Powerhaus LAW Review Center

EVIDENCE
 • By
• MARIO R.L. LUNA
• Professor of Law, College of Law, Polytechnic University of
the Philippines
• MCLE Lecturer: ACLEx/Centro Escolar University and
ACCESS/Adamson University
• Deputy City Prosecutor, Antipolo City
• Member: Prosecutors League of the Philippines; Tau Kappa
Phi Fraternity, Institute of Law, Far Eastern University; The
Phantoms Riders Club
 SCOPE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE

• Evidence is the means sanctioned by the

Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact.

• The rules of evidence are not strictly applied

in proceedings before administrative bodies
such as the Board of Medicine, the NLRC.
Evidence and proof – evidence is the means of
proof; proof is the effect of evidence.

Preponderance of evidence – evidence adduced

is superior to that of the other
• Evidence of ascertaining the truth.

• The rules of evidence shall be the same in all

courts and in all trial and hearings, except as
otherwise provided by law or the Rules of
Court.
 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
• Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to
the issue and is not excluded by the law or
the Rules of Court.

• Admissibility of evidence refers to the

question of whether or not the circumstance
or evidence is to be considered at all.
• The probative value of the evidence refers to
the question of whether or not it proves an
issue.

• Evidence is admissible if it is (a) relevant, and

(b) competent, i.e., not excluded.
• Admissibility of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not the circumstance
is to be considered.
• None but facts having rational value are
admissible.
• All facts having rational probative value are
admissible unless the rule forbids.
• Admissibility of evidence distinguished from
weight.

• Multiple admissibility of evidence

• Curative admissibility of evidence – when a

plain and unfair practice prejudice another,
curative evidence may be allowed by the court
• Anti-Wire Tapping Act (R.A. No. 4200)
(1) Unlawful to tap or record any private
communication;
(2) Any information or communication,
obtained without written order of the court,
not admissible as evidence;
(3) Extension telephone cannot be placed in the
same category as other devices for tapping.
• Under the Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A.
No. 9372) a police or law enforcement official
or members of his team may, upon a written
order of the Court of Appeals, listen to,
intercept and record, with the use of any
mode, or kind of electronic or other
surveillance equipment or intercepting and
tracking devises.
• The communication, message, or
conversation, under the Human Security Act
are those between members of judicially
declared and outlawed terrorist organization,
association, or group charged with or
suspected of the crime terrorism.
 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
• Judicial notice, when mandatory
• A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence:
• (1) The existence and territorial extent of
states, their political history, form of
government and symbols of nationality;
• (2) the law of nations;
• (3) the admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals;
• (4) the political constitution and history of
the Philippines;
• (5) the official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines;
• (6) the laws of nature, the measure of time,
and the geographical divisions.

• The Supreme Court take judicial notice that

one’s kidneys before, and at the time of his
operation, as with most human beings, were
in their proper anatomical locations.
• Judicial notice as to the political situation in
the country; the court will take judicial notice
of the fact that the people’s ratification of the
1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987
signaled the return to normalcy of the
political situation in the Philippines.
• Judicial notice that a crossed check could not
be converted into cash but only for deposit;
the court have taken cognizance of the
practice that a check with two parallel lines
in the upper left corner means that it could
only be deposited and could not be
converted into cash.
• Judicial notice, when discretionary:
• A court may take judicial notice of matters
(1) which are of public knowledge, or
• (2) are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or
• (3) ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions.
• In cases when judicial notice is discretionary:
The court, (1) on its own initiative, or (2) on
request of a party may announce its intention
to take judicial notice of any matter and allow
the parties to be heard thereon.
• Where there is judicial admission,
presentation of evidence is not required
anymore.

• An admission, verbal or written, made by a

party in the course of the proceedings in the
same case, does not require proof.
• Judicial admissions in the course of the
proceedings may be contradicted only by a
showing that it was:
• (1) made through palpable mistake, or
• (2) that no such admission was made.

• Failure to deny under oath the genuineness and

due execution of an actionable document gave
rise to a judicial admission.
• Courts may take judicial notice of the
assessed or market value of a land subject of
a judicial action.

• Courts cannot take judicial notice that

vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries.
• Regional Trial Courts will not, ordinarily, and
in the absence of express statutory authority,
take judicial notice of city or municipal
ordinances within their jurisdiction.
• RTC’s, however, may and should take judicial
notice of such ordinances on appeal from a
judgment of a municipal trial court in any
case wherein the inferior court took judicial
notice.
• A foreign statute accepted by the
government is subject to judicial notice.

• As a rule, however, foreign laws do not

prove themselves. They must be alleged and
proved by an official publication thereof or a
certified copy.
• The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not
prove themselves in our courts.

• The courts are not authorized to take judicial

notice of the laws of the various states of the
United States of America. Such laws must be
proved as a fact.
• To establish a valid foreign marriage, it is first
necessary to prove to the court the existence
of the foreign law as a matter of fact.

• Our courts cannot take judicial notice of

foreign laws.
• Boundaries of cities, municipalities and
barangays do not come within judicial notice
when they are not so declared by law or
proper authorities.
• In general, courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice in the adjudication of cases
pending before them of the contents of the
records of other cases.
• In the absence of objection, a court may
properly treat all or any part of the original
record of a case pending before it.
• A court cannot take judicial notice of a case
pending in another sala and even a case
pending before it.

• Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that

contractual transactions with government or
any of its instrumentalities are invariably in
writing.
• Courts may take judicial notice of whether
the moon was shining or not on a particular
night.
• The court takes judicial notice of the official
acts of the Chief Executive, including
pardons.
• The Supreme Court takes judicial notice of
cases decided by it.
• The courts would be fully justified in taking
judicial notice of the fact that Ermita is within
the City of Manila.
• Courts will take judicial notice that an
automobile make an unusual noise; that it
can be driven at a great velocity – at a speed
many times greater than that of ordinary
vehicles like a bicycle.
• Courts may take judicial notice of customs
concerning business and the usual methods
of conducting it.

• “Shabu” is judicially noticed as

methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Admission made by the parties in the
pleadings, or in the course of the trial or
other proceedings, do not require proof and
cannot be contradicted unless previously
shown to have been made through palpable
mistake.
• A stipulation of facts is binding upon the
parties.
• An admission made in the pleadings cannot
be controverted by the party making such
admission and is conclusive as to him;

• All proofs submitted by him contrary thereto

or inconsistent therewith, should therefore
be ignored, whether objection is interposed
by the part or not.
• Admission by defendant in his answer to the
complaint for ejectment that plaintiff owns
the land is binding on defendant.

• Judicial admission by landowner of value of

his land is binding on him in the absence of
compelling reasons to the contrary.
 RULE OF ADMISSIBILITY
• Object evidence – those addressed to the
senses of the court.

• When object evidence is relevant, it may

exhibited, examined, or viewed
 OBJECT EVIDENCE
Photographs, as an object evidence, must be
identified by:

(1) The photographer ;

(2) Other competent witness who can testify to
its exactness and accuracy.
• In the crime of rape the clothes worn by the
victim, her shorts, bra and panty may be used
by the prosecution to prove the use of force
and presence of a struggle.

• The chain of custody rule applies to object

evidence which is not readily identifiable and
easily open to tampering, alteration or
substitution.
• The chain of custody starts from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered
in evidence.

• Substantial compliance with the legal

requirements of handling the seized item is
sufficient; what is of utmost importance is the
preservation of integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items.
• The non-compliance of chain custody
requirements in dangerous drugs cases
creates reasonable doubt on the criminal
liability of the accused.

• The failure to strictly comply with the chain

of custody will not render an arrest illegal or
the seized items inadmissible in evidence.
 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
• Documents as evidence consist of writings or
any material containing letters, expression
offered as proof of their contents.
• Documents may be public or private.
• Public documents are admissible in evidence
without necessity of preliminary proof as to
their authenticity and due execution.
• Written notice of dishonor as documents in
cases of violation the Bouncing Checks Law.

• Statement of accounts showing purchase are

private documents; its genuineness and due
execution must be proven to be admissible.
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
• Under the best evidence rule the original of
the document must be produced in court.

• This is because when the subject of inquiry is

the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original of
the document.
• The best evidence rule, applied to
documentary evidence, operates as a rule of
exclusion, that is, secondary (or
substitutionary) evidence, cannot inceptively
be introduced as the original writing itself
must be produced in court.
• The best evidence rule applies only when the
contents of such documents is the subject of
inquiry.
• Exceptions to the best evidence rule:
• (1) When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

• (2) When the original is in the custody or under

the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice.
• (3) When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of
time and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
• (4) When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office.

• The best evidence rule excludes any evidence

other than the original writing to prove the
contents thereof, unless the offeror proves:
• (1) The existence and due execution of the
original;
• (2) the loss or destruction of the original, or
the reason for its non-production in court;
and
• (3) the absence of bad faith on the part of the
offeror.
• The primary purpose of the best evidence
rule is to ensure that the exact contents of a
writing are brought before the court.

• The best evidence of forged signature in the

instrument is the instrument itself reflecting
the alleged forged signature.
• The fact of forgery can only be established by
comparison between the alleged forged
signature and the authentic and genuine
signature of the person whose signature is
theorized upon to have been forged.
A notarized document carries the evidentiary
weight with respect to its due execution, and
has in its favor the presumption of regularity.

The presumption, however, is not absolute. It

may be rebutted by clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary.
• There is no application of the best evidence
rule if there is no dispute regarding the
contents of the contract.

• When the evidence sought to be introduced

concerns external facts, such as the existence,
execution or delivery of the writing, without
reference to its terms, the best evidence rule
cannot be invoked.
• When a document is presented to prove its
existence or condition, it is offered not as
documentary, but as object evidence.
• In criminal cases where the issue is not only
with respect to the contents of the document
but also as to whether such document
actually existed with the participation therein
as imputed to the accused, the original itself
must be presented.
• Thus, in a prosecution for libel published in a
newspaper, a copy of said newspaper must
be produced, and in falsification of a
document, the original document involved
must be presented.
• As long as the original evidence can be had,
the court should not receive in evidence that
which is substitutionary in nature, such as
photocopies, in the absence of any clear
showing that the original writing has been
lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in
court.
• In criminal cases involving violation of B.P.
22, the original of the check should be
presented in court to:
(1) identify the bouncing check;
(2) identify the names of the drawer and payee;
(3) the date and amount of the check and the
dishonor;
(4) reason why the check was dishonored.
• As long as the original evidence can be had,
the court should not receive in evidence that
which is substitutionary in nature, such as
photocopies, in the absence of any clear
showing that the original writing has been
lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in
court.
• Photocopies must be disregarded being
inadmissible and barren of probative weight.

• Secondary of a writing may be admitted

where the original is in the custody or under
the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice.
• To warrant admissibility of secondary evidence,
when the original of a writing is in the custody
or control of the adverse party, the latter:
• (1) must be given reasonable notice;
• (2) that he fails or refuses to produce the same
in court; and
• (3) that the offeror offers satisfactory proof of
its existence.
• Canonical certificate of marriage is not a
public document; they are private writings
and their authenticity must be proved.

• Which of a document is the original?

• (1) The original of a document is one the
contents of which are the subject of inquiry;
• (2) When a document is in two or more
copies executed at or about the same time,
with identical contents;
• (2) When an entry is repeated in the regular
course of business, one being copied from
another, all the entries are equally regarded
as originals.
 SECONDARY EVIDENCE
• When original document is unavailable,
secondary evidence may be presented. But
before secondary evidence may be offered
there should be proof of the: (1) execution or
existence and the (2) cause of the
unavailability of the original document, and
(3) the offeror is in good faith.
• 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 (1) a copy; or (2) by a recital of its
contents in some authentic document; or (3)
by the testimony of witnesses, in that order.
• Testimonial and documentary may be
admitted to prove the fact of marriage.

• Marriage may be proven by any competent

and relevant evidence like testimonies by one
of the parties, witnesses, and the person who
officiated the marriage ceremony.
• Annotation on the transfer certificate of title
and in the primary book of the Register of
Deeds as well as the entry in the notarial
register is not sufficient proof of the existence
of a deed of sale.

• Secondary evidence is admissible when there

is no objection at the time the same was
offered in evidence.
 PAROL EVIDENCE
• Where the controversy arose out of a written
agreement no evidence shall be admitted
other than the contents of said writing. This
is because under the parol evidence rule,
when the terms have been reduced to
writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon.
• Under the parol evidence rule, there can be,
between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written agreement.

• But a party may present evidence to modify,

explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
• (1) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement;

• (2) The failure of the written agreement to

express the true intent and agreement of the
parties;
• (3) The validity of the written agreement; or

• (4) The existence of other terms agreed to by

the parties or their successors in interest
after the execution of the written agreement.

• Under the parol evidence rule, the term

“agreement” includes wills.
• The parol evidence rule is based upon the
consideration that when the parties have
reduced their agreement on a particular
matter into writing, all their previous and
contemporaneous verbal agreement is
generally not admissible to vary, contradict,
or defeat the operation of a valid instrument.
• Parol evidence rule forbids any addition to,
or contradiction of the terms of a written
agreement by testimony of other evidence
purporting to show that different terms were
agreed upon by the parties, varying the
purport of the written contract.
• The parol evidence rule is exclusive only as
between the parties and their successors-in-
interest.

• The parol evidence rule may not be invoked

where at least one of the parties to the suit is
not a party or a privy of a party to the written
document in question.
• The parol evidence rule may not be invoked
where a party does not base his claim on the
instrument or asserts a right originating in
the instrument. Thus, if one of the parties to
the case is a complete stranger to the
contract involved therein, he is not bound by
this rule and can introduce extrinsic evidence
against the efficacy of the writing.
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
• The language of a writing is to be interpreted
according to the legal meaning it bears in the
place of its execution, unless the parties
intended otherwise.

• In the construction of an instrument where

there are several provisions or particulars,
such a construction is, if possible, to be
adopted as will give effect to all.
• In the construction of an instrument, the
intention of the parties is to be pursued.

• When a general and a particular provision are

inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the
former. A particular intent will control a
general one that is inconsistent with it.
• It the terms are clear, the literal meaning of
the stipulation shall control.

• In case of doubt, the intention of the parties

prevails.
 TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
• Who can be witnesses? All persons who can
perceive, and perceiving can make known
their perception to others, may be witnesses.

• Religious or political belief, interest in the

outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, not a
ground for disqualification.
• An instance wherein conviction of a crime
disqualifies the convict is provided in the Civil
Code wherein those convicted of falsification
of a document, perjury or false testimony are
disqualified from being witnesses to a will
and, consequently, cannot testify in the
probate thereof.
• Under Article 821 of the Civil Code, the
following are disqualified from being
witnesses to a will:
• (1) Any person not domiciled in the
Philippines;
• (2) Those who have been convicted of
falsification of a document, perjury or false
testimony.
• Under the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness every child is presumed qualified to
be a witness. To rebut the presumption in
favor of a child witness, the burden of proof
lies on the party challenging the child’s
competence.
• When will a child be disqualified to be a
witness? Only when substantial doubt exists
regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish truth
from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell
the truth in court will the court, motu
proprio, or on motion of a party, conduct a
competency examination of a child witness.
• The qualifications and disqualifications of
witnesses are determined as of the time said
witnesses are produced for examination in
court or at the taking of their depositions.
• Is authorization to testify for a party (a
corporation for instance) required of a
witness? No, there is no substantive or
procedural rule which requires a witness for
a party to present some form of
authorization to testify as a witness for the
party presenting him.
• No law or jurisprudence would support the
conclusion that the omission to present
authorization to testify can be considered as
a failure to prosecute on the part of the party
presenting such witness.
• Who are disqualified to be a witness by
reason of mental incapacity or immaturity?

• (1) Those whose mental condition, at the

time of their production for examination , is
such that they are incapable of intelligently
making known their perception to others;
• (2) Children whose mental maturity is such as
to render them incapable of perceiving the
facts respecting which they are examined and
of relating them truthfully.
• Mental unsoundness of the witness at the
time the fact to be testified to occurred
affects only his credibility. Nevertheless, as
long as the witness can convey ideas by
questions propounded, he is a competent
witness even if he is feeble-minded or is a
mental retarded or is a schizophrenic.
• Disqualification by reason of marriage.
• In order that the marital disqualification rule
will apply, it is necessary that the marriage is
valid and existing as of the time of the offer
of testimony and the spouse is a party to the
action.
• Objection to the competency of the spouse
presented to testify may be waived.
• Disqualification by reason of death or
insanity of adverse party involving a fact that
occurred before his death or before he
became of unsound mind.
• In a prosecution of the husband for the rape
of their daughter, the wife is not disqualified
to testify for the prosecution since the crime
may be considered as having been committed
against the wife and the conjugal harmony
sought to be protected no longer exists.
• The exception to the marital disqualification
rule was applied where the wife was the
complainant in a case against her husband
for falsification of her signature in a deed of
sale involving their conjugal (or absolute
community) property.
• In a case for arson, the wife, without the
consent of the accused husband, was allowed
to testify against him. The arson was
committed by him on the property of his
sister-in-law, the sister of his wife. The wife
was living in the said house and the marital
and domestic relations are so strained as
they have been separated de facto.
• Disqualification by reason of death or
insanity of adverse party (survivorship
disqualification rule or dead man statute)

• The survivorship disqualification rule applies

only to a civil case or special proceeding over
the estate of a deceased or insane person.
• The “survivorship disqualification rule” or the
“dead man statute” applies only to a party
plaintiff, or his assignor or a person in whose
behalf a case is prosecuted.
• The rule has no application to mere
witnesses who are neither parties to the
case, their assignors nor persons in whose
behalf the case is prosecuted.
• The disqualification by reason of death or
insanity of adverse party applies regardless
of whether the deceased died before or after
the suit against him is filed, provided he is
already dead at the time the testimony is
sought to be given.
• The disqualification by reason of death or
insanity of adverse party is intended to
protect the deceased or the person of
unsound mind since they cannot anymore
rebut the testimony against them involving a
fact that occurred before his death or before
he became of unsound mind.
• If it is the executor or administrator or the
representative of the deceased person or the
person of unsound mind that instituted an
action for collection of a sum of money
against the persons who owed money, they
can testify against the executor or
administrator or representative.
• The subject matter of the action is a claim or
demand against the estate of the deceased or
person of unsound mind.
• The rule does not apply where it is the
administrator who brings an action to recover
property allegedly belonging to the estate, or
the action is by the heirs of a deceased
plaintiff who were substituted for the latter.
• Disqualification by reason of privilege
communication between husband and wife
cannot be claimed with respect to
communications made prior to the marriage
of the spouses.
• The privilege cannot be invoked where the
communication is not intended to be kept in
confidence like a dying declaration.
• The privilege communication between
husband and wife is lost if the communication
is overheard or comes into the hands of a third
party whether legally or not.

• Provided that there was no collusion by either

spouses to the third person, otherwise the
latter becomes an agent of the spouses.
• For the disqualification based on attorney-
client privilege to apply there shall be an
attorney and client relation.

• For the privilege to apply the attorney must

have been consulted in his professional
capacity, even if no fee has been paid
therefor.
• Preliminary communications made for the
purpose of creating the attorney-client
relationship are within the privilege.

• If the communications were not made for the

purpose of creating that relationship, they will
not be covered by the privilege even if
thereafter the lawyer becomes the counsel of
the party.
• The privilege communications covered
include verbal statements and documents or
papers entrusted to the attorney, and the
facts learned by the attorney through the act
of agency of his client.
• Communications regarding a crime already
committed, made by the offender to an
attorney, consulted as such are privileged
communications.

• Communication between attorney and client

having to do with the client’s contemplated
criminal act, or in aid or furtherance thereof,
are not covered by the privilege.
• Where the attorney was himself a
conspirator in the commission of the crime,
the privilege does not attach.

• In order that a communication between a

lawyer and his client may be privileged, it
must be for a lawful purpose.
• For the disqualification arising from the
physician-patient privilege to apply, it is
necessary that the physician is authorized to
practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
• It is not necessary that the physician-patient
relationship was created through the
voluntary act of the patient. Thus, the
treatment may have been given at the behest
of another.
• The privilege communication between
physician and patient can be invoked only in a
civil case and not in a criminal case.

• The results of the physical and mental

examination of a person, when ordered by the
court, are intended to be made public, and
cannot be objected on the ground of the
privilege.
• The disqualification due to privileged
communications between ministers or priests
and penitents require that the same were
made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in
the course of discipline of the sect or
denomination.
• The disqualification of privileged
communications to public officers requires
that it was made to the public officer in
official confidence and public interest would
suffer by the disclosure.

• Where no public interest would be

prejudiced, the rule does not apply.
• Under the “doctrine of executive privilege”
there are certain types of information which
the government may withhold from the
public like military, diplomatic and national
security secrets. For the privilege to be
invoked, there must be formal claim lodged
by the head of the department which has
control of the matter on a precise time and
reason preserving confidentiality.
• Under the parental and filial privilege rule, no
person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or
other direct descendants.

• The privilege against compulsory testimony

can be invoked in any case against the
parents, direct ascendants, children or direct
descendants.
• Note that under the Family Code, no
descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal
case, to testify against his parents, and
grandparents, except when such testimony is
indispensable in a crime, against the
descendant or by one parent against the
other. (Art. 215)
• Publishers, editors or reporters may not be
compelled to disclose the source of published
news.
• Voters may not be compelled to disclose for
whom they voted.
• One may not be compelled to disclose trade
secrets.
• Bank deposits may not be disclosed.
• Information and statements made at a
conciliation proceedings in labor disputes
shall be treated as privileged
communications and shall not be used as
evidence. (Art. 233, Labor Code)
• Under the Anti-Money Laundering Act,
institutions covered by the law and its
officers and employees who communicate a
suspicious transaction to the Anti-Money
Laundering Council, are barred from
disclosing the fact of such report to other
persons.
 ADMISSION AND CONFESSIONS
• The act, declaration or omission of a party as
to relevant fact may be given in evidence
against him.

• To be admissible, an admission must involve

matters of fact which is adverse to the
admitter’s interests, otherwise it would be
self-serving and inadmissible.
• Admissions may be verbal or written, express
or tacit, judicial or extrajudicial.

• The testimony of the accused in a parricide

case to the effect that he was married to the
victim is an admission against penal interest
and can sustain his conviction even in the
absence of independent evidence to prove
such marriage.
• A self-serving declaration is one which has
been made extra-judicially by the party to
favor his interests. It is not admissible in
evidence.

• Self-serving testimony refers to the extra-

judicial statement of a party which is being
urged for admission in court. It does not
include his testimony as a witness in court.
• Flight from justice is an admission by conduct
and circumstantial evidence of consciousness
of guilt.

• The act of repairing a motor vehicle or a

bridge after an injury is not an implied
admission of negligence by conduct.
• Offer of compromise not admissible in
evidence in civil cases; admissible in criminal
cases.

• In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not

an admission of any liability, and is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror.
• An offer of compromise in a civil case is not a
tacit admission of liability and cannot be
proved over the objection of the offeror,
unless such offer is clearly not only to “buy
peace” but amounts to an admission of
liability.
• In criminal cases, an offer of compromise is
an implied admission of guilt, although the
accused may be permitted to prove that such
offer was not made under consciousness of
guilt but merely to avoid the risks of criminal
action against him.
• While rape cases can in effect be
compromised by actual marriage of the
parties since criminal liability is thereby
extinguished, an offer to compromise for a
monetary consideration, and not to marry
the victim, is an implied admission of guilt.
• An offer of compromise, voluntarily made by
the accused, are admissible in evidence upon
his trial in court.

• An offer to marry the rape victim is an

admission of guilt.
• Criminal cases involving criminal negligence, or
quasi-offenses, are allowed to be
compromised, hence an offer of settlement is
not an implied admission of guilt.

• An offer to pay or the actual payment of the

medical, hospital or other expenses by reason
of the victim’s injuries is not admissible to
prove civil or criminal liability.
• The act of the accused of pleading for
forgiveness is analogous to an attempt to
compromise, which in turn can be received as
an implied admission of guilt.

• If compromise is allowed by the statute, an

offer of compromise is not admissible in
evidence.
• A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser
offense, is not admissible in evidence against
the accused who made the plea or offer.

• An offer to pay or the payment of medical,

hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of
civil or criminal liability for the injury.
• Under the “res inter alios acta” rule, the
rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another. The
admission by such person is binding against
him because an act or declaration of a party
may be given against him.
• The admission made by such person is
binding against him because an act or
declaration of a party may be given against
him.

• On the principle of good faith and mutual

convenience, a man’s act are binding upon
himself, and are evidence against him.
• While it is true that the right of a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration
or omission of another, the said rule is
subject to several exceptions as follows:
• (1) admission by co-partner or agent;
• (2) admission by conspirator;
• (3) admission by privies.
• Statements made after a partnership has
been dissolved do not fall within the
exception to the “res inter alios acta” rule,
but where the admission are made in
connection with the winding up of the
partnership affairs, said admission are still
admission as the partner is acting as an agent
of his co-partners in said winding up.
• Admission by copartner or agent may be
given in evidence. This is because the act or
declaration of a partner or agent of the party
within the scope of his authority and during
the existence of the partnership or agency is
shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration.
• Admissions by counsel are admissible against
the client as the former acts in
representation and as agent of the client,
subject to the limitation that the same shall
not amount to a compromise.
• Admission by conspirator relating to the
conspiracy may be given in evidence;

• The act or declaration of a conspirator relating

to the conspiracy and during its existence, may
be given in evidence against the co-
conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration.
• Extrajudicial admission made by a
conspirator after the conspiracy had
terminated and even before trial are not
admissible against the co-conspirator.
• Admission by conspirator applies only to
extrajudicial acts or statements and not to
testimony given on the witness stand at the
trial where the party adversely affected
thereby has the opportunity to cross-
examine the declarant.
• Admission by privies in relation to the
property is evidence against them.

• Where one derives title to property from

another, the act, declaration, or omission of
the latter, while holding title, in relation to
the property, is evidence against the former.
• Admission by privies, to be admissible, was
made by the declarant, as predecessor-in-
interest, while holding title to the property.
• For admission by silence to be admissible the
party must have heard or observed the act or
declaration of the other person and must have
the opportunity to deny it.

• The rule on admission by silence applies where

a person was surprised in the act or even if he
is already in the custody of the police.
• Voluntary participation in a reenactment of
the crime conducted by the police is
considered a tacit admission of complicity.

• The rule on admission by silence does not

apply if the statement adverse to the party
were made in the course of an official
investigation as where he was pointed out in
the course of a custodial investigation.
• The declaration of an accused acknowledging
his guilt of the offense charged, or any offense
necessarily included therein, may be given in
evidence against him.

• A confession is a categorical acknowledgment

of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case,
without any exculpatory statement or
explanation.
• Confession may either be oral or in writing and
if in writing, it need not be under oath.
• Confession may either be judicial or
extrajudicial.

• A judicial confession is one made before a court

in which the case is pending and in the course
of legal proceedings and can sustain a
conviction.
• An extrajudicial confession is one made in any
other place or occasion and cannot sustain a
conviction unless corroborated by evidence of
the corpus delicti.
• Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was
made without counsel, but it was
spontaneously made by the accused
immediately after the assault, the same is
admissible as part of the res gestae.
• The waiver of the right to counsel during
custodial investigation must be made with
the assistance of counsel.

• Any form of coercion, whether physical,

mental or emotional, renders the
extrajudicial confession inadmissible.
• Where the accused voluntarily made a
second extrajudicial confession after he had
been maltreated in order to extort the first
confession, such second confession is
ADMISSIBLE ONLY IF it can be proved that he
was ALREADY RELIEVED of the fear generated
by the previous maltreatment.
• The extrajudicial confession of an accused is
binding only upon himself and is not
admissible against his co-accused.
PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
• Similar act at one time is not admissible as
evidence to prove that one did or did not do a
similar thing.

• An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of

money or to deliver specific personal property
is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent
to the actual production and tender of the
money or property.
• Evidence of previous conduct is not
admissible to prove a crime for which the
accused is presently charge in court. But it
may prove (a) a specific intent or knowledge;
(b) identity; (c) plan, (d) specific habit; or
(e)custom.
• Evidence of another crime is admissible in a
prosecution for robbery to prove the identity
of the accused.
 TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
• A witness can testify only to those facts he
knows of his own personal knowledge.

• Hearsay excluded.

• Affidavits are hearsay evidence unless the

affiants are place on the witness stand and the
other party accorded the opportunity to cross-
examine him.
• Hearsay evidence is excluded because the
party against whom it is presented is
deprived of his right and opportunity to
cross-examine the persons to whom the
statements or writings are attributed.
• Hearsay evidence if not objected to is
admissible. However, even if admitted, it has
no probative value.

• Independently relevant statement is not

hearsay and is therefore not banned under
the hearsay evidence rule.
• Under the doctrine of “independently
relevant statements”, a witness may testify to
the statement made by a person if, for
instance, the fact that such statements were
made by the latter.
• Newspaper clippings of facts published in the
newspapers are hearsay unless substantiated
by persons with personal knowledge of said
facts.
• Exceptions to the hearsay rule:

• (1) Dying declaration;

• (2) Declaration against interest;

• (4) Act or declaration about pedigree;

• (5) Family reputation or tradition regarding

pedigree;

• (6) Common reputation;

• (6) Part of the res gestae;

• (7) Entries in the course of business;

• (8) Entries in official records;

• (8) Commercial lists and the like;

• (9) Learned treatises; and

• (10) Testimony or deposition at a former

proceeding.
• A dying declaration is admissible only insofar
as it refers to facts regarding the cause and
surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
death.
• Admissibility of a dying declaration is
admissible not only in criminal prosecutions
for homicide, murder or parricide but also in
any case regarding the cause and
circumstances of the declarant’s death.
• In order that a statement may be admissible as
a declaration against interest, it is required
that the declarant is (1) dead or (2) unable to
testify.

• A declaration against interest is the opposite of

a self-serving declaration which is a statement
favorable or intended to advance the interests
of the declarant.
• In order that pedigree may be proved by acts
or declarations of relatives, it is necessary
that the actor or declarant is (1) dead or (2)
unable to testify and (3) he is related to the
subject by birth or marriage.
• The act or declaration was made prior to the
controversy. The relationship must be proved
by direct or circumstantial evidence, i.e.,
other than the act or declaration.
• With respect to reputation or tradition, it is
necessary that the witness testifying thereto
must be a member, by consanguinity or
affinity, of the same family as the subject and
such reputation or tradition must have
existed in that family ante litem motam or
prior to the controversy.
• A person’s statement as to his date of birth
and age, as he learned of these from his
parents or relatives, is an ante litem motam
declaration of a family tradition.
• Common reputation, which means general
reputation, is admissible to prove:

• (a) facts of public or general interest more

than thirty years old;
• (b) marriage; and
• (c) moral character.
• With respect to matters of public or general
interest, such matters must be more than 30
years old which is required to have existed
ante litem motam.

• Can be established only by persons who

have had knowledge of that fact for such
length of time.
• To be admissible as part of the res gestae, the
statement must:
• (a) be spontaneous;
• (b) be made while a startling occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto; and
• (c) the statements refer to the occurrence.
• A dying declaration can be made only by the
victim, while a statement as part of the res
gestae may be that of the killer himself after
or during the killing or that of a third person.
• Dying declaration are made after the
homicidal attack has been committed; but in
res gestae, the statement may precede,
accompany or be made after the homicidal
attach was committed.
• Statements or outcries as part of the res
gestae have been admitted:
• (1) to establish the identity of the assailant;
• (2) to prove the complicity of another person
in the crime; and
• (3) to establish an admission of liability on
the part of the accused.
• In order to be admissible as entries in the
course of business, it is necessary that the
person who made the entry must be (1) dead
or (2) unable to testify.
• If the entrant is available as a witness, the
said entries will not be admitted as an
exception to the hearsay rule, but they may
nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as
a memorandum to refresh his memory while
testifying on the transactions reflected
therein.
• For entries in official records to be admissible,
it is necessary that the entries were made by
a public officer: (1) in the performance of his
duties; or (2) by a person in the performance
of a duty specially enjoined by law; (3) the
entrant had personal knowledge of the facts
stated by him or such facts were acquired by
him from reports made by persons under
legal duty to submit the same.
• In order that a testimony or deposition at
former proceeding to be admissible as an
exception to the hearsay rule: (1) the witness is
dead; or (2) unable to testify; and (3) that the
adverse party had an opportunity to cross-
examine the witness in the former case.

• The testimony is given in a former case or

proceeding, judicial or administrative.
• Under the Rule on Examination of A Child
Witness, hearsay evidence may be admitted.

• Hearsay evidence of a child witness may be

admitted in criminal or noncriminal
proceedings:
• (1) Before such hearsay statement may be
admitted, its proponent shall make known to
the adverse party the intention to offer such
statement and its particular.
• (b) If the child is available, the court shall,
upon motion of the adverse party, require the
child to be present at the presentation of the
hearsay statement for cross-examination of
the adverse party.

• (c) If the child is unavailable, the fact of such

circumstance must be proved by the
proponent.
• The Rule on Child Witness provides that the
court may admit videotape and audiotape in-
depth investigative or disclosure interview as
evidence, under the following conditions:
• (1) The child is unable to testify in court
because he is unavailable as he is dead,
suffers from physical infirmity, lack of
memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to
severe psychological injury or is absent from
the hearing and the proponent of his
statement has been unable to procure his
attendance by process or other reasonable
means;
• (2) The interview of the child was conducted
by duly trained members of a
multidisciplinary team representative of law
enforcement or child protective services in
situations where child abuse is suspected.
• (3) The individual conducting the interview of
the child shall be available at trial for
examination by a party.
• For a dying declaration to be admissible, it
necessary:
• (1) The declaration must concern the cause
and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant’s death;
• (2) Made when death appears to be imminent
and the declarant is under circumstances of
impending death;

• (3) Declarant would have been competent to

testify had he survived;

• (4) Declaration involves the inquiry of

declarant’s death.
• The testimony of a witness who swears he
has heard the dying statement of a person
seriously wounded while the latter is in real
danger of death and without hope of
recovery, even though hearsay, is admissible.
• It is imperative, for a dying declaration to be
admissible, that the same had been made
under a consciousness of impending death.

• If the declarant entertained even a slight

hope of recovery, the declarations have been
excluded.
• The admissibility of an ante mortem
declaration is NOT AFFECTED by the fact that
the declarant died hours or several days after
making his declaration.

• No particular form is required. It need not be

under oath. The admissibility of dying
declaration is NOT DEPENDENT on their being
made in any particular form.
• Dying declaration may be manifested by
means of: (1) signs, (2) a verbal statement, or
(3) a formal statement.

• The declaration may be written or oral.

• A declaration in the form of answers to

leading questions is admissible.
• Declaration against interest:
• (1) declaration made by a person deceased,
or unable to testify;
• (2) against the declarant’s own interest;
• (3) that a reasonable man in his position
would not have made the declaration unless
he believed it to be true.
• Act or declaration about pedigree; the act or
declaration of a person deceased, or unable
to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
another person related to him by birth or
marriage may be received in evidence.
• Family reputation or tradition about
pedigree:
• The reputation or tradition existing in a
family previous to the controversy, in respect
to the pedigree of any one of its members,
may be received in evidence if the witness
testifying be also a member of the family,
either by consanguinity or affinity.
• Common reputation more than thirty (30)
years old; respecting facts of public or
general interest or respecting marriage or
moral character, may be given in evidence.
• Part of the res gestae: statements made
while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto.

• Res gestae assertions may be:

• (1) Spontaneous exclamations; and
• (2) Contemporaneous statements or verbal
acts.
• The principal act, the res gestae, must be a
startling occurrence. It should have caused by
something startling enough to produce
nervous excitement.

• The spontaneous statement is a statement or

exclamation made immediately after some
exciting occasion by a participant or spectator.
• The res gestae or spontaneous exception to
the hearsay rule presupposes that the
declarant was a witness to the event to which
the utterance relates.

• Evidence by a witness that he heard someone

say that the decedent had been struck twice
was not admissible absence of evidence that
he had seen the incident.
• Outcries of the victim while under attack are
part of the res gestae while those made after
he was mortally wounded are dying
declarations.

• The fact that the declarant is a convict or

unpardoned felon does not affect the
admissibility of the his res gestae declarations.
• Entries in the course of business:
• Entries made by a person deceased, or unable
to testify, who was in a position to know the
facts therein stated, may be received as prima
facie evidence, if such person made the
entries in his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty.
• Entries in official records; made in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by
law, are prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein.

• Commercial lists and the like; contained in a

list, register, periodical, or published
compilation is admissible.
• Learned treatises; published treatise,
periodical or pamphlet or a subject of history,
law, science or art is admissible.

• Testimony or deposition at a former

proceeding: witness deceased or unable to
testify, given in a former proceeding, judicial
or administrative.
 OPINION RULE
• Opinion of a witness not admissible; in
judicial proceedings what is to be proven are
the facts in issue.

• Opinion of a witness on matter requiring

special knowledge, skill, experience or
training which he is shown to possess, may
be received in evidence.
• Opinion of a witness may be received in
evidence regarding:
• (1) The identity of a person about whom he
has adequate knowledge;
• (2) A handwriting with which he has
sufficient familiarity; and
• (3) Mental sanity of a person with whom he
is sufficiently acquainted.
• An opinion is an inference or conclusion
drawn from facts observed.

• An ordinary witness are not allowed to

express his opinion whether or not a collision
was caused by the negligence of the
defendant.
• An ordinary witness may not testify that a
certain apparatus is defective.

• An ordinary witness may not testify that the

cause of death is blood poisoning or heart
failure.
• An ordinary witness cannot give his opinion
that an engineer did not perform his services
satisfactorily, but may testify as to what he
observed concerning the dissatisfaction of
the persons for whom the services were
rendered.
• The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he is shown to possess, may be received
in evidence.

• Expert evidence is the testimony of one

possessing in regard to a particular subject or
department of human activity knowledge not
usually acquired by other persons.
• Expert testimony.

• Probative value to an admitted expert

testimony.

• Courts do not immediately accord probative

value to an admitted expert testimony.
• Experts and interpreters to be used in
explaining certain writings.

• Handwriting experts, while probably useful,

are not indispensable in examining or
comparing handwriting. This can be done be
concerned officials like the COMELEC is
election related cases.
• It must be shown that the witness is really an
expert.

• The question as to the competency or

qualification of the expert witness it to be
determined by the court.
• An expert witness may base his opinion either
on a first-hand knowledge of the facts or on
the basis of hypothetical questions where the
facts are presented to him hypothetically.

• A physician may base an expert opinion on his

own treatment and observation of the patient.
 CHARACTER EVIDENCE
• Character evidence not generally admissible.

• Exception to the character evidence rule in

criminal cases:
• (1) the accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged;
• (2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may
not prove his bad moral character;

• (3) The good or bad moral character of the

offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
• In civil cases, evidence of the moral character
of a party is admissible only when pertinent
to the issue of character involved in the case.

• Evidence of the good character of a witness is

not admissible until such character has been
impeached.
• One charged with theft might offer evidence
of honesty.

• One accused of murder might show that he is

peaceful.
• On a charge of rape, the character of the
woman is not ordinarily directly in issue, but
evidence of previous unchastity may be
circumstantially relevant and admissible on
the question of her consent.
• In a case for homicide, the accused may
introduce evidence of the victim’s character
for violence. In response, the prosecution
may adduce evidence that the victim was a
characteristically peaceful person.
• The prosecutor can offer the peaceable
character of the victim when the issue of self-
defense has been raised, even though the
accused has not first introduced the
deceased’s violent character.
• If a party takes the witness stand as a witness
– his bad moral character for truth may be
introduced in evidence even if not in rebuttal.
• A witness may be impeached by the party
against whom he was called, by evidence
that his general reputation for truth, honesty,
or integrity is bad, but not by evidence of
particular wrongful act.
• While it is true that the prosecution cannot
initially prove the bad character of the
accused, where the accused takes the stand
as witness he waives his rights in this respect,
and his character may be impeached.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

• Burden of proof is the duty of a party to

present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense.

• It is the duty to establish the truth of a given

proposition or issue by such quantum of
evidence as the law demands.
• In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies
with the prosecution.
• The prosecution must prove:
• (1) the fact of the crime; i.e., presence of all
elements of the crime;
• (2) the fact that the accused is the
perpetrator of the crime.
• The State has the burden of proof to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt; the presumption of
innocence dictates that it is for the
prosecution to demonstrate the guilt and not
for the accused to establish innocence.
• The inability of the accused to establish the
defense of alibi does not relieve the
prosecution of the burden of proving his
guilt.
• In civil actions, in determining who has the
burden of proof, the pleadings filed by the
parties in court should be examined.

• In a collection of a sum of money, if the

complainant cannot prove his cause, then he
will not be able to secure a favorable
judgment.
• In civil actions, the burden of proof is on the
party who would be defeated if no evidence
is given on either side.

• The burden of proof is on the plaintiff if the

defendant denies the factual allegations of
the complaint.
• Should the defendant in a civil action files an
answer by invoking an affirmative defense of
payment, the burden of proof to prove that
payment has already been made lies with the
defendant.

• In administrative cases, the burden of proof

lies with the complainant by presenting
substantial evidence.
• A party who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it.

• Allegations are not evidence.

• In termination cases, the burden of proof

rests upon the employer to show that the
dismissal is for a just and valid cause.
• Presumption is conclusive:
• (1) Whenever a party has, by his own
declaration, act or omission, intentionally
and deliberately led another to believe a
particular thing is true, and to act upon such
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out
of such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it;
• (2) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title
of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation and tenant
between them.

• Disputable presumptions:
• (1) A person is innocent of a crime;
• (2) Unlawful act was done with unlawful intent;
• (3) Evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
• (6) Money paid by one to another was due to
the latter;
• (7) A person found in possession of a thing
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is
the taker and the doer of the whole act;
otherwise, that things which a person
possesses, or exercises acts of ownership
over, are owned by him;
• (8) A person acting in a public office was
regularly appointed or elected to it;
• (9 That official duty has been regularly
performed;
• (10) Property acquired by a man and a
woman who are capacitated to marry each
other without the benefit of marriage and
who live exclusively with each other as
husband and wife, have been obtained by
their joint efforts;
• (11) In cases of cohabitation by a man and a
woman who are not capacitated to marry
each other and who acquired property
through their actual joint contribution of
money or property, their shares are equal.

• (12) The law has been obeyed;

• Drivers of vehicles “who bump the rear of
another vehicle” are presumed to be the
cause of the accident, unless contradicted by
other evidence.

• No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy

of a child.
 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
• Examination of a witness shall be in open
court, under oath or affirmation.

• Rights and obligation of a witness:

• (1) A witness must answer questions,

although his answer may tend to establish a
claim against him.
• (2) To be protected from irrelevant, improper,
or insulting question, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
• (3) Not to be detained longer than the
interests of justice requires;
• (4) Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
• (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or

• (6) Not to give an answer which will tend to

degrade his reputation, unless it be to the very
fact at issue.
• (7) Witness must answer to the fact of his
previous final conviction of an offense.
• Order in the examination of an individual
witness.

• A witness may be recalled after testifying in

court.

• Leading question is not allowed; exception.

• Misleading question is not allowed.

• Impeachment of adverse party’s witness.

• Party may not impeach his own witness.

• When a witness considered unwilling or

hostile; unwilling witness may be impeached.
• Effect where a witness is declared unwilling
or hostile.

• Calling the adverse party to the witness stand

is not allowed, unless written interrogatories
are first served upon the latter.
• How witness impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements.

• When witness may refer to memorandum.

 AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS
• Classes of documents: public and private.

• Public document is prima facie evidence of

the fact stated therein.
• Chemistry report showing a positive result is
a public document; it is admissible in
evidence without further proof of its due
execution and genuineness.

• The person who made the report need not be

presented in court to identify the chemistry
report.
• Proof of due execution and authenticity of a
private document:

• (1) Anyone who saw the document executed

or written; or
• (2) Evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker.
• Signatures on a questioned document may
be examined by the trial judge and compared
with the admitted genuine signatures.
• In determining authenticity of signatures,
judges should not rely on the testimonies of
handwriting experts.
• Forgery cannot be presumed and must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence.
• Public documents as evidence.

• Certificate of live birth is a public document

and are prima facie evidence of the truth of
the facts stated therein.

• Proof of official record; attestation of copy of

a document and record.
• Irremovability of public record.

• Lack of record of a document how proven.

• The party producing an altered document

must account for the alteration; otherwise,
the document shall not be admissible in
evidence.
 OFFER OF EVIDENCE AND OBJECTION

• Offer of evidence

• Court will consider as evidence only those

formally offered; exception.

• (1) Evidence was duly identified by testimony

duly recorded;
• (2) Evidence was incorporated in the records
of the case;

• (3) Where courts takes judicial notice of the

adjudicative facts;
• (4) Where the court relies on judicial
admissions or draws inferences from such
judicial admissions;

• (5) Where the trial court, in judging the

demeanor of witnesses, determine their
credibility.
• When to make an offer of evidence:
(1) testimonial;
(2) Documentary;
(3) Object.

• Offer of evidence shall be done orally

• When to make an objection of evidence
offered by the opposing party; ruling on the
objection.

• Objection to documentary evidence must be

made at the time it is formally offered and
not at the time of its identification.
• When a party failed to interpose a timely
objection, such objection shall be considered
waived.

• Striking out answer.

• Tender of excluded evidence.

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

• Probative value of evidence.

• The equipoise rule: evidence in a criminal

case is evenly balanced.

• A telephone conversation is not in itself

sufficient proof of identity of the caller.
• Preponderance of evidence, how
determined:
• By preponderance of evidence is meant that
the evidence adduced by one side is, as a
whole, superior to that of the other side.
• Variance between the eyewitnesses’
testimonies in open court and their affidavits
does not affect their credibility.
• The quantum of evidence in criminal cases is
proof beyond reasonable doubt; accused
acquitted where the evidence does not fulfill
the test of moral certainty required for
conviction.

• Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground

for conviction, unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti.
Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.
• (1) There is more than one circumstance;
• (2) The facts from which the inference are
derived are proven; and
• (3) The combination of all the circumstances
is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt
• Circumstantial evidence as basis for
conviction must exclude the possibility that
some other person committed the crime.

• Direct evidence is not the sole means of

establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can
supplant the absence of direct evidence.
• Circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict
the accused for rape in a case where the victim
was unconscious when the actual sexual
intercourse occurred.

• In the crime of rape with homicide, direct

evidence is not a condition sine qua non to
prove the guilt of an accused; prosecution may
resort to circumstantial evidence.
• An accused for rape may convicted even
without the testimony of the child.

• When the victim is a small child and thus

cannot effectively testify as to the details of
the offense, and there are no other
eyewitnesses, resort to circumstantial
evidence becomes inevitable.
• Where there is only one circumstantial
evidence the same does not lead to an
inference exclusively consistent with guilt.

• Relationship of the witness to a victim does

not impair his credibility.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED
• When the credibility of a witness is in issue,
the trial court’s calibration of the testimonies
of the witnesses and assessment of the
probative weight thereof, are accorded high
respect if not conclusive effect.

• Defense of denial, being inherently weak,

cannot prevail over such positive identification
of the accused.
• Delay in revealing the identify of the
perpetrators does not necessarily impair
credibility of a witness.

• The identity of the caller in a telephone

conversation may be established by direct or
circumstantial evidence.
• The lack of detailed description of the
assailants should not lead to a conclusion
that the identification was erroneous.

• Victims of violent crimes have varying

reactions to shocking events.
 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
• In cases before administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it
is supported by substantial evidence.

• Substantial evidence is such amount of

relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
• The standard of substantial evidence is
satisfied when there is reasonable ground to
believe, based on the evidence submitted, that
the respondent is responsible for the
misconduct complained of.

• In administrative proceedings, the quantum of

proof required for a finding of guilt is only
substantial evidence.
• The ground for dismissal of an employee
need be established only by substantial
evidence.
 DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND ALIBI
• Denial and alibi are inherently weak.

• Being negative defenses, if not substantiated

by clear and convincing evidence, they would
merit no weight in law and cannot be given
greater evidentiary value than testimony of
credible witnesses who testified on
affirmative matters.
• The defense of mistaken identity which is
essentially in the nature of denial and alibi,
cannot prevail over the witnesses’ positive
identification of the accused.
• Defense of alibi.
• It is not enough to prove that the accused
was somewhere else when the crime was
committed, he must also demonstrate by
clear and convincing evidence that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at
the scene of the crime at the time the same
was committed.
• The court may stop further testimony upon a
particular point. But this should exercised by
the court with caution.

• Evidence on motion: court may hear the

matter on affidavits or deposition presented
by the respective parties.
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
• The Rule shall apply whenever an electronic
document or electronic data message is
offered or used in evidence.

• “Electronic data message” refers to

information generated, sent, received or
stored by electronic, optical or similar means.
• “Electronic document” refers to information
or the representation of information 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.
• The Rules on Electronic Evidence shall apply
to all criminal and civil actions and
proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and
administrative cases.

• Text messages are to be proved by the

testimony of a person who was a party to the
same or has personal knowledge of them.
• 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.
• When a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time with
identical contents, or is produced by the
same impression as the original or electronic
re-recording, such copies or duplicates shall
be regarded as equivalent of the original.
• Manner of authentication of electronic
documents:
• (1) By evidence that it had been digitally
signed by the person purported to have signed
the same;
• (2) By evidence that other appropriate security
procedures or devices as may be authorized by
the SC or authentication were applied;
• (3) By other evidence showing its integrity
and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.

• A document electronically notarized shall be

considered as a public document and proved
as a notarial document under the Rules of
Court. Thus, there is no need of
authenticating the same.
• Note that under the Rules of Court every
instrument duly acknowledged before a
notary public may be presented in evidence
without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence
of the execution of the instrument or
document involved.
• In any dispute involving the integrity of the
information and communication system
which an electronic document is recorded or
stored, the court may consider the following:

• (1) Whether the information and

communication system was operated in a
manner that it did not affect its integrity;
• (2) Whether the electronic document was
recorded by a party to the proceedings with
interest adverse to that of the party using it;
or
• (3) Whether the electronic document was
recorded in the usual and ordinary course of
business by a person who is not a party to the
proceeding and who did not act under the
control of the party using it.
• A memorandum or report made by electronic
means at or near the time of by a person
with knowledge thereof and kept in the
regular course or conduct of business activity,
is excepted from the rule on hearsay
evidence.
• All matters relating the admissibility and
evidentiary weight of an electronic evidence
may be established by an affidavit stating facts
of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or
based on authentic records.

• The affidavit must affirmatively show the

competence of the affiant to testify on the
matters contained therein.
• Audio, photographic and video evidence of
events shall be admissible provided it shall
be shown or displayed to the court and shall
be identified, explained, or authenticated by
the person who made the recording or by
some other person competent to testify on
the accuracy.
• Ephemeral electronic communication which
refers to telephone conversation, text
messages or chatroom sessions, the evidence
of which is not recorded or retained shall be
proven by the testimony of a person who was
a party to the same or has personal
knowledge.
 JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
• The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all
actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring
reception of evidence.

• Submission of judicial affidavits and exhibits

in lieu of direct testimonies.
• Submission of photograph of objects
evidence or photo copy or documentary
evidence as exhibit in lieu of the original.

• Contents of the judicial affidavit.

• Sworn attestation of the lawyer; disciplinary

action of false attestation.
• Where a witness unjustifiably declines to
execute a judicial affidavit, the appropriate
remedy is to file a motion for the issuance of
a subpoena; rule does not apply I f the
witness is hostile or adverse.

• Offer of an objection to testimony in judicial

affidavit.
• Examination of the witness on his judicial
affidavit.

• Oral offer of and objections to exhibits.

• Application of the judicial affidavit rule to

criminal cases.
• When shall the judicial affidavit submitted to
the court.

• Effect of non-compliance with the Judicial

Affidavit Rule.

• Effect should a witness or counsel fail to

appear in court during the trial.
• Effect of failure to comply with the
requirements as to the contents of judicial
affidavit as well as the required attestation
clause.
 WRIT OF AMPARO
• Writ of amparo is a remedy available to any
person whose right to life, liberty, and
security is violated or threatened with
violation

• The writ shall cover extralegal killings.

• Petition for a writ of amparo may be filed by:
• (1) any member of the immediate family;
• (2) ascendant or descendant or collateral
relative within the fourth civil degree;
• (3) any concerned citizen, organization or
association.
• Petition for a writ of amparo may be filed
with:
• (1) the Regional Trial Court of the place
where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred;
• (2) the Sandiganbayan;
• (3) the Court of Appeals; or
• (4) the Supreme Court.
• Consolidation of the petition for a writ of
amparo with the criminal action.

• In petition for a writ of amparo, the parties

shall establish their claims by substantial
evidence.
• Appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in writs
of amparo – question of fact and law can be
raised.

• Case where custody of the child is

acknowledge – writ of amparo not
applicable.
 WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
• The writ of habeas data covers violation of
one’s right to privacy to life, liberty or
security through the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the
person, family, home and correspondence of
the aggrieved party.
• Any aggrieved party may file a petition for a
writ of habeas data

• The petition for writ of habeas data may filed

with the: (1) Regional Trial Court where the
petitioner or respondent resides or that which
has jurisdiction over the place where the data
or information is gathered, collected or stored
at the option of the petitioner.
• (2) Supreme Court;
• (3) Court of Appeals;
• (4) Sandiganbayan where action concerns
public data files of government offices.
• Any aggrieved party in a petition for a writ of
habeas data may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court
under Rule 45 within five (5) working days
from receipt of the judgment or final order
• Whenever Rule 45 is invoke pursuant to the
Rule on Habeas Data, not only questions of
law may be raised but also questions of fact.

• Consolidation of civil action and the petition

for a writ of habeas data with the criminal
action.
• Quantum of proof in application for issuance
of writ of habeas data – substantial evidence.
TAKE YOUR OATH AS A LAWYER BY THE YEAR
2019!

THANK YOU!