial as
debtor because, by failing to object to the parol
In this case, there are tell-tale signs that petitioners and evidence presented, Willex Plastic waived the protection
respondent had other agreements aside from those of the parol evidence rule.
established by the lease contract. And we find it difficult
to ignore them.

PART 3 - TRANSCRIPTIONS
1 discussion
st
Evidence
DNA, Best evidence, parole, object, electronic
Object Evidence, Documentary and Testimonial Evidence

What is an object evidence?
Is defined as evidence which is addressed to the senses of the court. And for this purpose, this
evidence may be exhibited to the court or may be viewed or examined by the court. Hear, smell,
touch… This covers all the range of human senses.
Ex. In a case for damages against Vicky Belo for committing massacre with your face, aesthethic
procedure went wrong, and you want to show to the court the extent of the injury suffered, then
present to the court that affected portion of your body.
Ex. In an action for copyright infringement for copying his original musical composition, and to prove
your allegation, you may play in open court so as to compare it with the music allegedly copied.
Sense of hearing. ;)
Ex. In a crime for murder because the victim died of poison, filed against a restaurant. Present to the
court the dish that the victim had. If the judge dies, then that’s it.
Bottomline: for the court to see and appreciate evidence for and by itself using the senses
enumerated above.
How do you make an object evidence admissible?
1. The object must be relevant
Something which has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce a probability or improbability
2. Must be competent
Must be properly authenticated
3. Must be authenticated by a competent witness
4. Must be formally offered in evidence
What is an authentication?
Real object evidence- refers to the process of establishing in court that the thing presented is the very object that is
claimed to be. So if you present a kitchen knife and say that it’s the very kitchen knife that was used in the killing,
process of proving in court that the kitchen knife was used in the killing or that was recovered in the crime scene. If
torn underwear, presentation requires authentication process. OR if you present a gold watch, that this very gold
watch was what has been stole from the victim, so for authentication, prove that it’s the same thing.
Depends on the kind of object subject to authentication. There are 2 forms of object
evidence: real and demonstrative, both require authentication as a requisite for admissibility.
But their process for authentication varies.

FOR OBJECT- refers to the real thing. Object which is the very subject to the case. Typical
example is a murder weapon, the very weapon involved in the case.
Unique object, non-unique object but made unique, non-unique object
Unique- distinguishable from the rest object belonging to the same class.Ex. Hand gun. What
makes it unique is the serial number assigned to it.
Non-unique but made unique- example: butcher knife. But it can be made unique by ideally
putting some distinguishing mark in the knife. This mark renders an otherwise non-unique
distinguishable.
Non-unique- cannot be distinguished and cannot be made unique. Ex. Drugs.
How do you authenticate a real object evidence?
You now present a murder weapon with serial number 12345. How do you authenticate? Of
course you present a witness who has personal knowledge that this object presented in court
is the very same object that was used in the killing, and this recovered from the crime
scene. If this same witness who recovered the weapon in the crime scene is the very same
witness presented in court, no problem – will testify in court on how the weapon was handled
from the time it was recovered til the time it was presented in court as evidence.
The problem often arises when 2 or more persons have taken possession of the object from
the time it was recovered til it was presented in court. 
HOW DO AUTHENTICATE NOW? The chain of custody principle comes into effect. The
name suggests a chain, a sequence, presupposes link. Must be connected to each other to
form a chain. These links refer to the persons who have taken into possession/custody of the
weapon from the time it was recovered til the time it was presented. So all must account for
the handling of the object while it was in their possession. Convince the court that while the
object changes hand, its essential integrity and evidentiary value is preserved because there
is certainty that that same object which is presented in court is the same object that was
recovered. Generally, it is not always required that all the links should testify, example there
are 3 persons who happened to have taken possession of the object, but take note when the
object involved that when the object involved is a non-unique object, like drugs, it is a must
that all the persons who have taken possession of the object must be presented in court.
Otherwise the link is broken and there has been no compliance with the chain of custody
requirement.
Sec.21 of RA 9165. The law defines the chain of custody requirement as the recorded
authorized movement of the seized drugs from the time the seized drugs were confiscated,
delivered to the forensic lab then to the time that the seized drugs are delivered to the
custodian for safekeeping then to the time that the seized drugs were presented in court for
evidence and destruction. So for the purpose of the chain of custody requirement, all this
links must be accounted for. HOW? Present all those persons who handled the seized drugs.
How do you do it in the real life?
Supposed there were 3 who happened to have taken possession of the drugs, the
apprehending officer, the forensic examiner, the custodian. Present first the apprehending
officer. What facts that your first witness should testify about? Of course you will establish the
circumstances of the seizure, where the seizure was made, the place, the persons from
whom it was seized, the circumstances leading to and surrounding the conduct of the seizure,
and from there you establish that from there that after the seizure of the drugs, the
apprehending officer complied with requirement of inventory and taking of photograph of the

drugs. And third, from there, must be established that the apprehending officer turned it over
to the custodian.
NEXT, how do you inventory the seized items?
Under the rules, the apprehending officer, immediately after confiscation should conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items and take photograph of the seized illegal drugs in the
presence of the accused or in the presence of his representative or counsel and in the
presence of DOJ representative, AND a rep from the media AND any elected official. And
these witnesses must sign the inventory and must be given copy. Written inventory, duly
documented.
Question:
Where should the inventory and taking of photography be made?
People vs. Sanchez: SC ruled that the venue of the required physical inventory depends on
the nature of the seizure such that if illegal drugs were seized as a result of implementation
of an search warrant, the physical inventory and photograph should be made right in the very
place where the search warrant was served. On the other hand, if the illegal drugs were
seized without the warrant, the venue of the inventory where the illegal drugs were seized
and the taking of the photograph should be either in the nearest police station or office of
the apprehending officer/team whichever is practical. ;) so it is not required in the instance
where the seizure was made without the warrant like a buybust officer or arrest in flagrante
delicto, that the inventory and photograph taking be in the place of seizure. Although there is
nothing that prevents the apprehending team in the very place where the drugs were seized.
So in other words, it could be in the very place where the illegal drugs were seized or in the
nearest station or office.
BTW, the literal language of the rule only requires that the apprehending officer take a photo
of the drugs, it is not required that the apprehending officer should take a photograph of the
witnesses. But in Torregs experience, police officers or enforcement agents, to avoid any
technical issues, went beyond the requirement. What the police usually do is also take
photograph of the accused and the witnesses (DOJ rep,etc). Group picture. ;)
Supposed your witness has already complied with these requirements (inventory and
photograph taking)? What’s next? Other than getting your witness to testify on the above
requirements, you will now have a witness testify as to the specific precautionary measures
that he undertook while in the possession of the seized illegal drugs. The purpose of which
is to establish that while the seized drugs were in his possession, there was no possibility of
tampering, alteration, substitution, etc. Like the particular place where he stored the seized
illegal drugs (stored it inside a safe or secured cabinet). And that during the whole time that
the evidence is stored in that specific evidence box/cabinet, no other person had access to
the evidence and that during this time, there can be no chance that this evidence has been
tampered with, substituted with other evidence or contaminated. So all this mjst also be
established by your witness. After that, you will now get the witness to testify as to the next
custodian. From this 1 witness, the seized illegal drugs is turned over to the next custodian.
st
So how you comply with the authentication requirement in the light of the chain of custody
requirement? Turned this over to the custodian(next in line) and take note that the
transmittal should also be documented. So the apprehending officer is required to prepare the
transmittal documents (formal transmittal documentation paper), signed by him and signed by
the next custodian, indicating the specific time and date that the evidence was turned over to
him. If all this facts are established by your 1 witness, then you have a proper accounting
st
of the handling of the evidence in so far as your first witness is concerned. What will you do
next? Since you are required to present the next link to the chain, you shall now present the
custodian. And what are the matters that you have to establish by the testimony of the next
custodian? How he got into possession of the seized illegal drugs. Time, place and the
person who turned this over to him with all the corresponding documentation, and like the

first, you will also get this witness to testify on the precautions, the procedures he undertook
while in possession of the seized illegal drugs to ensure that no tampering, substitution,
contamination of the drugs while it was in his possession. And you continue the process as
to the next custodian until your last custodian who is now in court. The whole purpose of the
exercise is to convince the court that the one now in court, is the same evidence that is
seized from the crime scene. If the chain of custody requirement is complied with, the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the evidence is deemed preserved.
QUESTION:
What is the effect if the chain is breached?
Under existing prevailing jurisprudence, the SC made a definitive ruling that failure to comply
with the chain of custody requirement as enshrined in sec.21 ra 9165 does not render the
seizure of the illegal drugs illegal and therefore does not render the seized illegal drugs
inadmissible in evidence. So what then is the effect? The effect is there is deemed a failure
on the part of the prosecution to prove the corpus delicti(body) of the crime, and also the
guilt of the accused. Weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
But torregs has a problem with the above ruling. In the beginning, he said that one of the
req for admissibility Is authentication, so if there’s failure to comply, logic dictates that there
is failure to comply with the req of admissibility.
At what stage of the presence should the presence of the witnesses (DOJ rep, elected
officer, media) be present?
Consistent with the ruling that the chain of custody requirement has nothing to do with
admissibility, presence of these people has nothing to do with the seizure or search, meaning
only during the inventory.
In fact sec8,rule 126 of crimpro, search shall not be conducted except in the presence of
the accused or his rep or member of his family or in the absence in the presence of 2
witnesses in sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.. the rule does not
require the presence of the DOJ, media, elected officer during the search. Torregs again has
a problem with this procedure because if the purpose of the chain of custody requirement is
to preserve the essential integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence, there’s no sense at
all. Prone to hocus focus. The evil sought to be prevented is still there. Although a good
argument may be made that although this witnesses are not really required during the seizure
and the search, the rights of the accused as to the possibility of tampering, etc can still be
guarded against because in the search—sec.8, rule 126. Built-in protection.
Question:
Can the accused file a motion to suppress illegally seized evidence on the ground that the
police officers failed to comply with the chain of custody req or can the accused question or
object the admissibility of the seized evidence when such were formally offered in evidence
on the ground of non-compliance with the chain of custody requirement? In crimpro, there are
remedies available to the accused. If in violation of accused’s right against unreasonable
searches and seizure, accused can file a motion to quash even before trial on the ground
that it is a fruit of the poisonous tree. If your motion is sustained, then chances are the case
cannot proceed with the filing of the case because there is no evidence to back it up. Or if
the accused does not file a motion to suppress before the trial, the accused may still object
to the admission of this illegally seized evidence when this evidence is formally offered in
evidence during the trial. After the presentation of the witness, ex. Prosecution, prosecution
will formally offer all its object or documentary exhibits. When the formal offer is made, the
defense is given the right to object to the admissibility on the gorund that under the rules,
the evidence is inadmissible. It’s a way to have it excluded. Based on the jurisprudence now
prevailing, this remedies are not anymore available to the accused when the ground is non-
compliance with chain of custody requirement, because as discussed, it does not render the

evidence inadmissible. You can raise it after trial on the ground that the evidence of the state
is insufficient because the evidence of the state failed to prove the element of corpus delicti.
The net effect there is you will earn your victory after a lengthy litigation, when the judge or
court decides on the merit of the main case.
EXCEPT: non-compliance may be excused based on reasonable grounds. And that the
integrity and evidentiary value has been undoubtedly preserved.
Demonstrative evidence
Like real object evidence, demonstrative evidence also needs authentication. Not the real evidence but simply
the replica, the substitute for the real evidence it purports to represent.
TEST: does the demonstrative evidence accurately depict the real object evidence it seeks to represent?
What are the common type of demonstrative evidence?

Photograph, maps, sketch
Ex. In a case involving boundary dispute, instead of going to the disputed site, instead of conducting an
ocular inspection, the parties may agree to rely on demonstrative evidence (sketch, map). The sketch is not the
property in dispute itself, but merely a replica, a representative of the actual litigated property.
Ex. Video recording, motion pictures, scientific test/ demonstration
How do you authenticate a photograph?

It is not required that the authenticating witness be the one who took the photograph. What is only required
is the person who took it it FAMILIAR with the person, place, thing, event that reflected in the photograph.
CASE: US vs. Tatum
Prosecution of falsification of check wherein victim is a retiree who used to regularly receive welfare benefits
in the form of checks from the government. One time, he missed the check, turned out that it was encashed by the
accused. What the accused did was he encahsed this in connection with his transaction with a certain establishment.
In support of the charge, the prosecution presented the clerk who transacted with the accused, and the clerk identified
the photograph taken with the use of radioscope machine- a machine capturing the image of a person transacting
business with that establishment. In this case a photograph was taken where the accused from his waist up is shown.
The accused objected to the presentation of the photograph on the ground that the person who authenticated it is not
the manufacturer of the machine nor the one who took the photograph. The SC rejected his argument and ruled that
it is not required that the photograph as demonstrative evidence , be authenticated by the one who took it. It is
enough that the one authenticating is familiar with the person, thing, event which is reflected in the photograph, and
in this case, the clerk, to whom the accused transacted with is a competent person to authenticate the photograph
because he personally dealt with accused when the latter encashed the check.
People vs. Sison

One of the evidence presented were various photographs capturing the violent incident. Same principle above.
;) or better, read full text :P
Scientific evidence
Also a form of demonstrative but with unique caharacteristic because this is a kind of evidence derived from
scientific test requiring special/scientific knowledge, skill, experience. Most common- lie detector test.;) – premised on
the theory that when a person is lying, he is likely to exhibit some physiological changes in his body capable of being
monitored by some mechanical sensors. While this gained acceptance in other countries, unfortunately, this has yet to
be accepted s admissible evidence in our jurisdiction. CASE: people vs. carpo, et. Alcase involving prosecution for
murder
Paraffin test- to determine the presence of nitrates, usually in cases involving discharge of firearms. What
does our jurisprudence say about this? SC in a number of cases: while paraffin test are not conclcusive, they may
serve as corroborative evidence. Not conclusive because it will either show negative or positive. When the result of

the test is positive, this does not conclusively prove that the one in whose body the nitrates has been found is the
one who discharged the firearm. Why? There are sevral sources of nitrates-- pharmaceutical products, fireworks,
tobacco, legumenous plants and other sources. If the result is negative, this does not conclusively prove also that that
person fired the firearm. There are factors that can negate the presence of nitartes, like washing of hands after
discharge of firearm, or maybe he wore gloves or because of the climate. Not totally useless, but can be
corroborative, may be sufficient to prove a fact if considered in tandem with another evidence of diff kind and nature
but tending to prove the same fact.
DNA deoxiribonucliec acid- DNA has gained acceptance in other countries esp in the States. In phil, relatively
in liue of evidentiary ____, in fact our own rules on DNA were adopted sometime in oct.15,2007. The SC opened the
door to DNA as a form of evidence in the case of Tijing vs. CA- this involves an action for habeas corpus filed by a
mother to recover custody of her child. It happened that a mother used to work for a ER(labandera) while doing her
usual work, the ER took her little child with her for a stroll. Years passed that the child grew up. When the real
mother learned about this, she filed aa petition for writ of habeas corpus. How did the SC resolve this? Was decided
before the introduction of the rules of DNA.Conventional method of physical comparison.SC ruled that the child is a
child of the plaintiff, bears the looks of the mother, similarities. But that’s not what is important in this case. SC made
a formal declaration there that in future cases, courts welcome the use of DNA test.
CASE: Pp. vs. Vallejo for the first, considered and admitted results of DNA test in the resolution of the case.
After the crime was committed, the attending physician took vaginal swabs and using the scientific procedure it was
established that the DNA profile that was taken in the vaginal swabs from the victim matches the DNA profile of that
of the accused.
OCT 15,2007 SC institutionalized DNA by promulgating the rules. Formally accepted and adopted in our
jurisdiction.
Salient features of the rules of DNA. Premised on the scientific theory that no 2 persons have the same DNA
profile except identical twins.
 Apply to civil, criminal proccedings.any.
 When may DNA testing be resrted to?
a. Before any suit or proceeding is commenced.
By whom: by any person, or any prospective pary including law enforcement agent.
Under this first instance, no court order is required for purposes of DNA test. So any
party who seeks to avail may just do it without the need for court order.
b. While pending
Who may avail of this? Requires court order before a test may be conducted. The
order directing the conduct of DNA testing may be issued by the court motuproprio
or any person with legal interest in the litigation
The order granting the conduct of a DNA test can only be issued after notice and
hearing. And such order cannot be a subject of an appeal. Their proper remedy is
petition for certiorari under rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction but take note that filing of the petition
does not stay the order granting the conduct of DNA test. Except if the appellate
court where the petition for certiorari is pending issues an injuction while the petition
is pending.
c. Post conviction
This contemplates a post conviction DNA test. This takes place after the accused has
been convicted. Who may avail? It may be resorted to by the prosecution. If the
prosecution believes that the result of the DNA test might change the judgment. Or
by the accused himself/convicted felon. This scenario applies when the convict has
been convicted by final and executor judgment. No appeal and executor. Conversely,
this cannot be anymore resorted to when the convict has fully served the sentence.
What for? This actually is intended as a last chance for the convicted felon to get a
reversal of the judgment of conviction.- acquittal.

What is the effect if the result of the post conviction DNA test is favourable to the
accused? What is the remedy? The accused or the prosecution can file a petition for
habeas corpus either in the SC, CA or court of origin which should reverse the
already final and executor decision, meaning acquit the accused and order his
release. You cannot result to post conviction DNA test if the acquittal is erroneous
because of the rule on double jeopardy. Will only apply if the result is conviction and
the accused has not fully served his sentence. Under the rules, the court is duty
bound to preserve DNA evidence.
1. In crim cases, the court shall direct the preservation of the DNA witness
during the period while the accused is on trial or when the accused is
already serving the sentence until he fully served the sentence. After
that, the dna evidence may be destroyed or disposed.
2. In civil cases, the court shall ensure shall ensure that the dna evidence
presented in court shall be preserved until the decision becomes final
and executor.
What is the effect if the dna specimen is lost?
In the case of Hubert webb vs. ca, one of the arguments advanced by Hubert ins
eeking his acquittal is that the prosecution lost the semen specimen taken from the
vagina of carmela which Hubert moved that he be allowed to subject this to DNA
testing. It is contended by Hubert that the failure of the state to preserve it amouts
to violation of his due process and entitles him to an acquittal. The SC disagreed
with him. SC said citing Arizona, that due process does not require the state to
preserve dna evidence unless the defense of the accused can prove that the
prosecution is guilty of bad faith.
Torregs is again confused because when u look at the rules, it says
mandatory. BTW, One of the reasons cited by the SC, is during the time when
Hubert moved for the conduct of DNA test, and when the trial court denied the
motion, there was no rule yet on our jurisdiction of DNA evidence.it follows that there
was no obligation on the part of the state to preserve it. When the motion was
denied, Hubert did not anymore pursue it before the higher court- waiver.
As it is now, the prevailing ruling is, failure to preserve is not a ground of acquittal
unless there is bad faith on the part of the prosecution.
There is a provision in the DNA rules which is relevant very relevant for purposes of
our subject. There is a provision there which provides for evidentiary value of DNA
test results in relation to issues on paternity. What’s the rule? IF DNA test yields to
positive or negative result. If the result is positive: less than 99.99%- the rule is that
DNA result is a corroborative evidence of paternity. Not enough to prove paternity.
What about if the likelihood is 99.99% or more? That result creates a disputable
presumption that that child is the child of the purported father, unless overcome by
contrary evidence. So whoever denies paternity should prove otherwise.
How about If the result is negative? That result is conclusive as to non-paternity. ;)
no amount of contrary evidence is allowed. No amount of spousal pity can overcome
this conclusive presumption.
2 Discussion
nd
Obejct, DNA, best evidence, electronic and parole and cases
There are 3 kinds of evidence according to form

Object, testimony, documentary
Documentary- refers to any writing or any material containing words, letters, figures, symbols, or other modes of
written expression. By its definition it does not concern with the nature of the materials on which the letters, figures,
symbols, etc is/are found. So disabuse your mind with the erroneous notion that documentary evidence only pertains
to paper-based material because it could be any form of material. It could be on wood, it could be in a form of a
wall, steel, roof, or even human body.
What therefore makes a writing a documentary evidence?
When this writing or material is offered in evidence as proof to its contents. For purpose of proof other than
its contents, it is not a documentary. It is only an object evidence. In other words, it’s all about purpose of the offer.
So do not be surprise if an encyclopedia is offered as object evidence. Existence, condition – object. Ex. If in a
murder case, it was contented that the book of Riano was used to kill the victim, it can be used as object evidence,
because it has nothing to do at all with the contents, but for other purpose. On the other hand if the book is offered
as proof of its contents, documentary. Bottomline- its about purpose.
The best evidence rule is a mode of exclusion. And as a mode of exclusion, it precludes the introduction and
admission of certain evidence.
What is best evidence rule?
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself as proof of its contents. so in best evidence rule, because it presupposes an issue over its
contents, the question to be answered is this: what does the document say? What does it show? Contain?
How does the best evidence operate?
What that document says, to prove what the document contain, you must present the document itself, cannot be
proved by a photocopy or recollection of a witness. Cannot be substituted by a photocopy or secondary evidence
because the original copy is preferred. So from this defitniton, there are 2 points that should be emphasized: a. when
do you consider that the subject of the inquiry is the content and b. what is an original document in the context of
the best evidence rule. Because the best evidence rule revolves on the understanding about these 2. The definition of
documentary evidence includes words, letters, figures, numbers, symbols, or other modes of written expression may
include drawing CASE: Stelar vs. Lucas
a. When do you consider that the subject of the inquiry is the content
Illustrated in the case of consolidated bank and trust corp – this case involves a collection of sum of
money filed by the bank against the defendant. In support of its complaint, the bank presented a
photocopy of the promissory note executed by the borrowers. In their answer, the borrowers interposed as
their defences that 1/. In so far as the defendant corp is concerned, no valuable consideration for the
issuance of the promissory note. So void. On the part of the individual defendant, they argued that the
promissory was without consideration and that they signed the promissory note as capacity as officers
and not in their individual capacity. So bank presented a photocopy of the promissory note. One of the
defense interposed by the defendant is the admissibility of the promissory note. They argued that the
photocopy of the promissory note should not be admitted in the light of the best evidence rule. This
argument was rejected by the SC, in this manner, it enunciated that the rule applies only when the
subject of inquiry is the contents of the document. That means that it should involve a situation wherein
the parties dispute as to the precise wordings/terms of the document. In other words, the parties quarrel
as to what is the precise wordings/tenor/terms as stated in the document. In this case, the parties do not
dispute the precise wordings of the document. The only defense interposed by the defendant is that it is
without consideration or in so far as the individual defendants are concerned, that it was signed by them
in their official capacity as officers of the bank, meaning they impliedly admitted that the promissory note
contains the wordings that promissory note must contain. So the SC said that the best evidence rule
does not apply, and that it was alright for the plaintiffs to present only photocopy. Defendant impliedly
admitted the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note. They signed the promissory on the
condition that it is as presented before the court. So there must be an issue as to the precise wordings.
b. What is an original document in the context of best evidence rule?

The rules define 3 kinds of originals

1. An original document is one wherein the contents of which is the subject of inquiry. Obviously
therefore, the original document does not refer to those first produced. It’s not about chronology,
not about order of existence. What is material is so long as that document is (whether 1 ,2 ,3 )
st nd rd
the content of which is subject of an inquiry. In other words, even a mere photocopy can be
considered as original if the contents of which is subject of an inquiry. In a case for falsification
for example, the accused falsified not the 1 copy but the photocopy. In a prosecution for
st
falsification, the falsified copy itself which is the photocopy must be presented because the
contents of that photocopy which is subject of an inquiry. Of course, for purposes of falsification,
you have to compare it with the first one.
2. When the document consist of 2 or more copies, executed at the same time with identical
contents, all the copies shall be considered as originals, example: documents produced using
carbon placed in between copies. Case: Pp. vs. Hon Tan – graft and corruption case involving a
public officer.
3. When an entry is repeated in other documents, at or about the same time of the transaction, all
entries must be considered as original. So what is considered as original here is the entries. Ex.:
entries prepared by an entry data clerk. Supposed you have a sari sari store (ms. Santiago) and
she’s very particular with recording so she instructed her data entry clerk to prepare 3 journals, 1
for her, 2 for her husband, 3 for the BIR.
nd rd
-SO UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE, YOU HAVE TO PRESENT ANY OF THESE 3
ORIGINALS. OTHER THAN THESE 3, INADMISSIBLE.
What are the instances that the best evidence rule does not apply?
1. The best evidence rule does not apply when the document is offered other than the contents of the
document. Case: Pp. vs. Tandoy- photocopy of the peso bill. Best evidence rule does not apply because what
it aims to establish is the existence of the transaction (consummated sale involving drugs- buybust operation)
Case: Arceo vs. People- arceo was prosecuted for violation of BP 22. Photocopy of the check – just to prove
the issuance of the check, there is no issue as to its contents.
2. The best evidence rule does not apply when the document is only collateral to the fact in issue, and that
factual issue has an existence independent from the document. Case: Airfrance vs. Carrascoso- airfrance:
must present the notebook, cannot prove it by testimony. SC: there’s no dispute at all with the entries of the
notebook. Can be proved by other evidence OTHER than the notebook.
To make the best evidence rule applicable: when carrascoso alleges the entries of the notebook while
airfrance contends that carrascoso even praised the airlines. So now the issue is the contents. best evidence
rule applies.
Meyers vs. ______: prosecution for perjury. Best evidence rule not applicable – transcriptions during
the trial. Can be proved by anyone who is present during the trial when the accused gave his testimony.
Case for annulment between Ching and Leo: fact of marriage can be proven by evidence other than
the marriage cert.
Note: The issue of the case is not about the content of the document but the issue is the existence
or non-existence of a fact which has an independent existence from a document, although for one reason or
another, has been reduced to a document by another document. :-s
3. When the parties admitted the genuineness and due execution of a document.
Case: Solidbank vs. Del monte
4. When there is waiver on the right to object
Case: Dela Cruz vs. CA
5. When any of the exceptions to the best evidence rule applies
a. When the original is lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court without fault on the part of the
offeror
-cannot be produced : meaning offensive, immoral or impractical
REQUISITES before secondary evidence can be presented:
1. The existence and due execution of the doc

2. He should prove the fact of lost

3. He should prove the fact of absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror
4. He should prove its contents
How to establish the requisites?
1. Can be proved by testimonies of witnesses, or photocopy and due execution can be
proven by witnesses (ex.the parties) or may be proved by the person before whom the
document was acknowledged. Or you may present a witness who witnesses the execution
of the doc. Or you may present the witness who is not present during the execution, but
saw it after and familiar with the signatures appearing in the document. Or it may be
proved by a witness who was neither present during the execution nor familiar with the
signatures bu he just happened to be someone to whom the parties to the document
confided the execution of the document- confidante.
2. The fact of lost: you again have to present a witness: a. a witness who has personal
knowledge of the fact of lost; b. you may present a witness who made sufficient
examination (has no personal knowledge) of the place/s where that doc of paper of the
same character are usually kept by the custodian and that witness is unable to find it. C.
or by a witness who conducted other investigation (in any manner and place possible)
and the court is convinced and satisfied that the original was indeed lost.
TAKE NOTE that when the document has 2 or more originals, and u want to present
secondary evidence that the original was lost, you must account for the loss of all
originals. CASE: De Vera vs. Aguilar- dispute over a piece of land
3 Discussion
RD
EXCEPTIONS TO THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE:
(Recording started here lang. :D)
The two mortgaged property as collateral of property in favor of a lawyer. When the two children did not afford to pay
the loan, the other daughter of marcosa who is married to aguilar relieved the property from them. Thereafter Marcosa
sold the property to the daughter who redeemed the property from the lawyer. When Marcosa died, the other heirs
now insist that they are co-owners of the property left by the mother. But the daughter who is married to Aguilar
claims that it exclusively belonged to them. The others said that the Aguilars in turn sold the property to Marcosa.
During the trial, to prove that the peropety was indeed resold by the Aguilars to Marcosa (mother), the other children
presented a photocopy of the deed of sale purportedly executed by the aguilars in favor of Marcosa. To justify their
presentation of the photocopy of the deed of sale. The plaintiffs tried to account for the lost originals. They presented
3 witnesses to prove the lost originals. They presented the notary public who testified that the original in his
possession cannot be produced. They presented the rep of the national archives who said that there were no copies
available. The register of deeds who said that no deed of sale was available. But it was said that the notary public
said that during the time the deed was executied, there were 5 copies, 1 to the lawyer, to the register of deeds,
national archives and the provincial assessor of the proince where the property was located. The SC said that while
plaintiffs were able to prove the original deed of sale by presentation of the photocopy, they were unable to prove the
fact of the loss. Because they were only able to account for the 3 of 5. The plaintiff failed to account for the loss
of the copy then forwarded to the provincial assessor and certification from said office that no original copy is
available. Failing to account for all the orginial copies, the presentation of the of the photocopy as a secondary
evidence is not justified under the Best Evidence Rule.
2. 2 exception to the BER: When the original is in the possession of the adverse party who, despite reasonable
nd
notice, is unable to produce it. This is the second instance where the original cannot be presented in court because it
is in the poseesion of the adverse party. In this situation, presentation of secondary evidence in lieu of the original is
also warrenated under the best evidence rule. For this exception to apply, the adverse party must have been given
reasonable notice to reproduece and he was unable to produce it. It is not necessary that the adverse party admits

that he/she has the original. It’s enough that the plaintiff claims that the original is with the adverse party and despite
reasonable notice is unable to produce it and so he may now present secondary evidence.
EDSA SHANGRILA Case – Edsa Shangrila entered into a construction project to construct a project by
Shangrila. Their agreement was to send the progress billing sent to shangril and ti will pay thereafter. During the
existence o the contract, Beer alleged that SHangrila refused to pay the billings. So the corp went to court to collect
the amounts due. To prove its claim that Shang refused to pay their progress billings, the corp presented photocopies
of it. One issue is WON the copies of the are admissible in evidence in light of the best evidence rule. The SC ruled
that under the second xception to the best evidence rule when the original is in the possession of the adverse arty
and was given reasonable notice to produce it but was unable to, the party can usesecondary evidence. This was in
the case of the Shang because during the trial, the lawyer presented to the court that the originals are in possession
of edsa shang so they cannot produce it. When ignquired by the court as to the originals of the progress billings. The
lawyer testified in court that his lawyers already notified Shangri-La and Shangri-La did not respond to their
information that the lawyer has given to shang. In other words, the lawyer gave a negative answer to the inquiry. The
SC said, this is sufficient compliance with the rules on presentation of secondary evidence when the original cannot
be reproduced. The SC also laid down the rules on how to serve the notice.
How do you serve the notice to the adverse party before presenting the secondary evidence?
a. Through availing of Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure for production of documents and request the
adverse party to produce the original of the document.
b. Or the notice may be served by an oral motion in court in the presence of the adverse party or his
lawyer, requesting the adverse party to produce the original.
c. Or to issue a subpoena duces tecum specifying the documents and the custodian to produce the certain
document at a particular date and time.
So, any of the three will do to comply with the notice requirement. Presentation of secondary evidence is now justified
if these are complied with.
3. 3 exception: When the original consists in numerous accounts which cannot be produced in court without great
rd
loss of time and the fact sought to be established is the general result, it is enough that the proponent present a
summary of it all instead of the voluminous accounts. This is the reuling in Compania Maritima v. Free Union –
damages by Maritima against the Union for the damages due to strikes of the union. To prove damages, the
company presented the accountant’s report containgint the damages. Of course, it was just a summary based on the
purported actual records. The presentation fo the report was objected to on the ground that it was not original. The
company said that it was sufficient. The SC disagreed because under the third exception, it is necessary that first the
voluminous nature of the record should be first established before it is allowed to be presented. Second, it is
necessary that the numerous accounts of voluminous records must be made accessible for the adverse party for
purposes of cross examination to validate the accuracy.
a. voluminous character
b. accessibility of the numerous record to the adverse party.
If these are not complied with, you may have to present the individual copies of the voluminous records.
This exception is commonly acceptable in cases such as Estafa against your employees.
4. 4 exception: When the original is a public document or kept in some public office and in the custody of some
th
public officer, you don’t need to submit the original but rather a certified true copy attested to by the custodian is
sufficient. So if you intend to present a public document in the custody of some public officer/officer. As a GR, you
are not allowed to take out the original document unless justified by compelling reasons. But normally the custodian is
not allowed to bring the original out of the office. So if you are the proponent, what you should do is to secure a
certified true copy attested by the custodian. Take note, you don’t get a certified true copy from the photocopy

machine operator. It should be attested to by the custodian because he is the one obligated by the rules. It’s to
comply with the best evidence requirement.
That covers the Best Evidence Rule.
Carbon copies – considered original.

But a document which is “at or around the same time” like preparing 3 receipts. You have not carbon but you are
required to prepare three. You make 3 but you don’t have identical handwriting. To me, that is substantial compliance
so long as you can establish the elements which are substantial requirements. Otherwise, that’s impossible physically.
So, whether “at or about the same time” there’s no rules prescribed by the rules, it’s a case to case basis.
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Disclaimer:
In the olden times, the traditional way, before the rules on electronic evidence came into effect, the traditional way of
proving something such as data containing some diskettes, data contained in some flash drive, the traditional way is
to bring a computer in court and then, using the computer, display the data on the computer screen and display it in
court and then print it. This was actually what happened in the case of PP v. Bocus where the police, by virtue of a
warrant, seized some evidence in the house of Bocus including diskettes and other materials allegedly subversive.
What they did to prove it, was to move for the court to allow them to bring the computer in the court to allow them
to show the diskette in the court and do the actual demonstration by printing it out and the SC allowed despite the
electronic evidence and in effect granted the motion of the prosecution.
Wht is electronic evidence? What are the common forms of electronic evidence?
1. Digital images from digital cameras or digital video presentations.

2. E-mail, electronic mail messages or text messages, voice messages like voicemail, when you call somebody
and nobody answers but a woman in the other line saying that Mr. So and So is not available and leave
your voice at the beep. That’s electronic evidence – the answering machine. Or Fax. Although there’s a little
controversy on Fax which we will discuss later.
As any other evidence, it may be admitted if it complies with the requirements of admissibility:
1. Relevant
2. Competent
3. Formally offered in evidence
A. COMPETENT
What do we mean by competent?
For an E-evidence to be competent must comply with the rules of exclusion such as the Best Evidence Rule
and the Rules on Authentication. For our purposes, pay more attention to these because these are two of the most
important requirements of admissibility in E evidence.
Let’s discuss Best Evidence Rule in relation to E evidence. The best evidence rule applies to documentary evidence.
SO not all evidence applies to Best Evidence. Meaning to say, the Best evidence rule, in so far as E-evidence is
concerned applies only to electronic document.

What is an electronic document?
Electronic document as defined by the rules refers to information or representation of information such as
data, figures and other modes of written expression by which right is created, obligation exchanges and a fact proved
and affirmed which is there are so many processes there. Help me. Sent, received, stored, processed, produced
electronically. There are so many processes there. Their common denominator is that all these processes must be
done electronically such as the transmission, sending, receiving, etc. should be done electronically so that if some
(data, figures, etc.) are processed in a manner not solely through electronic process, that document is taken out form
the ambit of electronic document. It’s not even considered as electronic evidence. This is the ruling in the case of
NPC v. Codilla involving a claim for damages by NPC against the ship owner arising from an incident where a vessel
bumped or damaged the power barges of NPC. During the trial, to prove the damages, the NPC submitted the copies
of electronic documents. The presentation of the copies was objected to using the Best Evidence Rule. NPC argued
that the photocopy is a functional equivalent of the original. So, the case went all the way to the SC. The primordial
issue was WON the photocopies of the documents are considered as functional equivalents of the originals in relation
to the rules of electronic evidence. The SC ruled categorically that the documents themselves are not even electronic.
And since these documents are not electronic, there’s no point determining whether the photocopies are functional
equivalent because in the first place even the original are not and cannot be considered as electronic evidence or
electronic, because not all entries of the document were processed electronically. As a matter of fact, it contained
signatures that were manually affixed. The presence of these signatures negates the character of electronic evidence.
It is therefore clear that for a document to be considered electronic, all the entries must be processed electronically.
What is the original electronic document for purposes of complying with the Best Evidnece rule which requires to
present the original?
Ms. Ching, for example, prepared an email using her computer, a very sweet and loving e-mail dedicated to
Mr. Celdran. Because Ms. Ching is too proud of it, Ms. Ching also sent copies to all her classmates. So, for
purposes of the Best Evidence Rule in relation to Best Evidence? What is the original? The original may include the
following:
a. The digital message or the electronic data as stored in the computer of Ms. Ching. You compose a message
in your computer, it stays in it. So the electronic data inside such as the hard drive, or wherever you saved
it, the data inside, although you can’t see the message itself, that data itself it the original.
b. Using the computer, you displayed the electronic data in the computer screen. That data appearing in that
screen is also original.
c. You sent a copy of the email to Mr. Celdran. Mr. Celdran also received it and also stored it inside his
computer. The data in his computer or the one displayed in his screen are also considered to be original.
d. Because Mr. Celdran was so proud of it, he printed it out and distributed it to the whole world. These
printouts are also original. Look at Sec. 1 of Rule 4 of the electronic evidence rule, the electronic document
is an original if it is a print-out or output readable by sight or by any means shown to reflect the data
accurately. The data on your screen and print out are all data shown.
e. Sec. 2 or Rule 4 saysa there are also copies or counterparts regarded as equivalent of the originals. These
are considered equivalent of originals if:
a. The document consists of 2 or more copies executed at the same time with the same contents.
i. Let’s go back to the email of Ms. Ching. We have here Ms. Ching sending email to Mr.
Celdran and copy furnished the whole world. In case a dispute arises involving the contents
of the email message, the presentation of the original email is indispensable. Under the Best
evidence rule, you may present either of the following copies because they are considered
equivalent to the originals.
1. The copy stored by Ms. Ching
2. A copy of the email as received by Mr. Celdran, that’s original.
3. Copies received by all who were furnished or given copies of the email.

ii. For purposes of the best evidence rule, these are considered originals because they are also
with original contents.
f. Counterparts or copies which are produced by the same person as the original or from the same matrix or
produced by electronic or mechanical re recording or produced by mechanical process or by means of any
equivalent techniques that reproduces the original accurately. So under the electronic evidence rule, any
reproduction of the original, so long as it reproduces the original accurately are regarded as original. In
electronic evidence, there is no such thing as copies because all are regarded as originals because copies
usually have identical contents with the originals given the process of reproduction involved.
What about a photocopy of a print-out? A print out under Sec. 1, Rule 4 is equivalent of the original because there is
a print out readable by sight. Suppose you reproduce the print-out using a photocopying machine converting it into
another hard, paper-based document? A photocopy of the print-out, how do you consider the resulting photocopy of
the printout. If you look at Sec. 2 of Rule 4, it would appear that any reproduction of the original using these
processes which produces the original accurately are all equivalent of the originals. So a photocopy which is a
reproduction of the original print out can be considred as original. In fact that was my thinking until Sangyong Case
came out.
Sangyong Case
Sangyong involves a case for collection of damages arising from Breach of Contract. Sangyong is engaged in
the business of selling stainless steel pipes. One of its suppliers is Sangyong, a coprotion in accordance with the
laws of South Korea. Through the years, their business transactions were done through telephone calls and Fax
transmissions. Pursuant to their contract, MCC Sales transmitted, using fax machine some invoices, to Sangyong in
South Korea. Alleging that MCC failed to agree to an amount and alleging breach of contract, Sangyong brought a
case against Sangyong. To prove that Sangyong and MCC entered into a contract, Sangyong presented photocopies
of invoices which Sangyong received from MCC. The fax copy, as received, was in turn photocopied by SsangYong.
The one presented in court was a photocopy of the fax copy as received. The issue in this case was WON the
photocopy of the invoice or invoices were admissible in evidence in the light of the Best Evidence Rule and in
connection with electronic evidence. It was argued on the part of Ssangyong that under the E evidence rule now, the
photocopy is a functional equivalent of the electronic original. The SC said categorically that a faxsimile transmission
of electronic evidence or document does not include faxsimile transmission and here’s how the SC justified the
decision:
1. The SC traced the umbilical cord of our own Electonic Commerce Act to its law as adopted by the UN
Commission on International Trade Law. So this shows that indeed Filipinos are fond of copying. So we
copied ours from the UN Moody Law (?) as adopted by the UNCITRA. That law defines what an electronic
data is. Electronic document and electronic data is the same. The moody law defines electronic data message
as something that includes electronic data exchange, telex and telecopy. Take note the definition under said
law includes telex and telecopy and telecopy includes the transmission of data using Fax machine. So said
law expressly includes fax transmission as electronic document. However, when our legislature came out with
our own version o fthe electronic commerce act, this definition as adopted by the UNCITRAL was not fully
and totally adopted. Only part of it was adopted and particulary that portion in the defintion which expressly
includes telex and telecopy was expressly deleted in our own version. In other words, if you look at our own
definition of electronic data or electronic document, the inclusion of faxsimile transmission was deleted. This
was interpreted by the SC to mean that our framers intended to exclude documents to exclude documents
transmitted by faxsimile. The SC rule that this is consistent with the purpose of the rules on electronic
evidence because electronic evidence rule presupposes a paperless information, writing or environment but
this is not the case in the case of Faxsimile transmission. We are referring to an ordinary fax machine. An
ordinary fax machine operates in this manner. It starts with a paper-based document which is fed into the fax
machine where the data appearing in the paperbased document is scanned and such is transmitted from one
and and on the other end, the data is printed. In other words, in an ordinary faxsimile transmission, it starts
with a paper-based document and ends with a paper-based document – the paper-based doc as sent and as

received. The SC said this is not what is contemplated in the E evidence Rule because it contemplates of a
paperless transaction. It went on to say that in so far as a computer-generated fax, it’s a different thing
because a computer-generated fax transmission falls under the definition of an electronic document. I’ve asked
around and I’m not sure if it’s the right information, but a computer-generated fax works or operates in such
a way that the orginal message is processed electronically. So the message is created through computer and
this is sent to the recipient and through a fax machine of the recipient, it is convertent into a paper-based
document. What is different between the two is that the ordinary starts with the paper-based and ends with a
paper-based. But the SC here mentioned that there is such a thing as a computer-generated fax. Taking it all
together, it would appear that if the paper-based document originates from another paper based document, it
cannot be considered as electronic. But if the paper-based document originates from an electronic document
even if it ends in a peper-based document, it is an electronic document because under the rules, a print out
is considered as an original. The copy now is considered as a print out, readable by sight, reflecting the data
accurately.
So regarding my first question. How do you classify an original copy of an electronic document?
If we look at Ssangyong, we say that an electronic document ends with a print out but must start with an
electronic to be considered an electronic data.
If hard copy then electronic? Based on Ssayngyong, it cannot because it must originate from electronic. So a
scanned document cannot be considered electronic data.
Essentially, on account of their process, fax is no different from other reproducing mechanisms. So document
photographed and then sent it to email. Then cannot be considered electronic because the origination was paper-
based.
Look at section 1 of Rule 4, it say s there: an Electronic document is regarded as an original when it is an
output readable by site, or by other means, which shows the document accurately. So it is a given that even if the
resulting product is paper-based, it is regarded as original if you connect that to Ssangyong, this only holds true if the
source is electronic because if it is derived from another paper-based, SsangYong says it cannot be a paperless
document.
B. AUTHENTICATION
Another requirement is compliance with authentication. Authentication is a process of assuring the identity of the
evidence, that it is not falsified, adulterated, etc. That is the only purpose.
How do you authenticate an Electronic document.
1. The rules say that it may be authenticated by evidence that the document is digitally signed by the person who is
purported to have signed. This is again a technical thing. I don’t even know how to digitally sign the electronic
document. I was told that an example of a digital signature is the one done in an LTO when you are required to sign
in your driver’s license.
2. It may be authenticated by evidence that the appropriate security procedures adapted by the SC or prescribed
by law for authenticating electronic document has been applied in that document. Our problem with the
second manner of authenticating a document because I am not aware right now if there is any rule
prescribed by the SC for authenticating a document. I am not aware also of a law by congress proscribing
the procedure for purposes of authenticating the procedure. So theoretically, the rules of E evidence provide
for authentication but I don’t know in reality….

3. By any evidence showing that the integrity of the documentary evidence is sufficiently preserved. So the third
one is a general means of authenticating an electronic document.
The hardest part of presenting an electronic document is on the authentication. Given the birth of jurisprudence and
laws on the matter, it is admittedly difficult to authentic electronic evidence in court. Like how do we guarantee the
identity of the sender? How do you assure that only the owner uses that account? What if a person uses the email
account of another. So this is now a manner of imputing the authorship? Third, how do we ensure that the message,
during the process, has not been tampered with.
Say, if Ms. Ching sends a message to Mr. Celdran which says I LOVE YOU and the message received by Mr.
Celdran says I HATE YOU because someone tampered with it. All these play out in the authentication process. So
it’s really difficult. I have an actual case involving damages arising from defamation. She was abandoned by her
boyfriend for another woman and hell has no fury worse than a woman scorned. She sent a lot of messages to the
other woman. And the woman, because of the humiliation filed for damages. So the woman provided a print out
which were indeed defamatory. The SC ruled in one case that there is no proper authentication. These cases
involved improper termination disputes. You know in your labor law that termination requires 3 notices. Nowadays, the
employers send the notices through email – notice to explain, to appear in an investigation, then termination. Usually,
when the employers are fired, they sue. The employers would send that these notices were sent through email but
the employee would deny it. It’s really difficult that the email was received by the employee. How do you prove if the
recepient denies it?
There are also electronic evidence that are offered not as documentary but as object. So how do you authenticate
Object electronic evidence such as video, audio recording? Authenticate by the testimony of the person who recorded
the video or the audio or by the person competent, who has knowledge about the recording, not necessarily the one
who prepared or recorded the object electronic evidence.
We also have a rule for authenticating ephemeral electronic communications. They are so-called ephemeral electronic
communications like telephone conversations, text messages, streaming videos and audios. The common denomator
is that the evidence is not recorded or not retained that’s why they are called ephemeral – not permanently retained
or recorded. Now if these are offered in evidence, it may need authentication by one of the parties who were part of
the communication or by anyone competent to testify on the communication. If the otherwise ephemeral electronic
communication is recorded and therefore no longer ephemeral in the sense that its evidence is retained or recorded
like for example video which is recorded in a voicemail. How do you authenticate it? The electronic communication
now which is recorded may be authenticated as in the manner required for authenticating object. So, it can be
authenticated by the one who recorded the communication or any person aware of the fact. Or if the electronic
communication is recorded in some electronic document, it may be authenticated in the manner the same as
authenticating an electronic document such that is by evidence of a digital signature, by evidence that the appropriate
security requirement prescribed by the SC has been applied and third, by any other means of authentication. So the
rules of evidence prescribe for a certain manner of authenticating evidence.
PAROLE EVIDENCE
We learned in our ObliCon that a contract presupposes the process of negotiation where parties exchange the
proposal, counterproposal, etc. where the parties negotiate. The negotiation can take years. But in the end, the parties
reduce their common agreement into writing. When everything is reduced into writing, the agreement is embodied in
that piece of document. If there is issue as to the agreement of the parties, the parties confine themselves within the
four corners of that document because when everything was reduced into writing, It is to be presumed that matters
not reduced into writing although discussed in the negotiation are considered abandoned or waived. As far as the
parties are concerned, their contract is to be proved by the four corners of the document. This is the essence of the
parole evidence rule.

The parole evidence rule is a rule on exclusion which precludes the introduction of parole evidence which
would vary, change or modify the terms of a written agreement. Parole, as used, literally means, oral evidence. But
for purposes of the application of the Parole evidence rule, is not only limited to oral evidence but also other forms of
evidence like documentary so long as that piece of evidence, oral or written, tends to vary the terms of a written
agreement. In other words, parole evidence rule prohibits the introduction of anything that would any way modify,
explain add, or change the terms of the written agreement. If there is dispute or agreement of the parties, the only
allowable evidence is the written document itself and no other. What the parties have agreed upon cannot be proved
by any other evidence other than the document itself. Parole evidence rule presupposes the existence of a written
agreement. The purpose, obviously of the rule, is to give certainty to written agreements because the law presumes
that human memory is treacherous, the frailty of human memory, as compared to written document which speaks of a
uniform language. So obviously, the law favors written over the oral.
Now, you will realize that parole evidence rule also presupposes a dispute over the terms of a written
agreement similar to that of the Best Evidence Rule. Both presupposes dispute over the contents of a document. As
a matter of fact, Parole Evidence Rule operates in tandem with Best Evidence Rule like Siamese twins. You cannot
dissociate one with the other. They always interplay in a given situation.
Example, suppose Ms. Ching sold a property to Mr. Celdran. After months of negotiation, they reduced their
agreement into writing stating that Ms. Ching is selling lot A to Mr. Celdran. After payment of the purchase price, Mr.
Celdran demands now that Ms. Ching deliver the title so that the property subject of the title should be transferred in
his name. But Ms. Ching refuses because he said that what actually was sold was not lot A but lot B. So Celdran
now is constrained to go to court and file an action for specific performance to compel Ms. Ching to deliver the lot
title to Mr. Celdran. During the trial, Ms. Ching, in order to prove that what was really agreed upon was lot B would
now call Mr. Ceniza, for example, Ms. Ching now calls to the stand Mr. Ceniza who was present when Ms. Ching
entered in the contract with Mr. Celdran and would testify that what was agreed was indeed to sell lot B. But
suppose the deed states that what was sold was lot A. Under the Best Evidence Rule, when the subject of inquiry is
the contents of the document, the original should be presented. So in accordance with the Best evidence rule, the
original deed of sale must be presented now. Any testimony of Mr. Ceniza trying to prove the contents of the deed of
sale is not admissible why? Secondary evidence. You should present the original deed of sale.
Similarly, suppose the original deed of sale is already presented in court in accordance with the Best
Evidence Rule, is the testimony of Mr. Ceniza admissible to the effect that the agreement was to sell lot B and not
lot a? No. Because while the Best Evidence Rule is complied with, Mr. Ceniza’s testimony is not allowed by virtue of
the Parole Evidence Rule. Because for purposes of proving the agreement of the parties, the only admissible evidence
is the document itself. Any evidence that would tend to vary the terms of the document is inadmissible. So you will
notice how these two principles interplay in a given situation. You cannot apply parole evidence rule without applying
the best evidence rule.
Not all documents covered by BER are covered by Parole.
How do you distinguish the Best evidence rule from the Parole Evidence rule? Best evidence may be distinguished in
the ff. manner:
1. the question to be answered in the BER is “what does the document say?”, “what does the document
state/show/contain”? While in the PER, the question is “What have the parties to the contract agree upon?”
which is about agreement between the parties, what really was the agreement between the parties. The BER
concerns more on the document itself but the PER concerns about the agreement of the parties WON
reduced into writing.
2. BER is a rule of preference which says that the original is preferred over secondary. PER is not concerned
with primacy of evidence; it prohibits the introduction of extraneous evidence and in the process requires
compliance with the rule of BER. SO, before you apply PER, you still make sure that you first comply with
the BER.

3. In BER, any party to the case may invoke the BER, whether that party is not a party to the document or the
contract. In other words, so long as you are party to the case and there is violation to PER, you may invoke
PER and you may oppose to admission of evidence other than the document itself. In addition, PER applies
only to the case where the parties are parties to the contract. PER can only be invoked by the parties to the
contract. The reason being contracts are binding only between the parties and therefore, only parties have the
right to object to any evidence that would vary the terms of a written contract.
4. BER covers all forms of document so long as it contains figures, words, letters and other forms of written
expression and the document is offered as proof of its contents. All forms of written evidence. But the PER,
only documents containing contracts.
These are the salient differences.
The application of PER was demonstrated in
Yutech v. Gonzales:
Eutech entered into a contract with Gonzales where Gonzales was obliged to deliver 600 piculs of sugar to
Yutech for a certain consideration for a certain perio, despite receipt of consideration and lapse fo the period,
Gonzales failed to deliver. Yutech now goes to court for breach of contract and recovery of amount paid. As
dfense, Gonzales tried to prove that he was not able to deliver the piculs of sugar because he was not yet able
to harvest. He calimed that their agreement was that 600 piculs of sugar were to be sourced from his own
plantation and since there was no harvest yet, he cannot be required to deliver the 600 piculs of sugar. And
unfortunately, this was not contained in the written agreement. It simply stated that Gonzales is obliged to deliver
600 piculs of sugar without qualificiation as to the source of the sugar. So any evidence presented by Gonzales
in trying to prove that the sugar should be sourced from his plantation was inadmissible pursuant to the PER
because this would vary the written contract because it does not make any condition. So if you look at the
contract, Mr. Gonzales can source the sguar from anyone, not necessarily from his own plantation.
INSTANCES WHERE PER does not APPLY:
1. When the document involved does not contain a contract. This is what happened in the Cruz v. CA
a. Claim for a certain amount of money by Salonga alleging that Mr. Cruz obtained money from him as
evidenced by a receipt that states that on a certain day, Mr. Cruz, received a certain amount. In his
defense, Mr. Cruz said that while it is true that he issued a receipt, it was not for a money he owed
Mr. Salonga but it was actually a receipt for the money that Salonga paid him representing the
purchase price of the fish products that salonga bought from him and the rain tires for the sublease
that was entered into by Salonga and Cruz. This was objected to on the ground of the PER because
it tends to vary the receipt. The receipt does not specify the nature of the transaction. The SC
overruled the objection and held that the PER finds no application in this case obviously because the
receipt is not a contract. PER presupposes a written agreement. A written contract has the required
elements, consideration, subject matter and so on and so forth and this is not found in a receipt
because it is merely a document stating a particular fact, no more no less.
2. Where at least one of the parties to the case is not a party to the contract sued upon. As I said earlier, a
contract is binding only upon the parties and PER is available only to a party to the contract. This is what
happened in the case of Lechugas v. CA:
a. This involves a dispute over a piece of land by Lechugas against the defendants. First, Unlawful
detainer, dismissed, appealed. Then filed a case against the sale. Lechugas said that the land
occupied by the defendants is her owned and she bought it from someone. In their defense,
defendants say it’s not the land bought by Lechugas. They presented Lucia lasanggi herself who said
that the lot was other than the lot subject matter of the case. It appears that the deed of sale
erroneously stated the lot number which is occupied by the defendants. The testimony of lassanggi
was objected to using the PER. SC said that PER does not apply because the defendants were not

a party to the contract between Lechugas and Lasanggi. The rule is PER does not apply in a
situation where at least one party to a case is not a party to the contract sued upon or does not
base a claim or assert a claim arising from that same contract. So only those parties to the contract
can invoke.
3. Doctrine of Collateral Agreement Rule - What is prohibited by PER is the introduction of extraneous
evidence which would prove a prior or contemporaneous agreement which would vary the terms of the written
agreement. Coversely, if that extraneous evidence would prove a prior or contemporaneous agreement which
does not vary the terms of the written agreement, that evidence is not governed by parole evidence rule. This
is the doctrine of collateral agreement rule illustrated in the case of Robles v. Lizarraga Hermanos:
a. It involves a hacienda owned by spos Zacharias Robles Sr. and the wife. When Zacharias Sr died,
the hacienda was administered by his heir. During the lifetime of the widow, the widow entered into a
contract with one of their children,Zacharias Jr. where he leased it for his own purposes for a period
of 6 years. During the existence of the lease, he introduced improvements and installed some
equipments, spending money out of his own resources. During the existence of the lease, the mother
died, so the hacienda was now inherited by the children. After a while, 3 of the children bought the
shares of the other 3. So it now belongs to the other 3. Lizarraga Hermanos offered to buy the
Hacienda. But because Jr. still had 2 years of his lease, the parties during the negotiation agreed
that Jr. should be compensated for what he spent for the improvements in exchange for his waiving
the last 2 years of the lease. After the negotiation, the parties entered into a written contract of sale,
involving the hacienda. Subsequently, however, Lizarraga Hermanos, refused to reimburse Jr. on the
improvements of the Hacienda. Lizarraga hermanos claimed that there was no agreement at all as to
the compensation of the value of the improvements that Jr. introduced. Jr. filed a case against
Lizarraga Hermanos to recover on the value of the improvements that he introduced on the hacienda.
To prove his case, Zacharria introduced evidence tending to prove that he agreed with Lizarraga
Hermanos for the compensation of the value of the improvements of the land, waiving the unexpired
portion of the lease of the land. The evidence was objected to because a reading of the contract of
sale executed by the parties shows that there was no such agreement and that such evidence tends
to vary the terms of the contract. The SC overruled Lizarraga Hermanos. PER applies only to a
situation where an extraneous evidence is introduced to prove a prior or contemporaneous contract
which would be inconsistent with the written agreement because if it’s inconsistent with the written
agreement, it would therefore vary the terms of the written agreement. This is not the situation in the
case. IF you look at the written agreement, it is obvious that what was sold by the parties was only
the hacienda nahalina, a property which was inherited by the sellers, the children, from the parents.
In other words, what was subject by the deed of sale was owned by the sellers by virtue of
succession. It does not cover properties that they acquired by virtue of any other lease. So the
improvements were not covered because such improvements was Jr’s having introduced the
improvements using his own resources. The SC concluded that the agreement between Lizarraga and
Jr. was an independent contract which is not inconsistent with the deed of sale not coveredby the
deed of sale. They are really separate and distinct although they may relate to the same thing. The
contract over the improvement is a complete contract independent from the contract involving the
hacienda. So the Per does not apply.
4. When case falls under any of the exceptions of the PER. The rule itself provides for exceptions:
a. When the parties raise it as an issue in the pleadings. Take note, this is the operative fact here, if
the parties raise in the pleadings any of the ff. facts:
i. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection of the contract
1. What takes out the case from the operation fo the PER is that the parties raise as
specific issue that there is an intrinsic ambiguity, imperfection or mistake. If this issue
is raised in the pleading, the proponent is now prohibited from introducing evidence
to prove the existence of the intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection of the
contract, even if this would vary the terms of the written agreement. The reason is
that this is the issue in the case. So every party has the right to prove his allegation
pertaining to the issue. Otherwise, even if there is intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or

imperfection, even if it’s true, but this is not raised, any evidence tending to prove
such intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection is not admissible. Why? Because that
is immaterial. Why? Because it is not raised as an issue in the pleading. You can
only prove what you alleged in the pleading. This is now what happened in the
impeachment case of Justice Corona. Justice Peras keeps on objecting to any
testimony tending to prove a fact not allegedly included in the articles of
impeachemtn. That’s the rule on materiality. That’s due process. So, before you
allege the exceptions, make sure you raise it as an issue in the pleadings.
ii. Validity of the written agreement:
1. So for example if the written agreement is void for any reason like for example a
contract for sale but in reality there was no consideration so it was void. But the
contract itself says that consideration was received but in truth or in fact, no
consideration was given. If that party pleads it is an issue in the pleading that
actually such contract was void because there was no consideration the fact of the
absence of consideration may be proved during the trial without violating the PER
because this is an exception. This may vary the terms of the contract because the
contract says that consideration was given.
iii. Written agreement does not reflect the true intention fo the parties
1. This must be alleged in the pleadings.
2. Illustrated in the case of Enriquez v. Ramos: There is a transaction where a party
bought pieces of, several pieces of land from the landowner but unable to pay the
full purchase price, the buyer paid only partial payment. And to guarantee the
payment of the balance the buyer executed a deed of sale with mortgage. Alleging
that the buyer failed to pay the balance, the seller now wanted to foreclose the
mortgage. In his answer, the defendant pleaded it as an issue in the answer that the
filing of the foreclosure is premature because the agreement of the parties was that
the buyer shall only pay the balance of the purchase price after the seller shall have
constructed roads on the subject matter of the case because the subject matter was
supposed to be used as a subjdivision unit. In the pleading, the defendant expressly
made it an issue that the deed of sale with mortgage does not expressly or reflect
the true intention of the parties because this condition, the obligation of the seller to
construct the road, did not appear in the deed of sale with mortgage but the
defendant raised it as an issue in the pleading. So, during the trial the defendant
presented evidence to prove this condition, this condition precedent. This was
objected to on the ground of PER, but the objection was overruled. The SC said that
this is an exception to PER and that is when the written agreement does not reflect
the true intention of the parties. And because the defendant was able to raise it as
an issue in the pleadings, the fact that contract does not reflect the true intention of
the parties, any evidence tending to prove that fact is admissible.
3. The same holds true in the case of Land Settlement Devt Corporation v. Garcia
plantation: Garcia plantation bought 2 tractors from Land Settelemtn Corp, partial
payment only, promised to pay the balance within a certain period. When the period
expired, Garcia Plantation negotiated for an extension, Land agreed to extend the
grace period on the condition that Garcia would make a substantial or partial
downpayment in time for their harvest because it was agreement that the money to
pay the balance was intended to be taken from the proceeds of their harvest. The
extension was evidenced by a letter sent by the assignor because Garcia at the time
was placed under receivership, I think. Anyway it was evidenced by a letter which
says that you are granted an extension and this matter is subject of our agreement
with you, Mr. Garcia. So this letter containing the consent of Land granting the
extension to Garcia was presented by Garcia in court to show that there was that
extension given. In their reply, Land pleaded it or alleged that their agreement giving

extension to Garcia was based or premised on the condition that the Garcia would
make substantial downpayment so that without the DP, the extension is deemed to
have not been given but this condition was not stated in the letter to the assignor.
During the trial, Land tried to prove the existence of this condition. The SC said that
this is an exception to the PER, when the contract/written agreement does not reflect
the true intention of the parties. While the condition precedent is not present in the
contract, Land was able to raise it as in issue in the pleading, in the case, the reply
to their answer.
iv. Existence of the agreement entered into by the parties subsequent to the written agreement.
1. Fourth exception, when the parties entered into another transaction subsequent to the
written agreement. What is prohibited under Per is the introduction of extraneous
evidence of a prior or contemporaneous evidence. It does not prohibit evidence to
prove the existence of an agreement subsequent to the written agreement.
2. This was illustrated in the case of Canuto v. Mariano: This involves a contract of
sale with a right of repurchase where the owner sold the property to the buyer with
the condition that in a certain period the buyer would be allowed to repurchase the
property. For failing to repurchase the property within the certain period, the buyer
now consolidates the ownership of the property. The owner complained and a case
was field in court. The argument of the seller-owner was that before the expiration
for the period to repurchase, they allegedly entered into an agreement with the buyer
giving him a grace period. This was, however, objected to on the ground of PER
because it would vary the terms of the contract itself because the contract only says
a certain period. The other party cannot be allowed to introduce evidence to prove
that a longer period was agreed upon. The SC sustained the owner-seller. The SC
said that what is prohibited under the PER is extraneous evidence that would tend to
prove the existence of a prior or contemporaneous contract/agreement with the written
agreement. But what was sought to be proved by the owner-seller was the existence
of another contract between him and the buyer subsequent to the written agreement.
The agreement giving the owner a grace period was entered into after the original
agreement and therefore it is not covered in the Per because it does not vary or
modify the terms of the original agreement, it was entered into after.
v. Parole evidence rule, extraneous evidence which would otherwise vary the terms of the
contract mainly admitted if the party entitled to object, fails to raise the objection. Meaning
there is waiver of the objection based on PER.
1. This is illustrated in the case of Willis v. CA: Just read. The essence there is there
was a contract, 1 of the parties to the contract tried to prove the existence of an
agreement not otherwise contained in the written agreement, obviously violative of the
PER but the other party failed ot object it. The SC said there was waiver and while
the evidence was originally inadmissible but the failure to object, this time around,
admissible.
DISTINGUISH PAROLE EVIDENCE UNDER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE V. PAROLE EVIDENCE UNDER ART. 1403
OF THE CIVIL CODE, UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
Under the Statue of Frauds is a kind of PE which prohibits evidence, parole evidence, meaning oral testimony
to prove the existence of certain contracts, enumerated in par. 2 of 1403, contracts involving deed of sale with real
property, contracts involving personal property with a value not less than 5000, contracts of lease for more than one
year or less than one year but registered in RD, these contracts can only be proved by any written
contract/memorandum. They cannot be proved by testimony of witnesses. So in this effect, PE refers strictly to
testimonial. If you want to enforce any of these contracts, enumerated in par. 2, 1403, make sure you have a written
contract with you, otherwise, that contract is unenforceable under the statue of frauds. So you cannot prove that
contract by presenting a witness to testify that indeed that contract was entered into because the only evidence

admissible is a written memorandum of the contract, meaning the written contract itself. In other words, these
contracts cannot be validly entered into orally because if done orally, they cannot be enforced. It’s also a form of
parole evidence.
COVERAGE: Until Parole Evidence and the cases. From Object to Parole and all the cases. 100 points. Same type.
Part essay, part MCQ.

USC College of Law - Third Year Evidence SY 2011-2012: PART 1 - Syllabus Based Notes

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

USC College of Law - Third Year Evidence SY 2011-2012: PART 1 - Syllabus Based Notes

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

USC College of Law – Third Year

EVIDENCE MIDTERMS SY 2011-2012

PART 1 - Syllabus Based Notes

REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY:

CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

I. Real and Demonstrative Evidence

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  1

Procedure In Custody and Handling of Seized Dangerous Drugs Sec.21 of RA 9165

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  2

RA 9165 Sec.21 (a) Implementing Rules

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  3

- Is not the actual thing but it is referred to as “demonstrative” because it represents or

TYPES OF DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE

5. Scientific tests, demonstrations and experiments

EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  4

(2) Rule on DNA Evidence (AM No. 06-11-5-SC)

Rule on DNA Evidence

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  5

Order of DNA Testing

c) DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique

NOTE: court may motu propio order DNA testing

Court Order is Required

Order of DNA Testing

Matters in Determining Probative Value of DNA Evidence:

Post Conviction DNA Testing

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  6

II. Best Evidence Rule

Requisites for Best Evidence Rule:

Reason for BER

Steps to Apply BER:

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  7

Excuses for Not Presenting BER

A. Rule 130, Secs 2-8; Rule 132, Secs. 25 and 27

Loss, Destruction of Unavailability of the Original

Rule 130 Sec.5

Correct Order of Proof (may change at sound discretion of court)

Order of Presentation of Secondary Evidence

Original is in Custody of the Adverse Party

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  9

When the Original Consists of Numerous Accounts

Sec. 4.Original of document. —

D. Rules on Electronic Evidence, Rule 2, Sec.1; Rule 3; Rule 4

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  11

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  12

III. PAROL EVIDENCE

Contracts and the Parol Evidence

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  14

Application of the Rule only to Parties and their Successors in Interest

Application of the Rule to Wills

How to introduce Parol Evidence

Prior, Contemporaneous, Subsequent Agreements

Intrinsic Ambiguity in Writing

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  15

Best Evidence Rule vs Parol Evidence Rule

Waiver of the Parole Evidence

SECOND BATCH The admissibility of these photographs is being

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  16

value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct

In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drug, 3. PP v. DE LA CRUZ

Now, the prosecution cannot seek refuge in the proviso

TOPIC: Noncompliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 TOPIC: Chain of Custody Rule

CHRIS T., BADZ N., TERCEL M., CAN2 T., TET  19