Sie sind auf Seite 1von 72


Based on the Book of Regalado

[RULE 128]
Sec 1. Evidence defined.
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
Sec. 2. Scope.
The rules of evidence shall be the same:
- in all courts and
- in all trials and hearings,
- EXCEPT as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a)
Evidence, defined: Bustos v. Lucero: Evidence is the mode and manner of
proving competent facts in judicial proceedings.
Proof is the result or effect of evidence.
- This is the result when the requisite quantum of evidence of a
particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight.
Factum Probandum
- Ultimate fact or the fact sought to be established
- Refers to the proposition
Factum Probans
- The evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum probandum is to
be established.
- Refers to the materials which established the proposition
Rules of Evidence as Procedural Law
- Amendments in such rules may validly be made applicable to cases
pending at the time of such change. Parties have no vested right in
the rules of evidence.
- HOWEVER, in criminal cases, if the amendment would permit the
reception of a lesser quantum of evidence to convict, retroactive
application would be unconstitutional for being ex post facto.

Other Laws Governing Evidence

- GR: Rules of evidence is governed by the Rules of Court (RoC)
- EXC: Application of other laws
- RA 4200 (Anti Wiretapping),
- Code of Commerce (weight of entries in merchant books)
- Electronic Commerce Act
- Constitution: Bill of Rights - Art III
o Sec 2: The right of people against unreasonable searches and
o Sec 3: The privacy of communication and correspondence
shall be inviolable (EXC. By order of court or when
provided by law for safety and public order)
o Evidence obtained in violation of such provisions shall be
Applicability of the Rules of Evidence:
- GR: Applicable ONLY in judicial proceedings
- EXC: In quasi-judicial proceedings
o The same apply by analogy, or in a suppletory character and
whenever practicable and convenient.(Rule 1 Section 4)
o It shall apply also when the governing law of such
proceeding specifically adopts such rules
o Note: NOT applicable in agrarian cases
Classification of Evidence According to Form
1. Object (Real) Evidence: directly addressed to the senses of the court
and consist of tangible things exhibited or demonstrated in open court, in
an ocular inspection, or at place designated by the court for its view or
observation of an exhibition, experiment or demonstration.
- This is referred to as autoptic proference since it proffers or
presents in open court the evidentiary articles for observation or
2. Documentary Evidence: Evidence supplied by written instruments or
derived from conventional symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are
represented on material substances
- Rule 130 Sec 2: writings or any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression
offered as proof of their contents
3. Testimonial Evidence: That which is submitted to the court through the
testimony or deposition of a witness.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]


Other Classification of Evidence:

1. Relevant, Material, and Competent Evidence
- Relevant: evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove
any matter provable in an action.
o TEST: The logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact
in issue, whether the former tends to establish the probability
or improbability of the latter.
- Material: evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by
the rules of substantive law and pleadings.
o TEST: w/n the fact it intends to prove is an issue or not.
o W/N a fact is in issue: Determined by substantive law,
pleadings, pre-trial order and by admissions or confessions
on file.
o Evidence may be relevant BUT may be immaterial.
- Competent: one that is not excluded by the Rules, statutes or the
2. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
- Direct: that which proves the fact in dispute w/o the aid of any
inference or presumption
- Circumstantial: proof of a fact or facts from which, taken either
singly or collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute
may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence.
3. Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence
- Cumulative: evidence of the same kind and to the same state of
- Corroborative: additional evidence of a different character to the
same point.
4. Prima Facie and Conclusive Evidence
- Prima Facie: that which, standing alone, unexplained or
uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed.
- Conclusive: the class of evidence which the law does not allow to be
5. Primary and Secondary Evidence
- Primary: that which the law regards as affording the greatest
certainty of the fact in question. Also known as best evidence.
- Secondary: that which is inferior to the primary evidence and is
permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available. Also
known as substitutionary evidence.
6. Positive and Negative Evidence
- Positive: when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur.

Entitled to a greater weight since the witness represents of

his personal knowledge the presence or absence of a fact.
Negative Evidence: when the witness did not see or know of the
occurrence of a fact.
o Lesser weight since there is a total disclaimer of personal
knowledge, hence without any representation that the fact
could or could not have existed or happened.
o It is admissible only if it tends to contradict positive
evidence of the other side or would tend to exclude the
existence of fact sworn to by the other side.

Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence.

Evidence is admissible when:
- it is relevant to the issue AND
- is not excluded by the law or these rules. (3a)
Sec. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters.
Evidence must have such a relation TO:
- the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Evidence on collateral matters:
- shall NOT be allowed,
- EXCEPT when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)
Evidence is ADMISSIBLE when: 2 Requisites (see codal)
- When it is Relevant
o it must have a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief
of its existence or non-existence
o Determined by the rules of logic and human experience.
- When it is Competent
o When not excluded by the law or by the RoC
o Determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules on evidence
Note: The weight however of admissible evidence depends on judicial
evaluation within the Rule 133 and rules of the SC.
o While evidence is admissible, it may be entitled to little or
no weight at all.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]


Conversely, evidence of great weight may also be


Requisites of Admissibility of Evidence According to Professor Wigmore

1. That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible &
2. That all facts having rational probative value are not forbidden by
specific rules
Note: Here, Relevant Evidence means any class of evidence which has
rational probative value to establish the issue in controversy
When is admissibility determined? At the time it is OFFERED to the
- Real Evidence: offered
o when the same is presented for its view or evaluation
o when the party rests his case and the real evidence consists
of objects exhibited in court
- Testimonial Evidence: offered by the calling of the witness to the
- Documentary Evidence: offered by the proponent immediately
before he rests his case
When should admissibility be objected?
- At the time evidence is offered to the court OR
- As soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility shall have
become apparent
o Objection to the qualification of the witness: made at the
time such person is called to the stand
o Objection to the testimony: made at the time the question is
asked or after the answer is given when the objectionable
features become apparent by reason of the answer
Note: if not done within such time right to object is deemed WAIVED
Doctrines and Rules of Admissibility Sanctioned by the Supreme Court
1. Conditional Admissibility
- When the evidence at the time it is offered appears to be immaterial
or irrelevant, such evidence may be received on condition that the
other facts will be proved thereafter
- IF not proved subsequently: evidence given will be stricken out.
- REQUISITE: There should be no bad faith on the part of the
proponent. (necessary to avoid unfair surprises)

2. Multiple Admissibility
- When the evidence is relevant AND competent for two or more
purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the
purposes for which it is offered
- PROVIDED it must satisfy all the requirements for its admissibility.
3. Curative Admissibility
- The right of the party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf
where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by
the adverse party.
- 3 Theories of Curative Admissibility cited by Wigmore
o American rule the admission of incompetent evidence
w/out objection by the opponent, does not justify rebutting it
by similar incompetent evidence.
o English rule if inadmissible evidence is admitted, the
adverse party may resort to similar inadmissible evidence
o Massachusetts rule similar incompetent evidence may be
admitted in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice
caused by the admission of the other partys evidence
- What should be determined to apply the curative admissibility
1. w/n the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to
Lack of objection: waiver of the right to object admissibility
BUT does NOT deprive him to introduce similar rebutting
2. w/n the admission of such evidence will cause a plain and
unfair prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted
When the admissible evidence has been improperly
excluded, the other party should not be permitted to
introduce similar evidence
Stonehill, et al. v. Diokno: Documentary evidence illegally obtained, is
inadmissible on a timely motion or action to suppress. (Applies to illegally
obtained confessions)
Collateral Matters, defined: Matters other than the facts in issue and which
are offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the
facts in issue
- GR: Collateral matters are INADMISSIBLE or not allowed
- EXC: when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue (Circumstantial
Evidence or evidence of relevant collateral facts)

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]


Note: What is prohibited IRRELEVANT collateral facts

4 Main Divisions of the Rules of Evidence: (1) Admissibility of Evidence
Rule 130; (2) Burden of proof and what need not be proved Rule 131 & 129;
(3) Presentation of Evidence Rule 132; (4) Weight and Sufficiency of
Evidence Rule 133; Note: Rule 134 has been transposed to Part I as Rule 24
[RULE 129]
Sec 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.
A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence:
- of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political
history, forms of government and symbols of nationality,
- the law of nations,
- the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
- the political constitution and history of the RP,
- the official acts of legislative,
- executive and judicial departments of the RP,
- the laws of nature,
- the measure of time, and
- the geographical divisions. (1a)
Sec. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.
A court MAY take judicial notice of matters which:
- are of public knowledge, or
- are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or
- ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
Sec. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary.
During the trial, the court:
- on its own initiative, OR on request of a party,
- announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and
- allow the parties to be heard thereon.
AFTER the trial and BEFORE judgment OR ON appeal, the proper court:
- on its own initiative OR on request of a party,


take judicial notice of any matter and

allow the parties to be heard thereon IF such matter is decisive of
a material issue in the case.

Judicial Notice (JN), Defined: cognizance of certain facts which judges
may properly take and act on without proof.
- JN is based on convenience and expediency.
- JN relieves the parties from the necessity of introducing evidence to
prove the fact noticed. The fact is proven by JN.
- The stipulation and admission of the parties or counsel cannot
prevail over the operation of the doctrine of judicial notice, and such
are all subject to the operation of the doctrine.
Two kinds of JN:
- Mandatory
- Discretionary
How JN May be Taken by the Court:
1. On its own initiative or motion
2. When it is requested or invited by the parties
Note: In Either Case, the court may allow the parties to be heard on the
matter in question
- The purpose of the hearing: NOT for the presentation of evidence
o but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present
information relevant to the propriety of taking such JN or to
the tenor of the matter to be noticed
o Also to notify them of the courts intention to take JN
(no notice = improper JN)
What stage may the court take judicial notice of a fact?
- During trial;
- After trial and before judgment;
- On Appeal
Republic v. CA: JN must be exercised with caution and every reasonable
doubt on the subject must be resolved in the negative.
Judicial Notice of Laws
- GR: courts of justice are required to take JN of the laws
- EXC: In case of ORDINANCES, the rule is different

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]


MTCs: Required to take JN of the ordinances of the

municipality or city wherein they sit.
o RTC however, they must take such JN ONLY when:
Required to do so by statute (ex. city charter); and
In a case on appeal before them and wherein the
inferior court took JN of an ordinance involved in
said case. (only to determine the propriety of taking
Appellate courts may also take JN of municipal and city ordinances
not only where the lower courts took JN BEC these are facts capable
of unquestionable demonstration.
For the same reason, Courts may take judicial notice of
administrative regulations

Rule on JN of Decisions of Courts

- ALL courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions of the
Supreme Court
- Lower courts are to take JN of decisions of higher courts (ex. CA)
BUT NOT of the decisions of coordinate trial courts NOR even of a
decision or the facts involved in another case tried by the same court
o EXCEPT when:
Parties introduce the same in evidence
The court as a matter of convenience, decides to do
Judicial Notice vs. Personal Knowledge of a Judge
- The 2 should not be confused
- ItisnotessentialthatmattersofJNbeactuallyknowntothejudge.
Foreign Laws may NOT be Taken Judicial Notice
- Existence of foreign laws is one of FACT and NOT of LAW
- It MUST BE PROVED like any other fact:
o EXCEPT: when the laws are within the actual knowledge of
the court either because:
They are generally known OR
They have been actually ruled upon in other cases
before it and none of the parties object
How WRITTEN Foreign Law May be Proved
- Requirements in Sec 24 and 25 of rule 132 must be complied w/:

o BY an official publication
o BY a duly attested and authenticated copy thereof
- Absent the above evidence: The Doctrine of Processual
Presumption shall apply
o The foreign law is presumed to be the same as that in the RP
- Note: Exceptions to the required proof in Sec 24 and 25:
o Testimony of a witness who was an active member of the
California Bar and who is familiar with the laws with a full
quotation of the cited law was accepted as sufficient proof.
o An affidavit of an US attorney which does not state the
specific law but merely contained his interpretation of the
facts of the case is NOT sufficient proof.
How UNWRITTEN Foreign Law May be Proved
- Rule 130, Sec 46: A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of such law or a testimony of a written expert
Sec. 4. Judicial admissions.
An admission verbal or written,
- made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same
does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted ONLY by showing:
- that it was made through palpable mistake or
- that no such admission was made. (2a)
Judicial Admissions May be Made IN:
1. The pleadings filed by the parties
2. In the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or
3. In other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in pre-trial of the case
Note: Depositions, written interrogatories, or requests for admission are also
considered judicial admissions
To be considered a judicial admission:
- GR: It must be made in the SAME case in which it is offered
- EXC: It may be made in another case or another court PROVIDED:
o It be proved as in the case of any other fact

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]


IF the judicial admission was made in a judicial

proceeding, it is entitled to greater weight.
o It is pertinent to the issue involved
o There must be no objection
- EXC to EXC:
1. The said admissions were made only for purposes of the first
case as in the rule on implied admissions and their effects under
Rule 26
2. The same were withdrawn with the permission of the court
3. The court deems it proper to relieve the party therefrom.
Judicial Admissions v. Extrajudicial Admissions:
- Judicial: Those so made in the pleadings filed or in the progress of a
- Extrajudicial: Those made out of court, or in a judicial proceeding
other than the one under consideration

criminal cases if the pre-trial admission is reduced into

writing and signed by the accused and his counsel.

Rules on Extrajudicial Admissions:

- Extrajudicial admissions or other admissions are, as a rule and where
elements of estoppel are not present, disputable.
- Admissions in a pleading withdrawn are considered extrajudicial
admissions must be proved by a formal offer in evidence of the
original pleading
- Admissions in a pleading superseded by an amended pleading
although filed in the same case are:
o judicial admissions (Note: Based on Regalado on his
interpretation of Sec 4 as amended, p. 792)
o still extrajudicial (If based on Torres v. CA, et al. G.R.
No. L-37420-21, July 31, 1984) also Judge B.
Note: When the parties agree on what the foreign law provides, these are
admission of facts that the court may rely upon, and hence, they are in
estoppel to take a contrary position.
Rules on Contradicting Judicial Admissions
- GR: Judicial Admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter
who is the party himself
- EXC: May be contradicted when:
o Such is made through palpable mistake or
o No such admission was made or
o In the case of a pre-trial admission in a civil case, to prevent
manifest injustice (Sec 7, Rule 18) Note: applies to

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]


[RULE 130]
Sec 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)
- When an object is relevant to a fact in issue, the court may acquire
knowledge thereof by actually viewing the object the object is
called real evidence
- Also known as autoptic proference, physical or demonstrative
- It is the highest form of evidence
- Even if other evidence have been introduced, it will not prevent the
court from viewing an object to resolve the issue
- Also, the fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not
preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the same issue.
Requirements of an Ocular Inspection (OI)
- An OI conducted by the judge w/o notice to or the presence of the
parties is invalid, as an OI is part of the trial.
- W/N an OI is to be made lies in the discretion of the court.
When can a Court Refuse the Introduction of Object (real) Evidence and
Rely on Testimonial Evidence Alone:

1. When the exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy,

morals or decency
2. When to require its being viewed in court or in an ocular inspection
would result in delay, inconvenience, unnecessary expense out of
proportion to the evidentiary value of such object
3. When such object (real) evidence would be confusing or misleading,
as when the purpose is to prove the former condition of the object
and there is no preliminary showing that there has been no
substantial change in said condition
4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly
portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof
When may object (real) evidence which is repulsive or indecent still be
viewed by the court?
- IF the view of the same is necessary in the interest of justice
- In such case, the court may exclude the public from such view
- Note: The view may NOT be refused IF the indecent or immoral
objects constitute the very basis of the criminal or civil actions
(ex. case against obscene exhibits)
What does object (real) evidence include?
- Such evidence includes any article or object which may be known or
perceived by the use of any of the senses of: hearing (auditory),
touch (tactile), taste (gustatory) or smell (olfactory)and sight
- It may include:
o Examination of the anatomy of a person or any substance
taken therefrom
o Conducting tests, demonstration or experiments
o Examination of representative portrayals of the object in
question provided the same are properly authenticated (ex.
maps, diagrams, sketches, pictures, audio-visual records)
- Note: Such real evidence may be amplified by interpretations
afforded by testimonial evidence especially by experts (x-ray
interpreted by doctors)
Documents are Considered:
- Object (real) Evidence IF their Purpose is: To prove their
existence or condition, or the nature of the handwritings thereon or to
determine the age of the paper used, or the blemishes or alterations

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]


Otherwise, They are Considered Documentary Evidence IF their

Purpose is: to establish the contents or tenor thereof.

Physical Examination of a Person May be Conducted:

- BY the court OR under its direction
- TO show the nature, extent or location of injuries, facial features, his
resemblance or possibility of relationship to another, or his racial
origin, his probable age, fact of pregnancy

(c) 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
(d) When the original:
- is a public record
- in the custody of a public officer OR is recorded in a public office.


Sec. 4. Original of document.

Sec. 2. Documentary evidence.

(a) The original of the document is:

- one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.

Documents as evidence consist of:

- writing or
- any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or
- other modes of written expression
offered as proof of their contents. (n)
1. BEST EVIDENCE RULE (Primary Evidence Rule)
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
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 offered, and
- the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;

(b) When a document:

- is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents,
all such copies are equally regarded as originals.
(c) When an entry:
- is repeated in the regular course of business,
- one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction,
all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. (3a)
Document, defined: A deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by
which something is proved, evidenced or set forth.
Documentary Evidence, defined: That which is furnished by written
instruments, inscriptions and documents of all kinds.
Best Evidence Rule, defined: that rule which requires the highest grade of
evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact.
- Purpose: To prevent fraud, perjury, and To exclude uncertainties in
the contents of a document
Best Evidence Rule is Applied to Documentary Evidence ONLY
- Operates as a rule of exclusion

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]


GR: Original writing itself must be produced in court.

Secondary/substitutionary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced
o Effect: The non-production of the original document gives
rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence (Sec 131)
- EXC: Secondary evidence may be produced in 4 Instances in Sec 3
Note: In case of real evidence, secondary evidence may be introduced w/o
having to account for the non-production of such primary evidence
Best Evidence Rule is Applicable ONLY: when the contents of the
document is the subject of inquiry.
- It does NOT apply when the issue is only as to:
o w/n the document exists or w/n it was actually executed or
o the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution
Note: Here, testimonial evidence or other evidence will suffice.
When a document is presented to prove existence or condition It is
offered as REAL evidence, NOT documentary evidence
- Parol evidence of the fact of execution is allowed
- HOWEVER, 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 as imputed to the
accused the original must be produced (ex. in libel, the
newspaper must be presented)
o In this case, the presentation of the original should affect
ONLY the weight of the evidence intended to establish the
execution of the document
Affidavits and depositions are not best evidence and hence not
admissible, IF the affiants or deponents are available as witnesses
- It is not best evidence ONLY when the contents of the affidavits or
depositions are NOT the issues in the case BUT are merely used to
establish the issues in controversy
o Affidavits are regulated by the hearsay evidence rule (Rule
130 Sec 26) to safeguard the right of cross examination.
o Depositions are regulated by Rule 23 Sec 4
When Other Copies of a Document are Considered Originals (Sec 4)
- It includes regular entries in journals and ledgers.
- A signed carbon copy executed at the same time as the original is
known as a duplicate original and may be introduced w/o the
Rules on Carbon Copies Considered as Originals

Documents prepared in several copies through the use of carbon

sheets are considered originals:
o PROVIDED that the writing of a contract upon the outside
sheet, including the signature of the party sought to be
charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets
beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the SAME
stroke of the pen
- Even if the signature was made through separate acts or separate
occasions, ALL the CARBON COPIES are considered originals
o IF each copy was intended as a repository of the same legal
act of the party thereto.
- BUT imperfect carbon copies are merely secondary evidence
even if the text was made at the same time as the signed original
o Ex. incomplete signatures, something else is left to be done
in order that a document could evidence a binding obligation
Rules on Telegrams and Cables W/N the dispatch sent or the dispatch
received is the best evidence of the message (depends on the issue)
- IF the issue is the contents of the telegrams
o as received by the addressee - original dispatch received is
the best evidence
o as sent by the sender the original is the message delivered
- IF the issue is the inaccuracy of the transmission
o BOTH the sent and received dispatch are originals.
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga v. Reyes: in case of libel IF the issue is:
- On the contents of the articles sent by the accused for publication
o The manuscript is the best evidence
- On what was actually published
o A copy of the newspaper is the best 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

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]


by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or

by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (4a)

1st Exception to the Best Evidence Rule: When the original is lost or
What Must be Proved by Satisfactory Evidence in Order for Secondary
Evidence May be Admissible:
1. Due execution of the original : proved through the testimony of either:
a. The person/s who executed it
b. The person before whom its execution was acknowledged or
c. Any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or
who thereafter saw it and recognized the signatures, or
d. One to whom the parties previously confessed its execution
2. Loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals
- The cause must NOT be due to the offerors bad faith
- Loss or Destruction may be Proved BY:
o Any person who knew of such fact
o Anyone who, in the judgment of the court had made a
sufficient examination in the places where the document or
papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in
whose custody the document was and had been unable to
find it
o Anyone who has made any other investigation which is
sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeed
- Duplicates must be accounted for: Only when ALL cannot be
presented can it be considered unavailable/lost/destroyed
3. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to
produce the original
PNB v. Olila: When the original is OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the court
(ex. Abroad), secondary evidence is ADMISSIBLE
What Constitutes Secondary Evidence? (Note: Applies to BOTH 1st and
2nd Exceptions to the Primary Evidence Rule)
1. A copy of said document
2. A recital or its contents in an authentic document or
3. The recollection of witnesses

GR: Availment of such secondary evidence MUST be in the aforesaid

EXC: Definite Evidentiary Rule When the law specifically provides for the
class and quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a
document or bars secondary evidence such requirement is controlling
- Example. Lost holographic will must be proved only by a copy, lost
notarial will may be proved by the testimony of credible witnesses
Contents of a Document may be Proven BY:
1. Any person who read it
2. Any person who heard it read knowing or it being proved from other
sources that the document so read was the one in question
3. Any person who was present when the contents of the document were
talked over between the parties thereto to such an extent as to give him
reasonably full information as to its contents
4. Any person to whom the parties to the instrument have confessed or
stated the contents thereof.
Sec. 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control .
IF the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party:
- he must have reasonable notice to produce it.
IF after 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)
2nd Exception to the Best Evidence Rule: Original is in the custody or under
the control of the adverse party who fails to produce it
Facts Which Must be Shown by the Party Offering Secondary Evidence
1. The adverse partys custody or control of the original document;
o No need to prove actual possession. It is enough to show the
circumstances that would indicate his possession.
2. That reasonable notice was given to the adverse party who has the
custody or control of the document;
3. Satisfactory proof of the documents existence;
4. Failure or refusal by the adverse party to produce it in court.
Requirement of Notice Demanding the Original Document:

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

10 | P a t i o , E r i c a

No particular form of notice is required, as long as it fairly apprises

the other party as to what papers are desired. Even an oral demand in
court will suffice.
- HOWEVER, notice must be given to the adverse party or his
attorney even if the document is in the actual possession of a 3rd party
- Notice is done by: Motion or Subpoena duces tecum
Notice is NOT Required:
- When the receipt of the original document is acknowledged on a
carbon copy. (The duplicate itself is an original copy and the only
issue is the receipt of the original)
- When the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as when it is for the
recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or
withheld by the other party

3rd Exception to the Best Evidence Rule: When the original consists of
numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court
w/out great loss of time
Requisites for the 3rd Exception to Apply:
1. The voluminous character of the records must be established and
2. Such records must be made accessible to the adverse party so that
their correctness may be tested on cross examination
Instances When the Original Must STILL be Produced
1. When the detailed contents of the records of accounts are challenged
for being hearsay or
2. Issues are raised as to the authenticity or correctness of the detailed

*See Notes on Section 8 as it relates to Section 6

Effect of JUSTIFIED Refusal of the Adverse Party to the Produce the
- Does NOT give rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence or
create an unfavorable inference against him
- IT only authorizes the introduction of secondary evidence
Rules on Production of Documents: Rule 130 v. Rule 27
Rule 130
Rule 27
Production is procured by mere notice Production is in the nature of a
to the adverse party
mode of discovery
Requirements of notice must be Can be sought only by proper
fulfilled as a condition precedent for motion and only upon good cause
the subsequent presentation of
secondary evidence
Presupposes that the evidence to be Contemplates a situation wherein
produced is intended as evidence
the document is either assumed to
be favorable to the party in
possession thereof or that the party
seeking its production is not
sufficiently informed of the
contents of the same

Note: Here, a summary of the voluminous records can be considered as

secondary evidence
Sec. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record.
When the original of document:
- is in the custody of public officer or
- is recorded in a public office,
its contents may be proved:
- by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
4th Exception to the Best Evidence Rule: When the original is a public
record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office
Such Document may be Evidenced BY:
- An official publication or
- A copy attested by the officer having legal custody and
- In the case of an authorized public record, by a copy thereof attested
by its legal keeper
Sec. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.
A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same
- is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

11 | P a t i o , E r i c a

When the document is produced, it must fulfill the requisites of admissibility
to be admitted. The party demanding it is also NOT obliged to offer it.


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
HOWEVER, a party may present evidence to:
- modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement
- IF he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a)An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
(c)The validity of the written agreement; or
(d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
interest AFTER the execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)

Parol Evidence, defined: Any evidence aliunde (oral or written), which is

intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement
in a document
Basis and Effect of the Parol Evidence Rule
- Basis: When the parties have reduced their agreement into writing,
all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on the matter are
merged therein.
- Effect: Hence, a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is not
admissible to vary contradict or defeat the operation of a valid
When Can Parol Evidence of a Collateral Agreement (CA) Between the
Same Parties on the Same or Related Subject Matter Still be Admissible
Notwithstanding the Existence of a Written Agreement?
1. When the CA is not inconsistent with the terms of the written contract
2. When the CA has not been integrated in and is independent of the
written contract as where it is suppletory to the original contract
3. When the CA is subsequent to or novatory of the written contract
4. When the CA constitutes a condition precedent which determines
whether the written contract may become operative or effective.
o No. 4 does not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in
the agreement
NOTE: In order to apply the above exceptions, evidence thereon may be
allowed PROVIDED they have been put in issue (as part of Sec. 9, Par. d)
Parol Evidence Rule Also does NOT APPLY (may not be invoked against
the other):
- When at least 1 party to the suit is not a party or privy to the written
instrument in question and does not base a claim or assert a right
originating in the instrument.
- A stranger may introduce extrinsic evidence against the written
Parol Evidence is Admissible PROVIDED Section 9 Paragraphs A to D
are put in issue
- GR: Such facts must be put in issue by the pleadings
- EXCEPTION: Parol Evidence may still be admitted even if the
required matters are not put in issue by the pleadings:
o If such facts are invoked in his answer (since it also puts it in

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

12 | P a t i o , E r i c a

When parol evidence is NOT OBJECTED to (waiver of right

to object inadmissibility)

Requisites for the Admissibility of Parol Evidence

1. There is a valid contract
2. The terms of the agreement were reduced into writing
3. The controversy must be between the parties of the agreement of
their successors in interest (parties to the agreement must be the
parties to the suit)
4. There is a dispute as to the terms of the agreement
Rule on Express Trusts Concerning an Immovable or Any Interest
- Cannot be proved by parol evidence
- Relief: Reformation of contracts

Parol Evidence Rule v. Best Evidence Rule:

Parol Evidence Rule
Best Evidence Rule
Presupposes that the original Contemplates a situation where the
document is available in court
original writing is not available
and/or there is a dispute as to w/n
the said writing is the original
Prohibits the varying of the terms of Prohibits the introduction of
the written agreement
secondary evidence regardless of w/n
it varies the contents of the original
Applies ONLY to documents which Applies to all kinds of writings
are contractual in nature or written
agreement (EXC. It applies to wills)
Can be invoked ONLY when there is Can be invoked by ANY party
a controversy bet. the parties to the regardless of w/n such party has
written agreement and their privies participated in the writing involved.
or any party directly affected thereby
1st Exception to the Parol Evidence Rule: An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement (Sec 9 Par A)
Ambiguities in the Written Agreement or Will
1. Latent or Intrinsic Ambiguity Contemplated in Sec 9 Curable
by Parol Evidence

When the writing on its face appears to be clear and unambiguous

but there are collateral matters or circumstances which make the
meaning uncertain
- When a writing admits of 2 or more constructions
- Ex. I give my estate to my cousin Jimmy Ibarra (I have 2 cousins
with that same name)
2. Patent or Extrinsic Ambiguity NOT contemplated, Cannot be
Cured by Parol Evidence
- That which is apparent on the face of the writing and requires
something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning. Ex. I give
my estate to my first cousin
3. Intermediate Ambiguity May also be Cured by Parol Evidence
PROVIDED it is also put in issue
- Because of the words of the writing, though seemingly clear and
with a settled meaning, is actually equivocal and admits 2
Note: False description shall not vitiate a document IF the subject is
sufficiently identified.
Note: When the terms of the agreement are clear the courts have no right to
interpret it
Mistake means Mistake of Fact
- Such mistake may be a mutual mistake between the parties OR
- Where an innocent party was imposed upon by unfair dealing of the
- Such mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing
Imperfection Includes:
- An inaccurate statement in the agreement or
- Incompleteness in the writing or
- Presence or inconsistent provisions therein
Note: Art. 1363 NCC: When one party was mistaken and the other party
knew that the instrument did not state the real agreement and concealed such
fact the instrument may be reformed.
2nd Exception to the Parol Evidence Rule: Failure of the written agreement
to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
Purpose: to enable to court to ascertain the true intention of the parties or the
true nature of the transaction

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

13 | P a t i o , E r i c a

3rd Exception to the Parol Evidence Rule: The validity of the written

So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent

with it. (10)

Sec. 13. Interpretation according to circumstances.

In the inquiry into the Validity if the Agreement, Parol Evidence may be
Admitted to Show:
- The true consideration of the contract or the want or illegality thereof
- The Incapacity of the parties
- W/n the contract is fictitious or absolutely simulated
- W/n there was fraud in inducement
4th Exception to the Parol Evidence Rule: The existence of other terms
agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest AFTER the execution
of the written agreement
Note: Amendment in Section 9


For the proper construction of an instrument:

- the circumstances under which it was made,
- including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it,
may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those
whose language he is to interpret. (11)
Sec. 14. Peculiar signification of terms.
The terms of a writing:
- are presumed to have been used in their primary and general
but evidence is admissible to show that they have:
- a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and
- were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case
the agreement must be construed accordingly. (12)

Sec. 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning.

Sec. 15. Written words control printed.
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. (8)

When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed

form, AND the two are inconsistent:
- the former controls the latter. (13)

Sec. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions .

Sec. 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings.
In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or
- such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to
all. (9)
Sec. 12. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular
In the construction of an instrument:
- the intention of the parties is to be pursued;
and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent,
- the latter is paramount to the former.

- the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be
deciphered, or
- the language is not understood by the court,
the evidence:
- OF persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand
the language
- is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language. (14)
Sec. 17. Of Two constructions, which preferred.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

14 | P a t i o , E r i c a

When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by

the different parties to it:
- that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the
other understood it, and
when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper:
- that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in
whose favor the provision was made. (15)
Sec. 18. Construction in favor of natural right.
When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations:
- one in favor of natural right AND the other against it,
- the former is to be adopted. (16)
Sec. 19. Interpretation according to usage.
An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine
its true character. (17)
Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications.
EXCEPT as provided in the next succeeding section:
- 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, shall not be a ground for
disqualification. (18a)
Witness, defined: Reference to a person who testifies in a case or gives
evidence before a judicial tribunal

Competence of a Witness, defined: The legal fitness or ability of a witness

to be heard on the trial of a case.
Rule on Competency of Witness
- GR: A person who takes the witness stand is presumed to possess
the qualification of a witness (Presumption of Competency)
- EXC: Prima Facie Presumption of Incompetency when:
o The person has been recently found to be of unsound mind
by a court of competent jurisdiction or
o One is an inmate of an asylum for the insane
Note: The burden is upon the party objecting to the competency of a witness
to establish the grounds of incompetency.
When are the Qualifications and Disqualifications of Witnesses
- At the time the witnesses are produced for examination in court
(called to the stand) OR
- At the time of the taking of their depositions.
Note: If they are children of tender years the time of the occurrence to be
testified to should also taken into account
Note: According to Judge B (different view from other authors) You must
consider the qualifications of the witness BOTH at the time of the occurrence
to be testified to and at the time the witness is offered to determine his/her
Instances When a Witness is NOT Disqualified from Being a Witness:
- Interest of a Witness in the Subject Matter of the Action or its
o GR: Does NOT disqualify a witness from testifying. It
affects only his credibility but NOT his competency
o EXC: He will be disqualified under those covered by the
rule on surviving parties, also known as the Dead Man
Statute or the Survivorship Disqualification Rule (Sec
- A Co-defendant Being Declared in Default
o GR: A defendant is NOT disqualified from testifying for his
non-defaulting co-defendant although he has an interest in
the case
o Ratio: He may still testify because he is not considered as
taking part in trial as understood in the rule on default.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

15 | P a t i o , E r i c a

A Witness Being Convicted of a Crime

o GR: A person convicted is NOT disqualified from being a
witness (it only affects his credibility) BUT:
He must answer to the fact of a previous final
conviction (sec 3(5), Rule 132) or
Such fact may be shown by his examination or the
record of the judgment (sec 11)
o EXC: When otherwise provided by law (ex. Those guilty of
perjury, falsification or false testimony are disqualified from
being witnesses to a will)
A Lawyer Being a Witness for his Own Client
o GR: In such instance, the lawyer must leave the trial of the
case to other counsel
o EXC. When it concerns merely formal matters

When Objection to a Witness be Made:

- GR: Objection to the qualification of the witness must be made
before he has given any testimony
- EXC: IF the incompetency appears during the trial, the objection
must be made as soon as it becomes apparent.
Note: If not made w/in the said time: right to object is deemed WAIVED
2 Kinds of Incompetency to Testify
1. Absolute: Forbidden to testify in any matter
o By reason of mental incapacity or immaturity (sec 21)
o By reason of marriage (sec 22)
2. Relative: Forbidden only on certain matters
o By reason of death or insanity of adverse party (Dead Mans
Statute) sec 23
o By reason of Privileged Communication (Sec 24)
Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity.
The ff persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition:
- at the time of their production for examination,
- is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their
perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable:

of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and

of relating them truthfully. (19a)

Unsound Mind, defined: That which affects the competency of the witness
which includes any mental aberration, whether organic or functional, or
induced by drugs or hypnosis.
Rules on the Qualification of Soundness of Mind
- GR: Unsoundness of mind does not per se render a witness
incompetent, one may be medically insane but in law capable of
giving competent testimony.
Note: As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and give
sufficiently intelligent answers to questions propounded, she is competent as
a witness EVEN if one is feeble-minded, a mental retardate, or is
When Should a Witness be of Sound Mind?
- ONLY at the time of their production for examination
- Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time the fact to be testified
occurred Affects ONLY his credibility.
When are Deaf-mutes Competent Witnesses?
- When they: (1) Can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an
oath; (2) Can comprehend facts they are going to testify to and; (3)
Can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter.
Presumption of Soundness of Mind
- GR: Every person is presumed to be of sound mind and the person
challenging such has the burden of proving otherwise
- EXC: Prima Facie Presumption of Incompetency when:
o The person has been recently found to be of unsound mind
by a court of competent jurisdiction
o One is an inmate of an asylum for the insane
In the Case of a Child Witness, the Court in Determining his
Competency Must Consider his Capacity:
- At the time the fact to be testified to occurred, such that he could
receive correct impressions thereof;
- To comprehend the obligation of an oath; and
- To relate those facts truthfully at the time he is offered as a witness.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

16 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Hence, the court should take into account his capacity for observation,
recollection and communication.
When is a Child Considered a Competent Witness
- GR: A child is competent if he can perceive and make known his
- EXC: IF the childs testimony is punctured w/ serious
inconsistencies as to lead one to believe that the child was coached.
An Intelligent Boy is Undoubtedly the Best Observer
- A child is little influenced by the suggestions of others and describes
objects and occurrence as he has really seen them
- Children of sound mind are likely to be more observant of incidents
which take place within their view than older people.
Child Witness
Ordinary Witness
Only the judge is allowed to ask Opposing counsels are allowed to
questions to the child during ask
preliminary examination
Leading questions are allowed
They are generally not allowed
Testimony in a narrative from is It is NOT allowed
The child witness is assisted by a An ordinary witness is not assisted
Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage.
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other:
- without the consent of the affected spouse,
- in a civil case by one against the other, or
- in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or
the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (20a)
Rule on Marital Disqualification (Spousal Immunity):
- GR: During the marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may
testify for or against the other w/o the consent of the affected spouse
EXCEPTIONS: Rule on Disqualification does NOT Apply When:
1. When the testimony was made outside the marriage
2. In a civil case by one spouse against another

3. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse against the

other or the latters direct descendants or ascendants
o Reason: The crime may be considered as having been
committed against the spouse and hence, the conjugal
harmony sought to be protected no longer exists)
o Limited only to direct ascendants and descendants + spouse
4. People v. Castaeda: A complaint filed by a wife against her
husband for falsification of her signature in a deed of sale involving
their conjugal property.
5. Ordonio v. Daquigan: When the marital relations are so strained,
there is no more consideration for applying the said rule. To apply
the exception there must be an offense that directly attacks, or
directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relations.
6. When there is imputation of a crime by one spouse against the other
Note: Direct Ascendants and Descendants = Parents and Children ONLY
Nature of Prohibition: Absolute disqualification or prohibition against the
spouses testifying to any fact affecting the other spouse however the fact
may have acquired
Requisites in Order for Marital Disqualification Rule to Apply:
1. The marriage is valid and existing at the time of the offer of
testimony; and
2. The other spouse is a party to the action.
Who may Object: Only the other spouse who is a party to the case.
- Note: Objections to the competency of the witness-spouse may also
be waived. (Ex. Testimony against a spouse is a waiver of a
testimony in rebuttal)
Rationale For Having Such Rule
- Considering the identity of interest between the spouses, there is
consequent danger of committing perjury
- Also, the rule is in order to guard marital confidence and to prevent
domestic disunion
This should NOT be confused w/ Marital Privilege (see sec 24 notes)
Sec. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party .

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

17 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Parties or assignor of parties to a case, OR persons in whose behalf a case is

- against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, or
- against a person of unsound mind,
upon a claim or demand against the estate of:
- such deceased person or against
- such person of unsound mind,
cannot testify as to any matter of fact OCCURRING:
- before the death of such deceased person or
- before such person became of unsound mind. (20a)


Survivorship Disqualification Rule or Dead Man Statute

- Constitutes only a partial disqualification: A witness is not
completely disqualified BUT is only prohibited from testifying in
certain matters specified
- Disqualification ONLY applies to: A civil case or special
proceeding over the estate of a deceased or insane person
- Incompetency to Testify Applies: w/n the deceased died before or
after the commencement of the action against him provided he is
dead at the time of the testimony

Requirements for the Dead Man Statute to Apply:

1. The witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff, or the
assignor of said party, or a person in whose behalf a case is
2. The case is against the executor or administrator or other
representative of a person deceased or of unsound mind;
3. The case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such person
who is deceased or of unsound mind
4. The testimony to be given is on matter of fact occurring before the
death, of such deceased person or before such person became of
unsound mind.
Requirement No. 1: The witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff,
or the assignor of said party, or a person in whose behalf a case is

Such plaintiff must be the real party in interest and not a mere
nominal party.
The disqualification does NOT apply:
o when the counterclaim has been interposed by the defendant
as the plaintiff would thereby be testifying in his defense
o when the deceased contracted with the plaintiff through an
agent and said agent is alive and can testify, but the
testimony of the plaintiff should be limited to acts performed
by the agent.
Assignor, defined: Assignor of a cause of action which has arisen,
and not the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of action
has arisen
Interest in the outcome of the suit, per se, does not disqualify a
witness from testifying

Requirement No. 2: The case is against the executor or administrator or

other representative of a person deceased or of unsound mind;

It is necessary that the said defendant is being sued and defends in

such representative capacity and not in his individual capacity
Even if the property has been judicially adjudicated to the heirs, they
are still protected under the rule
The protection would extend to the heirs of the deceased and the
guardians of persons of unsound mind

Requirement No. 3: The case is upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such person who is deceased or 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 who represented the latter
This is restricted to debts or demands enforceable by personal
actions upon which money judgments can be rendered.
An action for damages for breach of agreement to devise property for
services rendered is a claim against an estate

Requirement No. 4: The testimony to be given is on matter of fact occurring

before the death, of such deceased person or before such person became of
unsound mind.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

18 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Negative testimony (testimony that a fact did not occur during the
lifetime of the deceased) is NOT covered by the prohibition as such
fact exists even after the decedents demise

The Rule Does NOT Apply:

1. Land registration cases instituted by the decedents representatives
(since the oppositors are considered defendants and may therefore
testify against the petitioner)
2. It does not apply in cadastral cases since there is no plaintiff or
3. When the testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is
established under a written document or is intended to prove a
fraudulent transaction against the deceased
o Provided such fraud is first established by evidence aliunde
o To apply the rule, the testimony must be against the estate
4. When the disqualification is waived - when the defendant:
o does not timely object to the admission of such evidence or
o testifies on the prohibited matters or cross examines thereon
o or offers evidence to rebut such prohibited testimony
Reason for the Rule:
1. To prevent perjury
2. To protect the estate from fictitious claims
3. To give the parties an equal opportunity to present evidence

Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.

The ff. persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
ff. cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage:
- cannot be examined w/out the consent of the other
- as to any communication received in confidence by one from the
other during the marriage
- in a civil case by one against the other, or
- in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or
the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;
(b) An attorney cannot:

- without the consent of his client,

be examined as to:
- any communication made by the client to him, or his advice
- given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional
NOR can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined:
- without the consent of the client AND his employer,
- concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in
such capacity;
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot
in a civil case:
- without the consent of the patient,
be examined as to:
- any advice or treatment given by him or any information
- which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a
professional capacity
which information:
- was necessary to enable him to act in such capacity, and
- which would blacken the reputation of the patient;
d) A minister or priest cannot:
- without the consent of the person making the confession,
be examined as to:
- any confession made to or any advice
- given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs;
(e) A public officer cannot be examined:
- during his term of office OR afterwards,
- as to communications made to him in official confidence,
- when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the
disclosure. (21a)
Basis of the Privilege: The confidential nature of the communication
Who May Object Under the Disqualification Rules ONLY by the
persons protected thereunder (upon whom the testimony is directed). They
may also waive the right to object.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

19 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Requisites for the Disqualification By Reason of Marital Privilege to

1. There is a valid marital relation;
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
communication between the spouses during said marriage;
3. The spouse against whom such evidence is being offered has not
given his or her consent to such testimony.
Instances When the Privilege Cannot Be Claimed:
1. With respect to communications made prior to the marriage of the
2. With respect to communication not intended to be kept in confidence
(ex. dying declaration of a husband to his wife as to who was his
assailant since it is intended to be reported)
3. When the information is overheard by a third party whether he
acquired the information legally or not. (A 3 rd person is not covered
by the prohibition)
o Provided: There must be no collusion between the 3 rd person
and one of the spouses.
4. In a conspiracy between spouses to commit a crime - since it is not
the intention of the law to protect the commission of a crime.
5. When the spouses are living separately and there is an active
hostility. But if there is a chance to reconcile, then this privilege will
6. When waived
Note: Any information received during the marriage is presumed to be
Disqualification By Reason of
Disqualification By Reason of
Marriage (Sec 22)
Marital Privilege (Sec 24a)
Can be invoked ONLY if one of the Can be claimed w/n the other spouse
spouses is a party to the action
is a party to the action
Applies ONLY if the marriage is Can be claimed even after the
existing at the time the testimony is marriage is dissolved
Constitutes a vital prohibition for or Applies ONLY to confidential
against the spouse of the witness
communication between spouses
Objection would be raised on the The objection of privilege is raised
ground of marriage. Even if the when
testimony is for or against the other communication is inquired into.

Note: Waiving Sec 22 does not prevent the spouse from invoking sec 24 and
vice versa. So even if the information is not confidential, the spouse may still
invoke sec 22 which is an absolute disqualification.
Requisites for the Disqualification Based on Attorney-Client (A-C)
Privilege to Apply
1. There is an attorney and client relation;
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
communication between them in the course of professional
3. The client has not given his consent to the attorneys testimony.
Note: IF the attys secretary or clerk is sought to be established then
BOTH the consent of the atty and the client is required.
Note: The client owns the privilege and therefore he alone can invoke it.
Prohibition is also applicable even to a counsel de oficio.
Basis: public policy
Confidential Communication: The attorney must have been consulted in
his professional capacity EVEN if no fee has been paid.
- It includes preliminary communications made for the purpose of
creating the A-C relationship. (But if it is not for the purpose of
creating the A-C relationship it will not be protected even if the
client subsequently hires the same attorney)
- Includes verbal statements as well as documents or papers entrusted
to the attorney
Instances when the A-C Privilege Does NOT Apply:
1. Intended to be made public;
2. Intended to be communicated to others;
3. Intended for an unlawful purpose;
4. Received from third person not acting in behalf or as agent of the
5. Made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the
attorney-client relationship.
The period to be considered is:
- the date when the privileged communication was made by the client
to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or
with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future
BUT Communication Regarding:
- A crime already committed - is privileged communication

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

20 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Contemplated criminal acts or in aid or furtherance thereof - is not


The A-C Privilege Does NOT Attach:

- When the attorney is a conspirator
- When all the attorney has to do is to either affirm or deny the secret
revealed by the client to the court
- When the information is voluntarily given after the attorney has
refused to accept employment.
Purpose: It is intended to facilitate confidential disclosure by a patient to a
physician of all facts and symptoms w/o apprehension to the end that the
physician may form a correct opinion and may safely treat his patient.
Requisites for the Disqualification Based on Physician-Patient (P-P)
Privilege to Apply
1. The physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or
2. The information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given
by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating and
curing the patient;
3. The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the
reputation of the patient;
4. The privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether patient is a party or
Note: It is not necessary that the P-P relationship was created through the
voluntary act of the patient. Death of the patient does not extinguish the
Note: The privilege extends to all forms of communications as well as to the
professional observations and examinations of the patient
The P-P Privilege Does NOT Attach:
1. The communication was not given in confidence;
2. The communication is irrelevant to the professional employment;
3. The communication was made for an unlawful purpose, as when it is
intended for the commission or concealment of a crime;
4. The information was intended to be made public;
5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract
or law.

6. Under Rule 28 of the Rules of Court,

o The results of the physical and mental examination of a
person, when ordered by the court, are intended to be made
public, hence not privileged.
o Also, result of autopsies or post mortem examinations are
generally intended to be divulged in court.
The Privilege May Also be Waived:
- Ex. Section 4 of said Rule 28: if the party examined obtains a
report on said examination or takes the deposition of the
examiner, he thereby waives any privilege regarding any other
examination of said physical or mental condition conducted or to be
conducted on him by any other physician.
- Ex. Waiver of the privilege by contract may be found in stipulations
in life insurance policies.
Requisites for the Disqualification Based on Minister/Priest-Penitent
Privilege to Apply
1. That the same were made pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the
course of discipline of the sect or denomination to which they
belong; and
2. They must be confidential and penitential in character.
- Ex: under seal of the confessional
Note: It is the person making the confession who can invoke the privilege.
Requisites for the Disqualification Based on Privileged Communication
to Public Officers to Apply
1. That it was made to the public officer in official confidence;
2. That public interest would suffer by the disclosure of such
communication, as in the case of State secrets.
Note: When no public interest will be prejudiced - this rule will NOT apply.

RA 53 as amended by RA 1477, the publisher, editor or duly accredited

reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

21 | P a t i o , E r i c a

information appearing in said publication unless the court or a House or

committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the
Security of the State.

Art. 233 of the Labor Code - All information and statements made at
conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications
and shall not be used as evidence in the NLRC, and conciliators and
similar officials shall not testify in any court regarding any matter taken
up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them.

Voters cannot be compelled to reveal their ballots

Trade Secrets will be covered by this privilege

Informers Privilege: Prosecutor is not to be compelled to dispose the

identity of the informer unless the informer is already known to the
accused and when the identity of the informer is vital.

Those covered in the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law

EO 464: Executive Privilege

Income Tax returns

Anti-Graft Cases

Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege.
No person may be compelled to testify against his:
- parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
- It is not a rule of disqualification but was a privilege NOT to testify
- hence it was referred to as filial privilege

However, under the Family Code, the descendant may be compelled

to testify against his parents and grandparents, if such testimony is
indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant or by
one parent against the other (Art. 215).
- Both parental and filial privileges are granted to any person
Reason for the Rule: The reason for the rule is to preserve family
Note: The privilege may now be invoked in both civil and criminal cases.
Sec. 26. Admission of a party.
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him. (22)
Admission, defined: Any statement of fact made by a party against his
interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is
inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.

An admission is a statement of fact
which does not involve an
acknowledgement of guilt or liability
It may be express or tacit
May be made by third persons

It involves an acknowledgment of
guilt or liability

Must be express
Can be made only by the party
himself and in some instances, is
admissible against his co-accused
Express Admissions, defined: are those made in definite, certain and
unequivocal language.
Implied Admissions, defined: are those which may be inferred from the
acts, declarations or omission of a party. Therefore, an admission may be
implied from conduct, statement of silence of a party.
Requisites for Admissions to be Admissible
1. They must involve matters of fact and not of law;
2. They must be categorical and definite;
3. They must be knowingly and voluntarily made;

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

22 | P a t i o , E r i c a

4. They must be adverse to the admitters interests, otherwise it would

be self-serving and inadmissible.
Other Forms of Admissions:
- Verbal or written, express or tacit, judicial or extrajudicial
- Judicial: One made in connection w/ a judicial proceedings
(conclusive does not require proof)
- Extrajudicial: Any other admissions (Sec 26 to 32) (Rebuttable
requires proof)
Ex. Testimony of the accused in a parricide case to the effect that he was
married to the victim is an admission against his penal interest and will
sustain his conviction even in the absence of independent evidence to prove
such marriage
An admission need not be against
ones proprietary or pecuniary
Made by the party himself, and is a
primary evidence and competent
though he be present in court and
ready to testify
Admission can be made any time

Declaration Against Interest

The declaration against interest must
have been made against the proprietary
or pecuniary interest of the parties
Must have been made by a person who
is either deceased or unable to testify
The declaration against interest must
have been made ante litem motam
(prior to the controversy)

Self-Serving Testimony, defined: One which has been made extra-judicially

by the party to favor his interests. It is not admissible in evidence.
- It does not include his testimony as a witness in court
- No application to a judicial declaration
- When the statement was not made in anticipation of a future
litigation It cannot be considered self-serving
Self serving declarations made by a party are admissible in his own
behalf in the ff:
1. When they form part of res gestae, including spontaneous statements
and verbal acts;
2. When they are in the form of complaint and exclamations of pain
and suffering;
3. When they are part of a confession offered by the prosecution
4. When the credibility of a party has been assailed on the ground that
his testimony is a recent fabrication (Testimonial Rehabilitation)
5. When they are offered by the opponent

6. When they are offered without objection, the evidence cannot

afterward be objected to as incompetent.
Admission by Conduct
- Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial
evidence of consciousness of guilt
- Attempts to suppress evidence (ex. Destruction of evidence)
- The act of repairing facilities after an injury has been sustained
therein is NOT an implied admission of negligence by conduct (It
is merely a measure of extreme caution)
Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible.
In civil cases, an offer of compromise:
- is not an admission of any liability, and
- is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases:
- those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or
- those allowed by law to be compromised,
an offer of compromise by the accused:
- may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn OR an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to
lesser offense:
- is not admissible in evidence AGAINST the accused who made the
plea or offer.
An offer to pay OR the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses
occasioned by an injury:
- is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for
the injury. (24a)
Compromise, defined: An agreement made between two or more parties as
a settlement of the matters in dispute.
Civil Cases
GR: An offer of compromise is not a tacit
admission of liability and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. It cannot be proved

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

Criminal Cas
GR: An offer of compromise b
be received in evidence as an im

23 | P a t i o , E r i c a

over the objection of the offeror.

EXC: Unless the offer is not only to buy peace
but amounts to an admission of liability
(compromise directed only to the amount to be
Ratio in Civil Cases: It is the policy of the law to
favor the settlement of disputes, to foster
compromises and to promote peace.

- by an act, declaration, or omission of another,

as hereinafter provided. (25a)
EXC: (1)Those involving quasi-offenses
negligence) or (2)those allowed by law to be

Res be
Inter Alios Acta Alteri Noceree Non Debet: Things done
In criminal cases however, the
ought not to injure those who are not parties to it.
permitted to prove that such offer
not made
under consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid 28, rule 130
- 2nd Part: Sec 34, rule 130
criminal action.
- EXC: to the Rule: When the 3rd person is a
o Sec 29: A partner, agent, joint owner, joint debtor, or has a
Instances when Offer of Compromise is Admissible
joint interest with the party
- In cases of violation of the internal revenue laws
Sec 30: A co-conspirator
o Since the law provides that the payment of any IR tax may
o Sec 31: A privy of the party
be compromised, and all criminal violations may likewise be
compromised EXC those already filed and those involving
Basis of the GR: A party is not bound by any agreement to which he has no
knowledge and to which he has not given his consent. His rights cannot be
- In rape cases
prejudiced by the declaration, act or omission of another EXC by virtue of a
o GR: In effect it may be compromised by actual marriage
particular relation between them.
o EXC: An offer to compromise for monetary consideration is
an implied admission.
Basis of the EXC: A third party may be so united in interest with the partyo People v. Valdez: An offer of marriage during the
opponent that the other persons admissions may be receivable against the
investigation is an admission of guilt
party himself. The term privy is the orthodox catchword for the relation.
Good Samaritan Rule: An offer to pay or the actual payment of the
medical, hospital or other expenses by reason of the victims injuries is not
admissible to prove civil or criminal liability.

No Compromise is Valid Upon the Following Cases:

1. Civil status of persons
2. Validity of marriage or legal separation
3. Any ground for legal separation
4. Future support
5. Jurisdiction of courts
6. Future legitime
7. Habeas Corpus and Election Cases.
Sec. 28. Admission by third party.

Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent.

The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party:
- within the scope of his authority and
- during the existence of the partnership or agency,
may be given in evidence against such party AFTER:
- the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act
or declaration.
The same rule applies:

The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced:

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

24 | P a t i o , E r i c a

to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person

jointly interested with the party. (26a)

Requisites for This Exception To Apply:
1. That the partnership, agency, or joint interest is established by
evidence other than the act or declaration
o Partnership relation must be shown;
2. The act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership, agency
or joint interest
o With regard to a non-partnership affair: The fact that each
partner has individually made a substantially similar
admission does not render the aggregate admission
competent against the firm.
3. Such act or declaration must have been made during the existence of
the partnership, agency or joint interest.
o Statements made after the partnership has been dissolved do
not fall within the exception
o BUT if they are made in connection with the winding up of
the partnership such admission is STILL admissible.
Rule on Admission Made By Counsel
- GR: They are ADMISSIBLE against the client as the counsel acts in
representation and as an agent of the client
- EXC: It must not amount to a compromise or confession of
judgment (Because in compromise, the rule requires the consent of
the client)
Joint Debtor, defined: It does not refer to mere community of interest but
should be understood according to its meaning in solidum and not
Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator.
The act or declaration of a conspirator:
- relating to the conspiracy and
- during its existence,
may be given in evidence:
- against the co-conspirator
- AFTER the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of
declaration. (27)

Application of the Requirement that the Conspiracy must Preliminarily
be Proved by Evidence other than the Conspirators Admission
- Applies ONLY to extrajudicial acts or statements
- NOT to judicial admission as to a testimony given on the witness
stand at the trial where the party adversely effected has the
opportunity to cross examine the declarant
An Admission by a Conspirator is Admissible Against his Co-conspirator
- Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde
o Conspiracy must be established by prima facie proof in the
judgment of the court;
- The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy
o After the termination of a conspiracy, the statements of one
conspirator may not be accepted as evidence against any of
the other conspirators;
- The admission related to the conspiracy itself
o Should relate to the common object.
Existence of the Conspiracy May be Inferred:
- From the acts of the accused
- From the confessions of the accused
- Or by prima facie proof thereof
Note: If there is no independent evidence of the conspiracy the
extrajudicial confession CANNOT be used against his co-accused (res inter
alios rule applies to both EXJ and J admissions)
- Here, there is no need to produce direct evidence - independent
circumstantial evidence will suffice.
Quantum of Evidence to Prove Conspiracy: Clear and convincing
Rules on Extrajudicial Admissions Made by a Conspirator AFTER the
conspiracy had terminated and BEFORE the trial
- GR: NOT admissible
- EXC: Admissible against the co-conspirator IF:
1. Made in the presence of the co-conspirator who expressly or
impliedly agreed therein as there is tacit admission under Sec 32
2. Where the facts stated in said admission are confirmed in the
individual extrajudicial confessions made by the co-conspirators
after their apprehension (interlocking confessions)

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

25 | P a t i o , E r i c a

3. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness

4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the coconspirators participation in the offense.
In order that the EX-J statements of a co-accused may be taken into
consideration in judging the testimony of a witness it is necessary that:
1. The statements are made by several accused,
2. The same are in all material respects identical, and
3. There could have been no collusion among said co-accused in
making such statements.
Sec. 31. Admission by privies.
Where one derives title to property from another:
- the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title,
- in relation to the property,
is evidence against the former. (28)
Privity, defined: mutual succession of relationship to the same rights of
Privies, defined: those who have mutual or successive relationship to the
same right of property or subject matter
To be Admissible, The Following Requisites Must Concur:
1. There must be a relation of privity between the party and the
2. The admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor in interest,
while holding the title to the property;
3. The admission is in relation to said property.
The privity in estate may arise: by succession, by acts mortis causa or by
acts inter vivos.
Sec. 32. Admission by silence.
An act or declaration:
- made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party
who does or says nothing
- when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or
comment if not true, and
when proper and possible for him to do so,
may be given in evidence against him. (23a)

To be Admissible the FF Requisites Must Concur:
1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other
2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it
3. He must have understood the statement;
4. He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have
done so, as if the statement was not true;
5. The facts are within his knowledge;
6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is
material to the issue.
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.
- Applies to both civil and criminal cases
Rules on Voluntary Participation in a Reenactment of the Crime
Conducted by the Police
- GR: It is considered a tacit admission of complicity.
- Note: To be given any evidentiary weight, the validity and efficacy
of the confession must first be shown.
Note: Implication of guilt is not derived from mere silence but from the
acquiescence in participating in the reenactment
Application of The Rule:
- DOES NOT Apply IF: the statements adverse to the party were
made in the course of an official investigation, as where:
o he was pointed out in a custodial investigation and was
neither asked to reply nor comment on such imputations or
o when the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent, as
when he was acting on advice of counsel
- It May Apply: To adverse statements in writing IF the party was
carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant.
o However, if there was no mutual correspondence, the rule is
relaxed since such prompt response can generally not be
expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply.
Basis of Rule: It is basic instinct or a natural reaction to resist or deny a false

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

26 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Doctrine of Adoptive Admission: A partys reaction to a statement or action

by another person when it is reasonable to treat the partys reaction as an
admission of something stated or implied by the other person.
Instances Where There is NO Implied Admission
1. Allegations of unliquidated damages
2. Allegations which are not material to the cause of action
3. Conclusions of fact/law
4. Allegations of usury other than in a complaint
5. If defendant has not filed his answer and is declared in default.
Sec. 33. Confession.
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt:
- of the offense charged, or
- of any offense necessarily included therein,
may be given in evidence against him. (29a)
Confession, Defined: A categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an
accused in a criminal case, w/o any exculpatory statement or explanation.
- IF the accused admits the act BUT alleges a justification it is
merely an admission
- Confession of Judgment in Civil Cases = Admission of Liability
Forms of Confession:
- Oral and under oath
- In writing (need not be under oath)
Note: Sec 33 refers to EX-J Confessions
Types of Confessions
1. Judicial Confession: One made before a court in which the case is
pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein
o By itself, can sustain conviction, even for a capital offense
o But for Capital Offenses: there must be evidence presented
other than the plea of guilty, also proof that such plea was
made voluntarily and w/ full comprehension

2. Extrajudicial (EX-J) Confession: One made in any other place or

o GR: Cannot sustain a conviction
o EXC: Unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti
Requirements for the Admissibility of EX-J Confessions
1. The confession must involve an express and categorical
acknowledgment of guilt;
2. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense;
3. The confession must have been given voluntarily;
4. the confession must have been intelligently made, the accused
realizing the importance or legal significance of this act;
5. There must have been no violation of Section 12, Art. III of the 1987
Constitution. (Rights in custodial investigation)
Rule on Presumption of Voluntariness: Confessions are presumed to be
voluntary and the onus is on the defense to prove that it was involuntary
(obtained by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency)
Circumstances Held to be Indicia of Voluntariness of a Confession:
- The confession contains details which the police could not have
supplied or invented.
- The confession contains details which could have been known only
to the accused
- The confession contains statements which are exculpatory in nature
- The confession contains corrections made by the accused in his
handwriting or with his initials and which corrected facts are best
known to the accused.
- The accused is sufficiently educated and aware of the consequences
of his act.
- It was made in the presence of impartial witnesses with the accused
acting normally on that occasion
- There is lack of motive on the part of the investigators to extract a
confession, with improbabilities and inconsistencies in the attempt of
the accused to repudiate his confession.
- The accused questioned the voluntariness of the confession only for
the first time at the trial of the case. (Estoppel)
- The contents of the confession were affirmed by the accused in his
voluntary participation in the reenactment of the crime, as shown by
his silent acquiescence thereto.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

27 | P a t i o , E r i c a

The facts contained in the confession were confirmed by other

subsequent facts
After his confession, the accused was subjected to physical
examination and there were no signs of maltreatment or the accused
never complained, but not where he failed to complain to the judge
on a reasonable apprehension of further maltreatment as he was still
in the custody of his torturers

Abandoned Ruling: Involuntary confessions are admissible if it contains the

truth (Prior to Stonehil v. Diokno)
Current Ruling: Involuntary Confessions are INADMISSIBLE, Ratio:
1. They are unreliable
2. On grounds of humanitarian considerations, or
3. On legal considerations of their being violative of ones
constitutional right against self incrimination
EX-J confession obtained prior to the 1973 Consti: It is admissible even if
the confessant was not informed of his right to silence and to counsel and
even if made while under arrest (ratio: consti mandate should be given a
prospective effect)
Rules on EX-J Confession and the Constitution
- Verbal EX-JC Made Without Counsel
o IF made spontaneously after the assault admissible as
part of res gestae NOT under the confession rule
o Provided: It was not made under custodial investigation
- IF the accused was informed of his consti rights and was asked if
he understood it BUT was not asked if he wanted to exercise it
- EX-JC under Custodial Investigation
o If made w/o counsel Inadmissible
o If prefaced by the investigator w/ a statement of his consti
rights to which he answered that he was going to tell the
truth Not a waiver of his consti right to counsel
o IF accused is illiterate investigation officer must make sure
that his rights were fully explained to him
Custodial Investigation (CI), defined:
- Questioning initiated by a law officer after a person has been taken
into custody or deprived of freedom

Present where the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry and

begins to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody and asked
questions that lead into eliciting incriminating statements
- Includes invitations to an investigation
Note: There is NO presumption of regularity in CIs
Rights of a Person under Investigation
1. Right to be informed of ones right to remain silent, to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice
and the charges against him
2. Right to be provided with counsel if accused cannot afford one
- Note: Waiver of 1 & 2 must be made: In writing AND in the
presence of counsel
3. Right not to be treated with torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation or other means which vitiate free will
4. Right not to be placed under secret detention or under a solitary,
incommunicado form of detention
NOTE: Confession obtained in violation of these rights is INADMISSIBLE
(Art 3 Section 12, 1987 Constitution)
Instances of Vitiated Confession Renders EX-JC INADMISSIBLE
- Any form of coercion, whether physical, emotional, or mental
- A promise of immunity or leniency IF given by the offended party
or by the fiscal (person in a position to give such) vitiates a
confession, BUT IF given by:
o A person whom the accused could not have reasonably
expected to be able to comply with such promise (not a
prosecuting officer) or could not bind the offended party IT is ADMISSBLE
Note: IF the accused voluntarily made a second confession after he had
been maltreated
- 2nd confession is ADMISSBLE Provided it is proven that he was
already relieved by the fear caused by the previous maltreatment
Note: Judgment based solely on a vitiated confession is NULL and VOID
- Accused may be released on a writ of habeas corpus
Admissibility of EX-J Confessions
- Entire confession should be admitted in evidence BUT the court
may in appreciating the same reject portions which are incredible

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

28 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Confessions are admissible NOT ONLY to the offense charged

BUT also to any offense necessarily included therein
- Illegal confessions are inadmissible against the admitter but are
admissible against the person who obtained such confession
(violator of consti rights)
- EX-JC is Binding ONLY Upon HIMSELF and NOT Admissible
Against his Co-Accused, EXC:
1. If the latter impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession by
not questioning its truthfulness
2. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed
identical confessions w/o collusion (interlocking confessions) which
confessions are corroborated by other evidence and w/o
contradiction by the co-accused who was present;
3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after
being apprised of such confession;
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was
confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used only as a
corroborating evidence;
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation by the co-conspirator;
6. Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant; or
7. Where the co-conspirators extra judicial confession is corroborated
by other evidence of record.
Note: For Judicial Confessions: It is binding to BOTH the confessant and
the other party
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine:
- Evidence obtained in violation of the right of a person against
unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible
- It refers to an object NOT testimonial evidence
- It does not refer to testimony or confessions obtained illegally.


Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence.

Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time
- is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or
similar thing at another time;
BUT it may be received to prove:
- a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like. (48a)
Principle of Res Inter Alios Acta: Things done between strangers ought not
to injure those who are not parties to it.
- 1st Part: Sec 28, rule 130; 2nd Part: Sec 34, rule 130
Note: Sec 34 applies to both civil and criminal cases and is strictly enforced
in all cases where it is applicable
GR: 1st Sentence of Codal
EXC: Where the evidence or similar acts may prove:
1. A specific intent or knowledge;
2. Identity;
3. A plan, system or scheme;
4. A specific habit; or
5. Established customs, usages and the like
Basis: Evidence must be confined to the point in issue in the case on trial.
Evidence of collateral offenses must not be received as substantive evidence of
the offense on trial.
Purpose: To compel the defendant to meet charges of which the indictment
gives him no information, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of issues,
and thus diverts the attention of the court from the charge immediately before it.

Examples of the Exceptions:

- Evidence of another crime is admissible in a prosecution for robbery:
o When it has the tendency to identify the accused or show his
presence at the scene of the crime
o NOT where the evidence is to prove a commission of
another crime wholly independent of that which is on trial.
- Previous acts of negligence, is admissible to show knowledge or
Sec. 35. Unaccepted offer.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

29 | P a t i o , E r i c a

An offer in writing:
- to pay a particular sum of money or
- to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property
is, IF rejected without valid cause, equivalent to:
- the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or
property. (49a)
- This section complements the rule on tender of payment (Art. 1256,
NCC) by providing that said offer of payment must be made in
- Such tender must, however, be followed by consignation of the
amount in court in order to produce the effects of valid payment.
Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay
A witness can testify ONLY to those facts:
- which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is,
- which are derived from his own perception,
EXCEPT as otherwise provided in these rules. (30a)
Hearsay Rule (HR), defined: Any evidence, whether oral or documentary is
hearsay of its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the
witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand.
(Including: all assertions not subjected to cross-examination)
- GR: Hearsay evidence is excluded or INADMISSIBLE as evidence
- Ratio: It is excluded because the party against whom it is presented
is deprived of his right to cross-examine the persons to whom the
statements or writings are attributed.
- Note: If one has personal knowledge it is not hearsay anymore
Inadmissibility of hearsay evidence MAY be WAIVED: By not objecting
to such evidence. (Ratio: since the right to cross-examine may also be
waived) Repeated failure to cross-examine is an IMPLIED waiver
Value of Hearsay Evidence
- Hearsay Evidence alone is insufficient to establish a fact

IF not objected to it may be considered and given the importance it

deserves like any other evidence (Manlilic v. Calaunan, 2007)
HOWEVER, it has also been held that even if it may be admissible, whether
objected to or not, has NO probative value, and as opposed to direct primary
evidence, the latter always prevails. (People v. Willians, 2001)
Ex. Newspaper Clippings are hearsay and have no evidentiary weight
UNLESS substantiated by person w/ personal knowledge of the facts
EXCEPTIONS to the HR: They are hearsay BUT are admissible
Preliminary Notes on the Exceptions to the HR: 11 Exceptions to the HR
Sections 37 to 47 (DDECCLARE FT)
1. Dying Declaration
2. Declaration Against Interest
3. Entries In The Ordinary Course of Business
4. Common Reputation
5. Commercial Lists
6. Learned Treatises
7. Act Or Declaration Against Pedigree
8. Res Gestae
9. Entries In Official Records
10. Family Reputation Or Tradition Against Pedigree
11. Testimony Or Deposition At A Former Proceeding (sec 47)
Note: Sec 47 logically is not an exception. It merely requires for its
admissibility that the party had cross-examined or had the opportunity to do
Other Exceptions to the HR
1. Special Exception to the HR in child abuse cases: Hearsay testimony
of a child describing any act or attempted act of sexual abuse may be
admitted in any criminal proceeding. (Sec 28 of the Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness, A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC)
o SUBJECT to certain prerequisites and the right to cross
examine of the adverse party
o Admissibility shall be determined by the court in light of
specified subjective/objective considerations to determine
the reliability of the child
2. Rule 8 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence: Business records as an
exception to the HR
3. Statements or writings offered not to prove the truth of the facts
stated but only to prove that those statements were actually made or

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

30 | P a t i o , E r i c a

those writings were executed (See doctrine of independently

relevant statements)


Sec. 37. Dying declaration.

Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements: Independent of whether

the facts stated are true or not, they are relevant since they are the facts in
issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.
- The only question to be answered: W/N the statements were made
- Hence, A witness may testify to the statements made by a person if
the fact that such statements were made would indicate the latters
mental state or physical condition
2 Classes of Independently Relevant Statements:
1. Those statements which are the very fact in issue;
2. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact in
issue. It includes the following:
a. Statements of a person showing his state of mind that is, his
mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill-will, and
other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which shows his physical condition
as illness and the like;
c. Statements of a person from which an inference may be
made as to the state of mind of another, that is, knowledge,
belief, motive, good/bad faith of the latter;
d. Statements which may identify the date, place, person in
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness.
Ratio for the Exceptions to the HR:
- Necessity for such evidence and
- On the assumption that in the ordinary course of events, they are
(Necessity AND Trustworthiness)


The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an

impending death:
- may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of
- as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such
death. (31a)
Dying Declaration (DD), defined: Statements made by a person after the
mortal wound has been inflicted under the belief that the death is certain,
stating the fact concerning the cause of and the circumstances surrounding
the attack.
- Also known as Ante Mortem Statements or Statement in
Articulo Mortis
Requisites for DDs to be Admissible
1. That the death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of such
2. That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding
circumstances of such death
3. That the declaration refers to the facts which the victim is competent
to testify to;
4. That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarants
death is subject of the inquiry (the victim necessarily must have
5. That the statement must be complete in itself.
Reason for its admission
1. Necessity because the declarants death renders impossible his
taking the witness stand
2. Trustworthiness at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is
silenced. The mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to
speak the truth.
Considerations for the Determination of Whether Statements Were
Made in Consciousness of an Imminent or Impending Death:
1. The words or statements of the declarant on the same occasion

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

31 | P a t i o , E r i c a

2. His conduct at the time the declaration was made

3. Serious nature of his wounds as would necessarily engender a belief
on his part that he would not survive.
Intervening Time From the Declaration to the Actual Death: An
Immaterial Factor in Determining its Admissibility
- Immaterial as long as the declaration was made under the
consciousness of impending death
- This is a question of fact for the courts to determine
- No retroaction must be made by the declarant
- If the gravity of the wounds did not diminish DD is still admissible
even if the decedent died days after the declaration
- Interval of Time is taken into account ONLY when the declaration
is ambiguous
Question: Do you think you will die?; IF the Answer is
- I will not die if treated - admissible as part of res gestae or DD
- I cannot ascertain admissible as part of res gestae or DD
- I dont know NOT admissible
- It all depends + condition improved DDs thereafter are NOT
Note: DDs may be regarded as part of res gestae as they were made soon
after a startling occurrence w/o any opportunity for fabrication or concoction
- If the declarant doesnt die it is part of res gesta
DD once proved and admitted its credibility and weight shall be
determined like any other testimonial evidence
- Circumstances such as surprise, rapidity and confusion should be
taken into consideration in giving weigh to the testimony of the
declarant when identifying his assailants
- It may be impugned: in the same manner as the testimony of any
other witness on the stand
People v. Mallare: DD has to be admitted with utmost care and should be
considered in light of all the facts because the source, accuracy and
completeness of the declarants knowledge as to the facts asserted could not
be tested by cross-examination
US v. Antipoli: DD is an exception to the Marital Privilege Rule since it is
NOT meant to be confidential communication between spouses.
DDs are Admissible:
DDs NOT admissible:
Only insofar as the DD refers to facts Statements

regarding the cause and surrounding antecedents of the fatal encounter

circumstances of the declarants
death (W/N they are in favor of or Opinions,
against the accused)
conclusions of the declarant
Note: DDs are admissible in ANY case for as along as the requisites are met.
Old rule that it only applies to certain criminal cases is now abandoned.
Note: DDs favorable to the accused are admissible
Forms of DDs
- May be oral or written or
- Made by signs which could be interpreted and testified to by a
- If Oral - It may be testified to w/o the need of repeating the exact
words as long as he can give the substance thereof
- If unsigned written DD It may used as a memorandum by the
witness who took it down
Sec. 38. Declaration against interest.
The declaration made:
- by a person deceased OR unable to testify,
- against the interest of the declarant,
IF the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made:
- so far contrary to declarant's own interest,
- that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the
declaration UNLESS he believed it to be true,
may be received in evidence against:
- himself or
- his successors in interest and
- against third persons. (32a)
Declaration Against Interest - DAI
DECLARATIONS Against Interest
Made by a person who is neither a

ADMISSIONS Against Interest

Made by a party to a litigation or by

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

32 | P a t i o , E r i c a

party nor in privity with a party to the

Secondary Evidence
Exception to the Hearsay Rule
Admissible ONLY when the declarant
is UNavailable as a witness
Must be made ante litem motam
(before the controversy)
himself/successor in interest and
against 3rd parties

one in privity with or identified in

legal interest with such party
Primary Evidence
Covered by the Hearsay Rule
Admissible w/n the declarant is
available as a witness
May be made at any time
before/during the trial
Used ONLY against the party

Requisites in Order for a Statement to be Admissible as a DAI

1. That the declarant is dead and unable to testify;
2. That it relates to facts against the interest of the declarant;
3. That at the time he made the said declaration the declarant was aware
that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest; and
4. That the declarant had no motive to falsify and he believed such to
be true.
Reasons for such Admission
1. Necessity such declarations are the only mode of proof available
2. Trustworthiness persons do not make statements that are
disadvantageous to themselves without substantial reason to believe
that the statements are true. Self-interest induces men to be cautious
in saying anything against themselves.
Interest covered:
1. Proprietary interest
2. Penal interest
o A justifiable theory because one who is criminally liable is also
civilly liable.
o People v. Toledo and Holgado: A declaration admitting that he
was the one who killed the victim, made by a delcarant who died
shortly thereafter, is admissible where another person was
subsequently charged as the killer of the same victim
3. Pecuniary interest
Note: It is essential that at the time of the statement, the declarants interest
affected is actual/real/apparent not merely contingent/future/conditional
Self Serving Declaration, defined: Statements favorable to or intended to
advance the interests of the delcarant

It is inadmissible as being hearsay if the delcarant is unavailable as a

Opposite of DAI


Sec. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.
The act or declaration:
- of a person deceased OR unable to testify,
- in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth
or marriage,
may be received in evidence where:
- it occurred before the controversy, AND
- the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration.
The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these fast occurred, and
the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree. (33a)
Requisites in Order that Pedigree May be Proved by Acts or
Declarations of Relatives
1. The actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify
2. The act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject by
birth or marriage
3. The relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration
4. The act or declaration was made ante litem motam or prior to the
Pedigree May be Established or Proved By:
1. The act or declaration of a relative (sec 39)
2. The reputation or tradition existing in his family (sec 40)
3. Entries in Family Bibles (sec 40)
4. With respect to marriage, by common reputation in the community
(Sec 41)
Note: The relationship must preliminarily be proved by direct or
circumstantial evidence.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

33 | P a t i o , E r i c a

No specific degree of relationship is required

BUT the weight to which such act or declaration is entitled may be
affected by the degree of relationship

Note: Reputation between the declarant and the person subject of inquiry
must be legitimate unless the issue is the legitimacy itself.

Witness need not be a member of

the family
Testimony is about what declarant,
who is dead or unable to testify, said
concerning the pedigree of the
declarants family
Relation bet the declarant and the
person subject of inquiry must be
established by independent

Witness is a member of the family
Testimony is about family reputation or
tradition covering matters of pedigree.
The witness himself is the one to whom
the fact relates. No need to establish
relationship by independent evidence.

Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.

The reputation or tradition:
- existing in a family previous to the controversy,
- in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members,
may be received in evidence:
- IF the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family,
either by consanguinity or affinity.
Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings,
family portraits and the like:
- may be received as evidence of pedigree. (34a)
Requisites W/ Respect to Reputation or Tradition Under Sec 40
1. The witness testifying thereto must be a member, by consanguinity
or affinity, of the same family as the subject; and
2. Such reputation or tradition must have existed in that family ante
litem motam
Note: A statement as to ones date of birth and age as learned from parents or
relatives is an ante litem motam declaration of family tradition
- Such statement prevails over a mere opinion of a trial judge
- BUT cannot prevail over a secondary statement of the father
Section 39
Act or declaration against pedigree

Section 40
Family reputation or tradition regarding


Sec. 41. Common reputation.
Common reputation:
- existing previous to the controversy,
- respecting facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old,
- respecting marriage or moral character,
may be given in evidence.
Monuments and inscriptions in public places:
- may be received as evidence of common reputation. (35)
Common Reputation, defined: The definite opinion of the community in
which the fact to be proved is known or exists. It means the general or
substantially undivided reputation, as distinguished from a partial or
qualified one, although it need not be unanimous.
Common Reputation May be Established:
1. By testimonial evidence of competent witness
2. By monuments and inscriptions in public places
3. By documents containing statement of reputation
Common Reputation or General Reputation is Admissible to Prove

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

34 | P a t i o , E r i c a

1. Facts of public interest more than 30 years old

2. Facts of general interest more that 30 years old
3. Marriage
4. Moral Character
Note: Common reputation must have existed ante litem motam
Public Interest = Those of National Interest
General Interest = Those affecting inhabitants of a particular region or
Character = Inherent qualities of a person
Reputation = Opinion of him by others (Should be existing in his place of
residence, but may also exist in a place where he is known best)
Note: Here, character is permitted to be established by his common
Evidence of Negative Good Repute: Where the foundation proof shows that the
witness was in such position that he would have heard reports derogatory to ones
character, the reputation testimony may be predicated on the absence of reports of
bad reputation or on the fact that the witness heard nothing against the person.


Sec. 42. Part of res gestae.
Statements made by a person:
- while a startling occurrence is taking place OR immediately prior
OR subsequent thereto
- with respect to the circumstances thereof,
may be given in evidence as part of res gestae.
So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and
giving it a legal significance,
- may be received as part of the res gestae. (36a)
Res Gestae which means things done, TYPES:
1. Spontaneous statements: Statements in connection with a startling
occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming part thereof
2. Verbal Acts: Statements accompanying an equivocal act, on the
theory that they are the verbal parts of the act to be explained.
Requisites for Res Gestae No 1:
Requisites for Res Gestae No 2:

Spontaneous Statements
1. The principal act, the res gestae, be
a startling occurrence;
2. The statements were made before
the delcarant had the opportunity to
3. The statements must refer to the
occurrence in question and its
attending circumstances
4. The statement must be
The res gestae is the startling
Statements may be made prior,
during or immediately after the
startling occurrence.

Verbal Acts
1. The res gestae or principal act or to
be characterized must be equivocal;
2. Such act must be material to the issue
3. The statements must accompany the
equivocal act.
4. The statements give a legal
significance to the equivocal act

The res gestae is the equivocal act.

Verbal act must be contemporaneous
with or accompany the equivocal act.

Requisites for Admissibility of Res Gestae, The statement must:

1. Be Spontaneous
2. Made while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately
prior or subsequent
3. Relates to the circumstances of the startling occurrence.
4. Must be involuntary and simultaneously wrung from the witness by
the impact of the occurrence
Reasons for Admission:
1. Necessity natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing than
the testimony of a person on the stand.
2. Trustworthiness the statement is made indistinctively. The facts speaking
thru the party and not the party speaking thru the facts.
Res Gestae in connection with a
homicidal act
May be made by the killer himself
after or during the killing OR that of a
3rd person.
May precede or be made after the
homicidal attack was committed.
Justification in the spontaneity of the

Dying Declarations
Can be made only by the victim.
Made only after the homicidal
attack has been committed.
Trustworthiness based upon in its
being given in awareness of
impending death.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

35 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Note: If both elements for res gestae and dying declarations are present
they may be admitted as both.
When Must the Statement or Act be Made:
GR: While the declarant was under the immediate influence of the startling
occurrence. Hence, done immediately prior, during or subsequent to the
- If the declarant was unconscious statements regarding the event will
still be admissible
- If the declarant did not have the opportunity to concoct or contrive a
story it is still admissible even if statement was made after hours
Statements or Outcries as Part of Res Gestae are Admissible:
- To establish the identity of the assailant
- To prove the complicity of another person in the crime
- To establish an admission of liability on the part of the accused

Rules for Admissibility of Business Entries

- If the Entrant is Available as a Witness the entries will be
INADMISSIBLE as an exception to the hearsay rule.
o They may be used as a memo to refresh his memory while
testifying in the transaction
- There is no necessity to bring into court all the clerks or employees
who individually made the entries
- It is sufficient that the person who supervises the work of the
employees testify:
o That the account was prepared under his supervision
o That the entries were entered in the ordinary course of
- There is no precise moment required when the entries should be
made it is sufficient if it is made w/in a reasonable time while the
memory of the facts is unimpaired
- Probative Value: Prima Facie of the facts stated therein


Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business.
Entries made:
- at, or near the time of transactions to which they refer,
- by a person deceased, OR unable to testify, who was in a position to
know the facts therein stated,
may be received as prima facie evidence, IF such person made the entries:
- in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty AND
- in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. (37a)
Shop Book Rule Requisites
1. The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify.
2. The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which
they refer;
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
performance of a duty whether legal, contractual, moral or religious;
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business
or duty;

Sec. 44. Entries in official records.

Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty:
- by a public officer of the RP or
- by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law,
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (38)
Requisites for Admissibility of Official Records
1. The entries was made by a public officer in the performance of his
duty or by a person specially enjoined by the law to do so;
2. The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or
such facts were acquired by him from reports made by persons under
a legal duty to submit the same
3. Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official
Reasons for Admission
1. Necessity practical impossibility of requiring the officials
attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions
occurring in the course of his duty.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

36 | P a t i o , E r i c a

2. Trustworthiness there is a presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duty.
Examples of Official Records:
- A register, a cash book, or an official return or certificate,
- motor vehicle accident report (if made in the performance of the
officers duties, at about the time of the accident, based on
information given as personal knowledge)
- Sheriffs return (statement in the performance of a duty especially
enjoined by law) no need for the sheriff to testify
Entries in the Course of Business
(sec 43)
Entries are made by a person who is
dead or unable to testify
Needs authentication
Best evidence rule applies
Entries are made pursuant to a duty,
either legal, contractual, moral or

Entries in Official Records

(Sec 44)
No such requirement
No need
Exception to the best evidence rule
The entrant is a public officer, or if a
private individual, must have acted
pursuant to a legal duty

Note: The entrant must have been competent with respect to the facts stated
in his entries.
- Entries made by a priest in the register of the facts of baptism are
NOT admissible to prove the date of birth or its relation to persons
o A priest is not competent to testify to the truth of these facts.
- BUT church registries are ADMISSIBLE as evidence of the facts
with respect to marriage solemnized by the priest (BUT needs to be
- If the certificate is transmitted to a public officer it is admissible
w/o a need for prior authentication.
Entries in Official Records May be Proved: See Sec 24 and 25 Rule 132
Probative Value: Also prima facie of the facts stated therein


Sec. 45.Commercial lists and the like.
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons:
- engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or
other published compilation
is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated IF
that compilation:
- is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation AND
- is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (39)
Requisites for Admissibility
1. Statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
2. The statements must be contained in a list, register, periodical or
other published compilation;
3. The compilation was published for use by persons engaged in that
occupation; and
4. Is generally relied upon by them.
Reasons for Admission:
1. Necessity because of the unusual accessibility of the persons
responsible for the compilation of matters contained in a list, register,
periodical or other published compilation and tremendous
inconvenience it would cause to the court if it would issue summons
to these numerous individuals.
2. Trustworthiness they have no motive to deceive and they further
realize that unless the list, register, periodical or other published
compilation are prepared with care and accuracy, their work will
have no commercial and probative value.
Ex. Mortality tables, annuity tables

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

37 | P a t i o , E r i c a


Sec. 46. Learned treatises.



A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law,

science, or art:
- is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein
- the court takes judicial notice OR
- a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the
statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject. (40a)

Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.



Requisites for Admissibility

1. That the court takes judicial notice thereof; or
2. The same are testified by a witness expert on the subject

Requisites for Admissibility

1. The witness is dead or unable to testify
2. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or
proceedings, judicial or administrative between the same parties or
those representing the same interests
3. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case
although on different causes of action
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same
issue involved in the present case
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine the witness in
the former case.

Reasons for admission

1. Necessity even if such person is legally procurable, the expense is
frequently disproportionate.
2. Trustworthiness learned writers have no motive to misrepresent.
He is aware that his work will be carefully scrutinized by the learned
members of his profession and that he may be subject to criticisms
and ultimately rejected as an authority of the subject matter if his
conclusions are found to be invalid.

The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify:

- given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
- involving the same parties and subject matter,
may be given in evidence AGAINST:
- the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.

Inability to Testify: Inability proceeding from a grave cause, almost

amounting to death (ex. Losing ones power of speech)
- Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial, or hostility
since testifying at the first trial does NOT amount to such inability
Actions may be Essentially Different: Testimony given in a civil case is
admissible in a subsequent criminal case PROVIDED the above requisites
are met.
Rule on Admissibility of Prior Judgment (Not testimony)
- A judgment in a criminal proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a
civil action against a person not a party thereto to establish any fact

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

38 | P a t i o , E r i c a

The mater is res inter alios and cannot invoked as res judicata
It may only be admitted in a civil case by way of inducement or to
show a collateral fact relevant to the issue in the civil action
It may not be admitted to prove the plaintiffs action or the
defendants defense it is not binding upon the parties in the civil
Ratio: Parties are not the same and different rules of evidence are
applicable to each

Sec. 48.General rule.
The opinion of witness is not admissible EXCEPT as indicated in the
following sections. (42)

HOWEVER, in Miranda v. Malate: Judgment of conviction in the absence

of collusion between the accused and the offended party is binding and
conclusive to a person subsidiarily liable w/ regard to his liability and to the
amount thereof.

Opinion, defined: An inference or conclusion drawn from facts observed.

- GR: Sec 48: Witnesses must give the facts and not their inference,
conclusions, or opinions. Opinions are INADMISSIBLE
- EXCEPTIONS: Opinion of the Witness is Admissible (Sec 49 &50)
1. On a matter requiring SPECIAL knowledge, skill, experience or
training which he is shown to possess, that is when he is an expert
(Sec 49);
2. Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a person, when he has
knowledge of the person or handwriting, whether he is an ordinary or
expert witness (Sec 50 a & b)
3. On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is sufficiently
acquainted with the former or if the latter is an expert witness (Sec
4. On the emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance of a person
which he has observed; and (Sec 50d)
5. On ordinary matters known to all men of common perception, such
as the value of ordinary household articles (Galian v. State
Assurance Co., Ltd.)
Reason for the Rule: It is for the court to form an opinion concerning the
facts in proof of which evidence is offered. Witnesses must testify to facts
w/in their knowledge and not their opinions.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

39 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Sec. 49. Opinion of expert witness.

The opinion of a witness:
- on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he shown to posses,
may be received in evidence. (43a)
Expert Witness, defined: One who belongs to the profession or calling to
which the subject matter of the inquiry relates to and who possesses special
knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an opinion.
Test: Whether the opinion called for will aid the fact finder in resolving an
Degree of Skill or Knowledge Required of an Expert Witness
- There is no definite standard of determining the degree of skill or
knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an
- It is sufficient that the following factors are present:
1. Training and education
2. Particular, first hand familiarity with the facts of the case
3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based.
Requisites for Admissibility of Expert Evidence - only if:
1. The matter to be testified to is one that requires expertise, and
2. The witness had been qualified as an expert
Value of an Expert Witness: It is NOT conclusive BUT purely advisory.
The courts are not bound by the experts findings.
Rules on Expert Testimony
- Courts must consider all the circumstances of the case (experts
qualifications, experience and degree of learning, the basic and logic
of his conclusions and other evidence on record)
- The value of expert testimony depends largely on the extent of the
experience or studies of such expert.
Note: An expert witness may base his opinion either on the first-hand
knowledge of the facts or on the basis of hypothetical questions where the

facts are presented to him and on the assumption that they are true,
formulates his opinion on the hypothesis.
Probative Value of Expert Evidence
- W/N the courts are bound by the testimony of an expert: DEPENDS on
the nature of the inquiry.
o ONLY when the subject of inquiry is of such a technical nature
that a layman can possibly have no knowledge thereof that courts
must depend and rely upon experts.
- Conflicting expert evidence have neutralizing effect on contradictory
conclusions. They generate doubt.
- A non-expert private individual, may examine certain contested
documents, it is not necessarily null and void if there are facts w/in his
knowledge which may help the court in the determination of the issue.
Rules on Handwriting Expert Evidence
- Value of such expert evidence depends upon the assistance that he
affords in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics,
dissimilarities as regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of a pen, loops,
strokes, and discrepancies between genuine and false specimens
- Expert evidence on handwriting is at best weak and unsatisfactory. It
is very unreliable. It is not conclusive. It has less weight than direct and
credible testimonies of witnesses as to matters w/in their personal
- It is not necessarily binding especially when the expert was not presented
as a witness to give the adverse party an opportunity to cross-examine.
- When the inquiry merely involves a comparison of existing signatures,
an opinion of an expert is not necessary.
- Other factors that should be considered: The position of the writer, the
condition of the surface in which the paper is placed, his state of mind,
feelings and nerves, kind of pen and paper.
- It is common knowledge that the writing of a person changes as time
elapses. It changes as one advances in age.
- From the ink alone, it is impossible to determine the ink writings age.
On Paraffin Tests for Firearm Use
- Paraffin Tests are NOT conclusive as to the presence of gunpowder
since other compounds with nitrates can give the same reaction. It is
unreliable since the only thing it can definitely establish is the presence
or absence of nitrates BUT not if its source is a firearm
- Tobacco, cosmetics, fertilizers, fireworks can give a positive result as

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

40 | P a t i o , E r i c a

It also doesnt definitely establish the distance where the gun was
fired. Blackening and burning around the wound better establishes the
short distance of the gunshot.
Rules on Paternity Testing
- Blood tests on filiation of a child, competently conducted by
qualified persons are admissible on the non-paternity of a person
- It is however, inconclusive to affirm paternity but can only show a
possibility of such fact absent any other evidence.
On DNA Testing
- DNA evidence based on genetic code is admissible to prove
paternity since except for identical twins, each persons DNA is
distinct and unique
- In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, it is necessary to
consider how the samples were collected, handled, the possibility of
contamination and w/n the standards of procedure were followed
- Obtaining DNA does not violate the right against selfincrimination.
- The probative value or weight of DNA analysis is subject to the
requisites of evaluation
o Less than 99.9%: Corroborative Evidence
o 99.9% or higher: Rebuttable Presumption
On Evidence Obtained By Sound Recording
- Tape Recording is admissible provided the ff requisites are first
1. Recording device was capable of taking testimony
2. The operator of the device was competent
3. No changes, additions or deletions have been made
4. The testimony was elicited and voluntarily made w/o any kind of
5. The establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the
6. The identity of the speakers
7. The manner of the preservation of the recording
- A witnesses declaration that the sound recording represents a true
portrayal of the voices satisfies the requirements of authentication.

Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses.

Opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
evidence regarding:
(a) The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify:
- on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance
of a person. (44a)
Ordinary Opinion Evidence, defined: That which is given by a witness
who is of ordinary capacity and who has by opportunity acquired a particular
knowledge which is outside the limits of common observation and which
may be of value in elucidating a matter under consideration.
Shorthand Rendering of Facts: Instantaneous conclusions of the mind. The
witness may testify as to the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1)The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(2)UNLESS in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

41 | P a t i o , E r i c a

(3)The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved IF it
tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible ONLY
when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)

Note: In criminal cases

- GR: The prosecution cannot initially attack the character of the accused
- EXC: ONLY if the accused opens that issue by introducing evidence of
his good MC when he makes his defense.
Ratio: To avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who may be convicted
because of such character
In Civil Cases
- GR: MC of either party can NOT be proved
- EXC: Unless it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the
Note: Here, the issue involved must be character. (Ex. Civil actions for
damages arising from the offenses of libel slander or seduction)

Character, defined: The aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to
and distinguish an individual person.
Rules on the Admissibility of Character Evidence:
- GR: Character evidence is NOT admissible in evidence
Ratio: The evidence of a persons character does not prove that such person
acted in conformity with such character or trait in a particular occasion.
In Criminal Cases
- GR: The prosecution may not prove the BAD Moral Character (MC) of
the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
o The prosecution may prove BAD MC at the rebuttal stage - IF
the accused, in his defense attempts to prove his GOOD MC.
o GOOD or BAD MC of the offended party may always be proved
if such evidence tends to establish the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
- EXC to the EXC:
o Proof of the bad character of the victim is not admissible:
In a murder case: If the crime was committed through
treachery and evident premeditation
In a rape case: If through violence and intimidation
o In prosecution for rape, evidence of complainants past sexual
conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be
admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds that
such evidence is material and relevant to the case. (RA 8505)

In BOTH Criminal and Civil Cases

- BAD MC of a witness may always be proved by either party but
NOT evidence of his character, UNLESS it has been impeached.
Rules with Respect to the Nature or Substance of the Character
Evidence (CE)
Person Referred To
Nature or Substance of the CE
W/ Respect to the Accused:

CE must be pertinent to the moral trait

involved in the offense charged
Ex. In a prosecution for estafa, perjury or false testimony where in the
persons moral trait is involved
It is sufficient that CE may establish in any
W/ Respect to the Offended reasonable degree the probability of the
offense charged
Ex. In a case of rape, the victims chastity may be questioned.
CE must refer to his general reputation for
W/ Respect to Witnesses
truth, honesty or integrity affecting his

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

42 | P a t i o , E r i c a

[RULE 131]
Sec 1. Burden of proof.
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in
issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law. (1a, 2a)
Burden of Proof or onus probandi, defined: Obligation imposed upon a
party who alleges the existence of facts necessary for the prosecution of his
action or defense to establish the same by the requisite quantum of evidence.
Proof, defined: The establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind
of the trier of fact as to the fact in issue.
Criminal Cases

To Sustain


Evidence as to engender a
well-founded belief as to
the fact of the commission
of the crime and the
respondents probable guilt

Issuance of
Warrant of
Probable Cause:
Reasonable ground to
believe that the
accused has committed
the offense .

Quantum of Evidence Required:

Civil Cases
Preponderance of Evidence
Charges of Misconduct
Clear and Convincing Evidence
Against Judges
*For Removal: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Administrative, QuasiSubstantial Evidence: Such relevant evidence as a
Judicial and Agrarian
reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to
support a conclusion
Hierarchy of Evidence
1 Proof beyond reasonable doubt
2 Clear and convincing evidence

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

43 | P a t i o , E r i c a


Preponderance of evidence
Substantial evidence

exactly where the original

pleadings placed it.

2 Separate Burdens in Burden of Proof

1. Burden of Going Forward: Burden of Producing evidence
2. Burden of Persuasion: The burden of persuading the trier of fact that
the burdened party is entitled to prevail.
Upon Whom BURDEN OF PROOF Rests:
Civil Cases
Criminal Cases
On the party who would be defeated if no
The burden of proof is
evidence were given on either side.
always with the prosecution.


Has the burden of proof to show

the truth of his allegations if the
defendant raises a negative defense.
(w/ respect to his complaint)
Has the burden of proof if he raises
an affirmative defense on the
complaint of the plaintiff.
(w/ respect to his counterclaim)

Note: It is required that

courts determine first if the
evidence of the prosecution
has at least shown a prima
facie case before considering
the evidence of the defense.
*If established then the
burden is shifted upon the
accused to prove otherwise

w/ respect to his cross claim

Burden of Evidence, defined: The logical necessity on a party during a

particular time of the trial to create a prima facie case in its favor or to
destroy that created against him by presenting evidence.
In BOTH civil and criminal cases: The BURDEN OF EVIDENCE lies w/ the
party who asserts an affirmative allegation.
Civil Cases
Criminal Cases
Must prove the
Prosecutio Must prove the its
affirmative allegations in
allegations in his
the indictments (elements of
the crime and the attending
Defendant In his counterclaim
As to the justifying,
and in his
exempting, mitigating, and
affirmative defenses
absolutory circumstances
Burden of Proof
Does not shift and remains
throughout the entire case

Burden of Evidence
Shifts from party to party depending upon the
exigencies of the case in the course of the trial

Generally determined by the

pleadings filed by the party.

Generally determined by the developments of

the trial, or by the provisions of substantive law
or procedural rules which may relieve the party
from presenting evidence on the facts alleged.
(ex. Presumptions, judicial notice)

Principle of Negative Averments (NA)

- GR: NAs need not be proved (whether in civil or criminal action)
- EXC: It has to be proved when such negative allegations are:
o The essential parts of the cause of action (civil case) or
o The essential ingredients of the offense of the defense (criminal
case). Only needs to establish a prima facie case from the best
evidence obtainable
Example: In breach of contract, non-performance must be proven. In illegal
possession of firearms, the lack of license must be proved.
- EXC to the EXC: In civil cases, even if the NA is an essential part
of the cause of action or defense, it does not need to be proved:
o IF it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a
document which should properly be in the custody of the adverse
Note: It is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to
support a NA the truth of which is indicated by established circumstances and
which if untrue could readily be disproved by documents or other evidence w/in
the knowledge or control of the accused. When the negative of an issue does not
permit of direct proof or when the facts are more immediately w/in the
knowledge of the accused the onus rests on the accused.


The Following Facts Need Not be Proved:
1 Facts which are presumed (Rule 131)
2 Facts which are of judicial notice (Rule 129)
3 Facts which are judicially admitted (Rule 129)

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

44 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Presumption, defined: An inference as to the existence or non-existence of

a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.
Note: A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence. It
imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward
with evidence to meet or rebut the presumption.
The proponent still has to introduce
evidence of the basis of the presumption
(evidence of the existence and nonexistence of the facts from which the court
can draw the inference of the fact in issue

Classifications of Presumptions
Presumptions of Law
(praesumptiones juris)
Definition: A deduction which the
law expressly directs to be made
from particular facts.
A certain inference must be made
whenever the facts appear which
furnish the basis of the inference
Reduced to fixed rules and form
part of the system of jurisprudence

Judicial Admission and Judicial

The proponent does not have to
introduce any evidence

Presumptions of Fact
(praesumptiones hominis)
Definition: A deduction which reason draws
from facts proved without an express direction
from the law to that effect
Discretion is vested in the tribunal as to
drawing the inference.
Derived wholly and directly from the
circumstances of the particular case by means
of the common experience of mankind

Presumptions of Law Can Be:

a. Conclusive or Absolute (juris et de jure) - A presumption of law that is not
permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary
b.Disputable, Rebuttable or Prima Facie (juris tantum) - is that which the
law permits to be overcome or contradicted by proofs to the contrary;
otherwise the same remains satisfactory.
Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions.
The ff are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a)Whenever a party has by his own declaration, act, or omission:
- intentionally and deliberately led another:
o to believe a particular thing true, and

o to act upon such belief,

he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission,
be permitted to falsify it.
(b)The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord:
- at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them. (3a)
Classes of Conclusive Presumptions
1. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131, Sec. 2(a)) The fact which the party in
estoppel has represented to be true is conclusively presumed as against
him to be true
Requisites as to the Party Estopped
Requisites as to the Party Claiming
a. Conduct
false a. Lack of knowledge of truth as to the
representation or concealment
facts in question
b. Intent or at least expectation that the b. Reliance in good faith upon the
conduct shall be acted upon
conduct or statements of the party to
c. Knowledge, actual or constructive of
be stopped
the real facts
c. Action or inaction based thereon to his
detriment or prejudice.
Note: Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their
successors in interest
2. ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131, Sec. 2 (b)) The ownership of the
landlord at the start of the tenancy relation is conclusively presumed as
against the tenant.
Note: If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have been acquired
subsequent to the commencement of that relation, the presumption will not
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions.
The ff presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

45 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Presumption of Innocence (A)

Applies to both civil and criminal cases

The legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of guilt:
- Provided: There be a rational connection between the facts proved
and the ultimate fact presumed.
This presumption accompanies the accused throughout the trial down to
the moment of conviction. This presumption disappears after conviction
and the appellate court then will presume the accused guilty.
An accused is not called upon to offer evidence on his behalf for his
freedom is forfeited only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for
conviction be in existence.
Basis: founded on the principles of justice and is intended not to protect the
guilty but to prevent the conviction of an innocent person.
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
Presumption That a Person Takes Ordinary Care of his Concerns (D)
All men are presumed to be sane and normal and subject to be moved by
substantially the same motives.
When of age and sane, they must take care of themselves. Courts operate not
because one person has been defeated or overcome by another but because he
has been defeated or overcome illegally. There must be a violation of law,
the commission of what the law known as an actionable wrong before the
courts is authorized to lay hold of the situation and remedy it.
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
Presumption of Suppression of Evidence (E)

Ratio: The natural conclusion is that the proof if produced, instead of

rebutting would support the inference against him and the court is justified in
acting upon that conclusion
Requisites for Presumption (e) to Apply:
1. That the evidence is material
2. That the party had the opportunity to produce the same
3. That the said evidence is available only to said party
When Presumption (e) Will Not Apply:
1. When the evidence in question is equally available to both parties
2. When the evidence is merely corroborative or merely cumulative, or
is unnecessary
3. When the suppression of evidence is not willful
4. When the suppression is an exercise of privilege
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later
one is produced;
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act:
- otherwise, that things which a person possess, or exercises acts of
ownership over, are owned by him;
Presumption from Possession of Stolen Goods (J)
This is not in conflict with the presumption of innocence. At the start of the
criminal case, the court will apply the presumption of innocence. But once the
prosecution is able to prove that a certain object has been unlawfully taken, that
there is a crime of theft committed and that the prosecution has also proven that
the accused is in possession of this object unlawfully taken, then the presumption
of innocence disappears. The new presumption of guilt takes place.

Facts to Be Proved By the Prosecution for Presumption (J) to Apply:

1. The crime was actually committed
2. The crime was committed recently

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

46 | P a t i o , E r i c a

3. The stolen property was found in possession of the accused and

4. The accused is unable to satisfactorily explain his possession there
To Conclusively Prove Possession, It is Necessary That:
1. The possession must be unexplained by any innocent origin
2. The possession must be fairly recent and
3. The possession must be exclusive
Note: Convictions in these cases are not sustained upon a presumption of law
but rest wholly upon an inference of fact as to the guilt of the accused.
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for:
- the payment of the money, or
- the delivery of anything,
has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected
to it;

Note: This presumption applies to both civil and criminal cases

This presumption of authority is not confined to official appointees. It has
been extended to persons who have been appointed pursuant to a local or
special statute to act in quasi-public or quasi-official capacities and to
professional men like surgeons and lawyers.
Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in
contrarium all things are presumed to have been done regularly and with
due formality until the contrary is proved.
While ordinarily, irregularity will not be presumed, an adverse assumption
may arise when the official act in question appears to be irregular upon its
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or
elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
Presumption of Regularity of Judicial Proceedings (N)

Presumption that a Person in a Public office was Regularly Appointed or

Elected to it: (L)
Ratio: It would cause great inconvenience if in the first instance strict proof
were required of appointment or election to office in all cases where it might
be collaterally in issue.
Burden of Proof: Is on the adverse party to show that he was not appointed
or designated.
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
Presumption that an Official Duty has been Regularly Performed (M)
1. Innocenceandnotthewrongdoingistobepresumed
2. Anofficialoathwillnotbeviolated
3. Arepublicanformofgovernmentcannotsurviveunlessalimitis

The court rendering the judgment is presumed to have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties and to have rendered a judgment valid in every
- Jurisdictionispresumedinallcases,beitsuperiororinferiorcourt.
- However,jurisdictionmaynotbepresumedwhentherecorditself
(o)That all the matters within an issue raised in a case:
- were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and
in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted
for arbitration:
- were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
(p)That private transactions have been fair and regular;
Presumption that Private Transactions have Been done Fairly and
Regular (P)
An individual intends to do right rather than wrong and intends to do only
what he has the right to do.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

47 | P a t i o , E r i c a

In the absence of proof to the contrary, there is a presumption that all men act
fairly honestly, and in good faith.
(q)That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
Those who were engaged in a given trade or business are presumed to be
acquainted with the general customs and usages of the occupation and with
such other facts as are necessarily incident to the proper conduct of the
(r)That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s)That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient
(t)That an endorsement of a negotiable instrument was made:
- before the instrument was overdue and
- at the place where the instrument is dated;
(u)That a writing is truly dated;
(v)That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course
of the mail;
Presumption in Paragraph (V)
For the Presumption in Par (V) to Arise, It Must Be Proved:
- That the letter was properly addressed with postage pre-paid and that
it was actually mailed
- IF the said letter was not returned to the sender: It is presumed that it
was received by the addressee
Service of Pleadings By Mail (Sec 10, Rule 13)
- Service is complete upon the expiration of 10 days after mailing
UNLESS the court otherwise provides
- If by registered mail: The service is complete upon actual receipt by
the addressee (If he fails to claim his mail from the post w/in 5 days
from date of 1st notice service is complete from the expiration of
such time)

(w)That after an absence of 7 years, it being unknown whether or not the

absentee still lives:
- he is considered dead for all purposes,
- EXCEPT for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his
- till after an absence of 10 years.
IF he disappeared after the age of 75 years:
- an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient in order that his succession
may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the
division of the estate among the heirs:
1 A person on board
- a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or
- an aircraft which is missing,
who has not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or

A member of the armed forces who:

has taken part in armed hostilities, and
has been missing for 4 years;


A person who:
has been in danger of death under other circumstances and
whose existence has not been known for 4 years;

If a married person has been absent for 4 consecutive years, the

spouse present may:

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

48 | P a t i o , E r i c a

contract a subsequent marriage IF he or she has well-founded belief

that the absent spouse is already death.
In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death under the
circumstances hereinabove provided:
- an absence of only 2 years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
contracting a subsequent marriage.
However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must:
- institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and
in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
- without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of

money, property or industry,
such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of
money and evidences of credit are equal.

Ordinary But Continued Absence: (First 2 subpars) The absentee is

presumed to have died at the end of the said period

(dd) That IF the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another
- within 300 days after such termination of the former marriage,
these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:

Qualified Absence: (In danger of death under the 3 instances contemplated)

The absentee is presumed to have died at the time he was exposed to such
danger or peril, at the start of the period.
Note: Distinction is important for successional rights


(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to the law or fact;

(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and
ordinary nature habits of life;

(z)That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;

(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman:
- who are capacitated to marry each other and
- who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife
w/out the benefit of marriage OR under void marriage,
has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman:
- who are not capacitated to marry each other and

A child born BEFORE 180 days after the solemnization of the

subsequent marriage:
is considered to have been conceived during the former marriage,
PROVIDED it be born within the 300 days after the termination of
the former marriage.
A child born AFTER 180 days following the celebration of the
subsequent marriage:
is considered to have been conceived during such marriage,
even though it be born within the 300 days after the termination of
the former marriage.

(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with
things of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published
by public authority, was so printed or published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting to contain reports of cases
adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains
correct reports of such cases;
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property
to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

49 | P a t i o , E r i c a

when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such

person or his successor in interest;

in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the

same time. (5a)

Presumption is the same as the rule in Art 43 of the CC

(jj) That EXCEPT for purposes of succession, when:

- two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
conflagration, and
- it is not shown who died first, and
- there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred,
the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the
strength and the age of the sexes,
According to the following rules:
1 If both were under the age of 15 years:
o the older is deemed to have survived;
2 If both were above the age of 60:
o the younger is deemed to have survived;
3 If one is under 15 and the other above 60:
o the former is deemed to have survived;
4 If both be over 15 and under 60, and the sex be different:
o the male is deemed to have survived,
o if the sex be the same, the older;
5 If one be under 15 or over 60, and the other between those ages:
o the latter is deemed to have survived.

Par (KK)
Par (JJ)
The parties are NOT required to perish in
It is Required that the deaths
a calamity
occurred during a calamity
It only applies to questions of
It applies to cases not involving
successional rights
successional rights
Provides a presumption of simultaneity in Provides for presumptions of
the deaths of the persons called to succeed survivorship
each other
Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy.

There is NO presumption of legitimacy of a child:

- born after 300 days following the dissolution of the marriage or the
separation of the spouses.
Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his
allegation. (6)
- An exact copy of Art 261 of the CC
- Applies when the dissolution of the marriage is by reason of causes other
than the death of the husband.
- Separation may be: legal separation or a separation de facto

In Order for Presumption (JJ) to Apply, It is Necessary That:

1 The deaths occurred in a calamity and
2 There are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred
that one died ahead of the other
(kk) That IF there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called
to succeed each other, as to which of them died first:
- whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

50 | P a t i o , E r i c a

[RULE 132]
Sec 1. Examination to be done in open court.
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing:
- shall be done in open court, and
- under oath or affirmation.
- the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
- the questions calls for a different mode of answer,
the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1a)
Sec.2. Proceedings to be recorded.
The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, INC:
- the questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto,
- the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or
witnesses with reference to the case,
shall be recorded:
- by means of shorthand or stenotype or
- by other means of recording found suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings:
- made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and
- certified as correct by him
shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. (2a)

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

51 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Rules For Admissibility
- GR: The testimony of the witness must be given in open
- EXC: Such requirement may be supplanted
o In civil cases, by depositions pursuant to and under the
limitations of Rules 23 and 24
o In criminal cases, by depositions or conditional
examinations, pursuant to Sec 12 to 15 Rule 119 and Rule
123, or by the records of the preliminary investigation
How Oral Evidence is Given
- GR: It is usually given orally in open court. Therefore, generally,
the testimonies of witnesses cannot be presented in affidavits.
- EXC: Testimonies of witnesses may be given in affidavits is under
the Rules of Summary Procedure (BP 129)
Purpose: to enable the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the
witness manner of testifying, their intelligence, and appearance.
GR: Testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath or affirmation.
- Two fold object in requiring a witness to be sworn:
1. By affecting the conscience of the witness to compel him to
speak the truth;
2. If he willfully falsifies that truth, that he may be punished by
- The right to have the witness sworn may be waived
o If a party fails to object to the taking of the testimony of a
witness without the administration of an oath, he will be deemed
to have waived his objection.
How Testimony of the Witness Should be Elicited
- By question of counsel
- The court may also propound questions either on the direct or crossexamination of the witness or suggest questions to counsel.
Note: The testimony of a witness cannot be considered self-serving if he is
subjected to cross-examination.
Questions propounded to a witness must:


Not be indefinite or uncertain;

Be relevant;
Not be argumentative;
Not for conclusion of law;
Not call for opinion or hearsay evidence;
Not call for illegal answer;
Not call for self-incriminating testimony;
Not be leading;
Not be misleading;
Not to tend reputation of witness;
Not to be repetitions;
Not call for a narration.

Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness.

A witness MUST answer questions:
- although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him.
However, it is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and
from harsh or insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined EXCEPT ONLY as to matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an
offense UNLESS otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation
- UNLESS it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the
fact in issue would be presumed.
But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an
offense. (3a, 19a)
GR: A witness cannot refuse to answer questions material to the inquiry even
if it may tend to establish a claim against him
EXC: He may validly refuse to answer:
1 Under the right against self-incrimination (If it will subject him to
punishment for an offense)
- Available in civil, criminal and administrative cases

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

52 | P a t i o , E r i c a

May be with reference to the offense involved in the same case

where he is charged or in another case
- It may be waived however in immunity statutes wherein the witness
is granted immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted
in his testimony
2 Under the right against self-degradation (If it will have a direct
tendency to degrade his character) UNLESS:
- Such question is directed to the very fact at issue or to a fact from
which the fact at issue would be presumed or
- It refers to his previous final conviction for an offense
Note: Right should be seasonable invoked and may be waived.

Classification of Immunity Statutes

Use Immunity Only prohibits the use of witness compelled
testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the
criminal prosecution of the witness. It does not render a witness
immune from prosecution.
Transactional Immunity grants immunity to the witness from
prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates.
Scope of the right against self-incrimination
1. No person should be compelled to be a witness against himself;
2. The rule may be invoked in any court or proceedings;
3. The rule covers only testimonial compulsion and production by him
of incriminating documents and articles. (Forced Reenactment
comes within the ban since prohibition against testimonial
compulsion extends to those communicative in nature)
Note: Right against self-incrimination is granted only in favor of individuals.
When is an act testimonial: If it explicitly or implicitly relate a factual
assertion or discloses information.
Rationale against testimonial compulsion: The court may not extract from
the defendants own lips and against his will an admission of his guilt.
Limitation if a witness is a party in a civil action: Before the plaintiff can
compel the defendant to be a witness, the plaintiff must first prove that he has
submitted written interrogatories of the defendant.

Right of Self-Incrimination Distinguished

Cannot be compelled to testify or produce
evidence even by subpoena or other
process or order of the court. He cannot
be required either for the prosecution, for
co-accused or even for himself.

Ordinary Witness
May be compelled to testify by
subpoena having only the right to
refuse to answer a particular
incriminating question at the time it
is put to him.

Sec. 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness.

The order in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows;
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4)
Sec. 5. Direct examination.
Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. (5a)
Sec. 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent.
UPON the termination of the direct examination the witness may be crossexamined BY the adverse party
- as to many matters stated in the direct examination, or connected
- with sufficient fullness and freedom
o to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and
o to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

53 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Purposes of Cross Examination

1 To discredit the witness
2 To discredit the testimony of the witness
3 To clarify certain matters
4 To elicit admissions from witnesses
Scope and Limits of Cross Examination
- American Rule: Restricts cross-examination to facts which are
connected with the matters that have been stated in the direct
examination of the witness
- English Rule: A witness may be cross-examined, not only upon
matters testified to by him on his direct examination, BUT ALSO on
all matters relevant to the issue
What Rule Do we Follow? - BOTH
- GR: We follow the English Rule However, it does not mean that
the party is making the witness his own, as stated in Sec 5
- EXC: We follow the American Rule (may only be cross-examined
on matters covered by direct examination )when:
o The witness is an unwilling or hostile witness as so declared
by the court OR is an adverse party
o The witness is an accused who testifies as a witness in his
own behalf
Hostile Witness, defined: One declared so by the court upon adequate
showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify or his
having misled the party into calling to the stand.
Misleading Facts (Questions which assumes facts not on record), IF asked:
- On cross-examination: Objectionable for being misleading
- On direct-examination: Objectionable for lack of basis
Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony: When cross-examination cannot be
done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the
witness, the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent
- GR: Such testimony should be stricken from the record.
- EXC: However, in criminal cases when the prosecution witness was
extensively cross-examined on the material points (essential
elements of the crime) and thereafter failed to appear and cannot be

produced despite a warrant for his arrest striking out is not

warranted (Pp v. Gorospe, 1984)
When direct-examination may be stricken out for lack of crossexamination: Depends on who is at fault:
- IF it is on the party presenting the witness it may be expunged
- IF it is on the adverse party: There can be no forfeiture of direct

Sec. 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent.

AFTER the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he may be
re-examined BY the party calling him:
- to explain or supplement his answers given during the crossexamination.
On re-direct-examination:
- questions on matters NOT dealt with during the cross-examination,
- may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (12)
Principal Object: To prevent injustice to the witness and the party who has
called him by affording an opportunity to the witness:
- To explain/amplify/reaffirm the testimony which he has given on
- To explain any apparent contradiction or inconsistency in his
Sec. 8. Re-cross-examination.
UPON the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party may:
- re-cross-examine the witness
o on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

54 | P a t i o , E r i c a

on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its

discretion. (13)

- contrary to that which he has previously stated.

It is not allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a)

Purpose: To overcome the other partys attempt to rehabilitate a witness or

to rebut damaging evidence brought out on Cross-E

Leading Question, defined: One which suggests to the witness the answer

It is NOT a Matter of Right on Re-Cross-E for Counsel to Touch on

Matters NOT Brought on Re-Direct-E
- Re-Cross-E is limited to new matters brought out on the Re-Direct-E
and such matters as may be allowed by the court

GR: It is not allowed

- Ratio: It causes the witness to testify in accordance with the
suggestion rather than a genuine recollection of events
EXC: Leading Questions are Allowed:
1 On cross-examination
2 On preliminary matters
3 Difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers
4 Unwilling or hostile witness
5 Adverse party or an officer, director or a corporation or partnership
which is an adverse party
Note: For Nos. 3 and 4: There is no need of a preliminary showing of
hostility before leading questions can be asked
Leading questions have been allowed by the SC when the witness is:
immature, aged and infirm, in bad physical condition, uneducated, ignorant
unaccustomed to court proceedings, feeble-minded, confused, has slow
comprehension, deaf and dumb, unable to speak or understand English.
(People v. Dela Cruz, 2002)

Sec. 9. Recalling witness.

AFTER the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded:
- the witness cannot be recalled w/out leave of the court.
The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of
justice may require. (14)

GR: After the examination of a witness by both sides has been

concluded, the witness, CANNOT be recalled W/O leave of court
EXC: When a recall of the witness has been expressly reserved
recall is a matter of right

Sec. 10. Leading and misleading questions.

A question:
- which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining
party desires is a leading question.
It is not allowed, EXCEPT:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a
witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact:
- not yet testified to by the witness, or

Note: A question that merely suggests a subject w/o suggesting an answer or

a specific thing is NOT a leading question
Misleading Question, defined: One which assumes facts not in evidence or
w/o sufficient basis or which assumes testimony or proof which has not been
given. It has little probative value
- GR: It is NOT allowed as well
1. When waived;
2. When asking questions to an expert witness
Sec. 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness.
A witness may be impeached:
- by the party against whom he was called,
- by contradictory evidence,
- by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or
integrity is bad, or

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

55 | P a t i o , E r i c a

by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent

with his present, testimony,
- by evidence of particular wrongful acts,
EXCEPT that it may be shown:
- by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment,
- that he has been convicted of an offense. (15)

EXCEPT with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of

Section 10:
- the party producing a witness is NOT allowed to impeach his
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by
the court UPON adequate showing of:
- his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or
- his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.

GR: One who voluntarily offers a witness testimony is bound by such (i.e.
cannot impeach or contradict),
1 In case of a hostile witness or an unwilling witness
2 Where the witness is an adverse party or the representative of a
juridical person which is the adverse party or
3 When the witness required is NOT voluntarily offered but is required
by law to be presented (ex. Subscribing witness to the will)
A Party Can Impeach a Witness of the Adverse Party BY:
1 Contradictory evidence from testimony in same case
2 Evidence of prior inconsistent statement
3 Evidence of bad character and
4 Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or incompetence
5 Evidence of mental, sensory derangement or defect
6 Evidence of conviction of an offense which affects credibility of
witness. (People v. Givera 349 SCRA 573 (2001)
Other Modes of Impeaching Aside From Sec 11
1 By involving him during Cross-E in contradiction
2 By showing the impossibility or improbability of his testimony
3 By proving action or conduct of the witness inconsistent with his
4 By showing bias, interest or hostile feeling against the adverse party
Note: Impeachment is LIMITED to bad reputation for lack of veracity and
NOT for lack of morals
Rehabilitation of Witnesses: An impeached witness may be allowed on
redirect to attempt to rehabilitate (to restore the witness credibility) by the
party who called the witness to the stand
Note: An impeached witness does not stricken his testimony
Sec. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness.

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared OR the witness who is an

adverse party, may be impeached:
- BY the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called
by the adverse party,
- EXCEPT by evidence of his bad character.
He may ALSO be impeached and cross-examined:
- BY the adverse party,
- but such cross-examination must ONLY be on the subject matter of
his examination-in-chief. (6a, 7a)
A Party Can Impeach His Own Witness ONLY By:
1. Evidence contradictory to his testimony or
2. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements
Note: In Case of Hostile Witnesses, Adverse Witnesses or Involuntary
witnesses They may be impeached other than by #1 & #2
Sec. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements .
BEFORE a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other
times statements inconsistent with his present testimony:
- the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the
times and places and the persons present, and
- he must be asked whether he made such statements, and IF so,
allowed to explain them.
If the statements be in writing :
- they must be shown to the witness BEFORE any question is put to
him concerning them. (16)
Contradictory Evidence: Refers to other testimony of the same witness, or
other evidence presented by him in the same case

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

56 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Prior Inconsistent Statement: Refers to statements oral or documentary,

made by the witness sought to be impeached on occasions other than trial in
which he is testifying. Impeaching under is done by laying the
1. By confronting him with such statements, with the circumstances
under which they were made
2. By asking him whether he made such statements and
3. By giving him as chance to explain the inconsistency
Note: Unless the witness is given the opportunity to explain the
discrepancies, the impeachment is incomplete
- HOWEVER, such defect is deemed WAIVED if no objection on that
ground is raised when the document involved is offered for

Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible UNTIL such

character has been impeached. (17)
Sec. 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses.
On any trial or hearing, the judge may:
- exclude from the court any witness not at the time under
examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of other
The judge may also:
- cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from
conversing with one another
- until all shall have been examined. (18)
Application of the Power of Exclusion: Applies only to the witnesses and
not to the parties to a civil action.

Laying the Predicate

Refers only to impeachment of a
witness through PIS

Laying the Foundation or Bases

Refers to a situation where evidence which
is incompetent will be introduced in
evidence because it fails under the
exceptions to the rule on exclusion

Impeaching by laying the predicate May be Dispensed With In case of

Prior Inconsistent Statements (PIS)
- As to the testimony of the Adverse Party: If the PIS appears in a
disposition of the adverse party and not a mere witness (the
deposition may be used by any party for any purpose)
- When the previous statements of a witness are offered as evidence of
an admission, and not merely to impeach him
- When such PIS is admissible as independent evidence (Beda, p308)
Ratio for Laying the Predicate
1. To avoid unfair surprise to the adversary
2. To save time (an admission will make extrinsic proof unnecessary)
3. To give the witness a chance to explain
Sec. 14. Evidence of good character of witness.

Power Does NOT Apply:

- To Parties: They have a right to be present at the trial either by
themselves or their attorneys, as well as reasonable notice of the time
fixed thereof. Parties CANNOT be divested by an exclusion order.
- To an Accused in a Criminal Case: He has the right to be present
and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the
If the Witness Violates the Order of Exclusion: Court may:
- Bar him from testifying
- Give little weight to his testimony aside from his liability for
Note: It is within the power of the judge to refuse to order the exclusion of
the principal witness during the hearing of a criminal case
Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum .
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact:
- by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction
at the time:
- when the fact occurred, or
- immediately thereafter, or

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

57 | P a t i o , E r i c a

at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew
that the same was correctly written or recorded;
but in such case:
- the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected BY the
adverse party, who may, IF he chooses:
o cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in
So, also, a witness may testify from such writing or record, though he
retain no recollection of the particular facts:
- IF he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the
transaction when made;
- but such evidence must be received with caution. (10a)

The witness simply testifies that he

knows that the memorandum is
correctly written by him or under his
direction: No need to swear

Witness must swear that the

writing correctly states the

Value of the Memorandum: It is STILL testimonial in character

- The memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness does
not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such
- The memorandum is NOT admissible as corroborative evidence
since a witness cannot be corroborated by any written statement
prepared wholly by him
Note: The memorandum NEED NOT be the original writing. A copy will

Application of the Article ONLY when it is shown beforehand that there
is a need to refresh the memory of the witness.
Revival of Present Memory

Revival of Past Recollection

Present Recollection Revived

(1st Sentence)

Past Recollection Recorded

(2nd Sentence)

Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the
remainder, the remainder admissible.

Applies if the witness remembers the

facts regarding his entries
1. Memorandum has been written
by him or under his direction;
2. Written by him:
o When the fact occurred or
immediately thereafter; or
o At any other time when the
fact was fresh in his memory
and he knew that the same
was correctly recorded
Entitled to greater weight
Evidence is the testimony

Applies where the witness does not

recall the facts involved
1. Witness
recollection of the particular
2. But he his able to swear that
the record or writing correctly
stated the transaction when

When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is:

- given in evidence by one party,
- the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and
when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in
- any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary
to its understanding
- may also be given in evidence. (11a)

Rule of evidence affected is

competency of witness, examination
of witness (laying the predicate)

Sec. 18. Right to respect writing shown to witness.

Entitled to lesser weight

Evidence is the writing or record
(the memorandum)
Rule of evidence affected is the
best evidence rule

Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse

party. (9a)
Sec. 19. Classes of Documents.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

58 | P a t i o , E r i c a

For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
RP, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public:
- EXCEPT last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the RP, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)
Authentication, defined: The process of proving the due execution and
genuineness of the document
Document, defined: A deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by
which something is proved, evidenced or set forth.
Classes of Documents
- Public Documents: A document acknowledged before persons
authorized to administer oaths. Official Documents
o A document to be public must be an official written act of a
public officer
o A foreign decision purporting to be the written record of an
act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country is a
public writing.
- Private Documents: Includes commercial documents
However, private documents required by law to be entered in public
records may be considered public documents
- Note: If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public
record, its record, its recordation or its incorporation into the public
record becomes a public document BUT that does NOT make the
private writing itself a public document so as to make it admissible
w/o authentication.

For the purpose of their presentation in evidence:

As to
GR: Admissible in evidence NOT Self Authenticating. It
Authenticity w/o further proof of its
must be proved relative to
genuineness and due
its due execution and
genuineness, before it may
EXC: Where a special rule
be received in evidence
of law requires proof thereof
despite its being a document
acknowledged (ex. Probate
of notarial wills)
As to
Evidence even against 3rd
Binds only the parties who
persons, of the fact which
executed it or their privies,
gave rise to its due execution insofar as due execution
and to the date of the latter
and date of the document
Note: Certain transactions must be in a public document; otherwise they will
not be given any validity.
Requisites for the Admissibility of a Copy of a Foreign Official
1. It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records
or by his deputy and
2. It must be accompanied by a certificate of the Philippine diplomatic
and consular representative to the foreign country certifying that
such attesting officer has the custody of the document,
Ratio of #2: Not a mere technicality but is intended to justify the giving of
full faith and credit to the genuineness of a document in a foreign country.
Sec. 20. Proof of private document.
BEFORE any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence,
its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
Any other private document:
- need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

59 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Sec. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary .

Where a private document:
1. is more than 30 years old,
2. is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuine, and
3. is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion,
no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. (22a)
Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved.
The handwriting of a person may be proved:
- by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person
o he has seen the person write, OR
o has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has
acted or been charged, AND
o has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison,
- by the witness or the court,
- with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against
whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the
satisfaction of the judge. (23a)
Sec 20, 21, 22: Rules on Authentication of Private Documents
Doctrine of Self Authentication: Where the facts in the writing could only
have been known to the writer
Doctrine of Authentication of the Adverse Party: Where the reply of the
adverse party refers to and affirms the transmittal to him and his receipt of
the letter in question, a copy of which the proponent is offering in evidence.
Authentication of a Document is NOT Required When:
1. The writing is an Ancient Document (Sec 21)
2. When the writing is a public document on record (Sec 19)
3. When it is a notarial document, acknowledged, proved and certified
in accordance with Sec 30

4. When the authenticity and due execution of the document has been
expressly and impliedly admitted by failure to deny the same under
oath (ex. Actionable documents)
Additional Ground in Beda Reviewer:
5. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to the
Authenticity and
Due Execution of
a Private

Proved by: Evidence of the genuineness of the

handwriting of the maker

Proved by:
1. Testimony of the purported writer
2. A witness who actually saw the person writing the
instrument (Sec 20a)
3. A witness familiar with such handwriting (Sec 22) and
who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being
an exception to the opinion rule
4. A comparison by the court of the questioned
handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof
(Sec 22)
5. Expert Evidence (Sec 49)
Note: Sec 22 merely enumerated the methods of proving handwriting but it
does not give preference or priority to a particular method
Handwriting Experts NOT Mandatory; Weight of Expert Testimony: It
depends upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing
marks, characteristics, discrepancies in and between genuine and false
specimen of writings which would ordinarily escape notice or detection by an
untrained observer
Ancient Documents
- 3 Requirements (See codal Sec 21)
- An ancient document is said to be in the proper custody if it is in the
place in which and under the care of the person with whom it would
naturally be.
- Ratio: The fact of its coming from the natural and proper place tends to
remove presumptions of fraud and strengthen the belief of its
- By merely producing the document: it establishes prima facie its own
authenticity. The burden then shifts to the adverse party to prove

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

60 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence.

Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance
of a duty by a public officer:
- are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
All other public documents are evidence:
- even against a third person,
- of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the
latter. (24a)
Public documents are admissible w/o further proof of their due execution and

2. A copy thereof duly attested by the proper officers

Note: Absent the attestation of the proper officer, a mere copy of the foreign
document is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign law.
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)

- Necessity: practical impossibility of requiring the officials attendance as
a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the
course of his duty
- Trustworthiness: There is a presumption of regularity, legality and

Sec. 26. Irremovability of public record.

Sec. 24. Proof of official record.

Irremovability of Public Record

- GR: A public record cannot be removed from the office which it is kept
- EXC: It may be removed by order of the court BUT ONLY when
essential to the just determination of a pending case (ex. subpoena duces
Note: The rule however, refers only to a public record, an official copy of
which could be made available to the interested party and is admissible in

The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,

when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced:
- by an official publication thereof or
- by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, IF the record is not kept in the RP, with:
- a certificate that such officer has the custody.
IF the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country:
- the certificate may be made BY a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by
any officer in the foreign service of the RP stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and
- authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)
Whether the Record if Domestic or Foreign It may be Evidenced By:
1. An official publication

Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence:

- must not be removed from the office in which it is kept,
- EXCEPT upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is
essential to the just determination of a pending case. (27a)

1. To enable others to use the record;
2. To prevent the serious risk of loss;
3. To prevent its exposure to wear and tear
Sec. 27. Public record of a private document.
An authorized public record of a private document may be proved:
- by the original record, or

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

61 | P a t i o , E r i c a

by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with

an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (28a)

Note: If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its
record, its recordation or its incorporation into the public record becomes a
public document BUT that does NOT make the private writing itself a public
document so as to make it admissible w/o authentication.
Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record.
A written statement:
- signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his
- that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is
found to exist in the records of his office,
- accompanied by a certificate as above provided,
is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record
or entry. (29)

Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached.

Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer,
(b) collusion between the parties, or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (30a)
Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents.
Every instrument:
- duly acknowledged or proved and
- certified as provided by law,
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. (31a)

Notarial Document, defined: One which is duly acknowledged before a
notary public. (It is a public document)
- The notary must be duly authorized and must have notarized said
document in accordance with the Notarial Law.
Probative Value of a Notarial Document: It is evidence of the facts
expressed therein
When a Certified True Copy is Presented It Should Comply With the FF
to be Admissible:
1. The provisions that should appear in the certification or attestation of
the said copy (Sec 24 & 25)
2. It must have the documentary stamp affixed unless specifically
exempted as in the case of baptismal or birth certificate.
Note: It is presumed that the requisite stamps have been affixed to the
original copy of a document where only the carbon copies thereof are
Note: When a special power of attorney is executed and acknowledged
before a notary public or other competent officer in a foreign country, it
cannot be admitted in evidence in RP courts unless it is certified as such in
accordance with Sec 24.
Public Instruments do NOT Have Uniform Probative Value
- The law does not specifically provide that the contents of public
instruments w/o distinction are equally evidence against 3 rd parties
- The probative value of public instruments depends on the kind of
document that is presented in evidence.
Rules on Baptismal Certificates (BC)
- Issued by priests during the Spanish regime: Considered public
- Issued after the Spanish regime: Considered private documents and
cannot even be considered as prima facie evidence of the fact that gave
rise to its execution (it is considered hearsay unless the priest who
performed the baptismal rites are produced)
- BCs are not sufficient proof of paternity or recognition of a child. It
is only proof of the baptism administered but not the veracity of the

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

62 | P a t i o , E r i c a

statements in the certificate concerning the relationship of the person

baptized. (OLD RULE)
NOW, Art 172 of the Family Code provides: Filiation of legitimate
children is established by the record of birth in the civil registry

Note: BCs may be used to determine the minority of the victim in statutory
Note: Death Certificates is not proof of the cause of death its probative
value being confined only to the fact of death
- Statements therein regarding the duration of illness and the cause of
death are mere hearsay.
- However, it is admissible to prove residence of decedent at the time
of death.

- shall not be admitted as evidence,

- UNLESS accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino.
To avoid interruption of proceedings:
- parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation
prepared before trial. (34a)
Note: Under the 1987 Constitution: The official languages are Filipino and,
until otherwise provided by law, English, with the regional languages as
auxiliary official languages in the region

Sec. 31. Alteration in document, how to explain.

The party producing a document as genuine:
- which has been altered and
- appears to have been altered after its execution,
- in a part material to the question in dispute,
must account for the alteration.
He may show that the alteration:
- was made by another, without his concurrence, or
- was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or
- was otherwise properly or innocently made, or
- that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the
If he fails to do that:
- the document shall NOT be admissible in evidence. (32a)


Sec. 34. Offer of evidence.
The court shall consider NO evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered:
- must be specified. (35)

Sec. 32. Seal.

There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents:
- insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a)
Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language.

GR: The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
EXC: If there was repeated reference thereto in the course of the trial by
adverse partys counsel and of the court, indicating that the documents were
part of the prosecutions evidence.
- Two requisites must concur: (Pp v. Napta)

Documents written in an unofficial language:

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

63 | P a t i o , E r i c a

1. The document must have been duly identified by testimony duly

2. The document must have been incorporated to the records of the case.
Ex. Presented and marked in the pre-trial and testified as to the details
and contents and was cross examined.
Purpose Why Offer Must be Specified: To determine whether that piece of
evidence should be admitted or not because such evidence may be admissible
for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility.

3. Authentication: Proof of a documents due execution and

4. Formal Offer: After the termination of the testimonial evidence, the
proponent will then make a formal offer and state the purpose for
which the document is presented.
5. If the evidence is excluded, an offer of proof
6. Objections: It is only when the proponent rests his case and
formally offers the evidence that an objection may be made.
Objection prior thereto is premature

You Follow What is Stated in the Offer: It must be rejected if it is

inadmissible for the purpose stated even if it is admissible for another

Identification and Authentication is Not needed in private documents: If

there is a stipulation on its due execution and genuineness.
Authentication is Not needed in public documents

Sec. 35. When to make offer.

Marking and identifying of evidence as an exhibit does NOT mean that

it has been offered as part of evidence.
- Evidence identified and marked as exhibits may be withdrawn before
the formal offer thereof or may not at all be offered as evidence.
- If they are not formally offered in evidence such cannot be
considered as evidence nor can they be given any evidentiary value.
Note: The SC has admitted evidence to prove mitigating circumstance even
if they are not presented or offered in evidence considering the gravity of the
offense and the interest of justice.

As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made:

- at the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered:
- AFTER the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.
- Such offer shall be done orally UNLESS allowed by the court to be
done in writing. (n)

When to Make an Offer: Depends on its form:

Testimonial/Oral Evidence
Documentary and Object Evidence
At the time the witness is called to
After the party has presented his
testimonial evidence, before he rests
Oral Evidence is Always Offered 2x: Offered only once
1. Before the witness testified
2. Every time a question is asked of
him (implied offer)

Sec. 36. Objection.

Procedure Before Documentary and Object Evidence Can be Considered

by the Court
1. Marking: To facilitate their identification. May be made during pretrial or trial.
2. Identification: Proof that the document being presented is the same
one referred to by the witness in his testimony

An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to:

- within 3 days AFTER notice of the
- UNLESS a different period is allowed by the court.

Objection to evidence offered orally must be made:

- immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a
witness shall be made:
- as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.

In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

64 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Classifications of Objections:
1. General Objection It does not go beyond declaring the evidence as
immaterial, incompetent, irrelevant or inadmissible. It does not specify
the grounds for objection. Broadside Objection
2. Specific Objection It states why or how the evidence is irrelevant or
Requirements to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence:
1. One has to object to the evidence
2. The objection must be timely made and
3. The grounds for the objection must be specified (specific objections)
Effect of General Objection:
- Failure to specify the grounds is a waiver of objection
- BUT when evidence is excluded upon a mere general objection, the
ruling will be upheld IF any ground in fact existed for the exclusion.
When to make Objection: (If not made w/in such time = waived)
Time to Object
Offered orally
Made immediately after the offer is
Question propounded in the
Made as soon as the grounds thereof
course of the oral examination of a
shall become reasonably apparent
Offer of evidence in writing
W/in 3 days after notice of the offer
unless a different period is allowed by
the court.
Note: the formal offer of evidence at the time the witness is called to testify
is necessary to enable the court to intelligently rule on any objection.
- Proponent must: Show its evidence, materiality and competence
- Adverse party must: Promptly raise any objection thereto
Note: A document admitted not as an independent evidence but merely as
part of the testimony of a witness does NOT constitute proof of the facts
related therein.
Sec. 37.When repetition of objection unnecessary.
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a
- that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to
which objection has been made,

- whether such objection was sustained or overruled,

it shall NOT be necessary to repeat the objection:
- it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing
objection to such class of questions. (37a)
Note: Here, the party may just enter a general and continuing objection to the
same class of evidence and the ruling of the court shall be applicable to all
such evidence of the same class.
- The court may also motu proprio treat the objection as a continuing one,
Sec. 38.Ruling.
The ruling of the court must be given:
- immediately AFTER the objection is made,
- UNLESS the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself
on the question presented;
but the ruling shall ALWAYS be made:
- during the trial and
- at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an
opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.
- However, IF the objection is based on two or more grounds:
o a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them
must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a)
Note: The court should only consider evidence for the purpose for which it
was offered.
When Should the Ruling Be Made?
GR: Parties who object is entitled to a ruling at the time the objection is
- If no ruling is made, it would prejudice the rights of the client since there
would be no way of knowing if one would be compelled to meet any
- The attorney must inform the court of the lack of ruling IF NOT:
o gr: The case cannot be reopened on such ground. The right to
object is deemed waived and cannot be raised on appeal
o exc: When there is a serious prejudice on substantial rights the
appellate court may consider it a reversible error.
EXC: Unless the parties present a question to which the court desired to
inform itself before making its ruling.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

65 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Here, it is proper for the court to take reasonable time to study the

Sec. 39.Striking out answer.

the propriety of their rejection - Since Documents forming no part of proofs

before the appellate court cannot be considered in disposing of the case,
otherwise that would infringe upon the constitutional right of the adverse
party to due process.

Should a witness answer the question:

- BEFORE the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and
- such objection is found to be meritorious,
the court shall:
- sustain the objection and
- order the answer given to be stricken off the record.

Erroneous Admission or Rejection of Evidence

- GR: New Trial is warranted
- EXC: Not a ground for new trial or reversal:
o IF there are other independent evidence to sustain the decision or
o IF in correcting it, would not have changed the decision
Note: IF the court discovered such error BEFORE judgment had become
final or BEFORE an appeal had been perfected it may reopen the case

On proper motion, the court may also:

- order the striking out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant,
or otherwise improper. (n)

Policy of Por lo Que Puedo Valer - The practice of excluding evidence

on doubtful objections should be avoided.
- It is impossible for the judge of first instance to known with certainty
whether testimony is relevant or not and when there is no indication of
bad faith on the attorney offering such evidence the court as a rule may
safely accept the testimony upon the statement that the proof offered will
be connected later.
- Greater reason to adhere to such policy in criminal cases when it can lead
to the erroneous acquittal of the accused which the People can no longer

Mode of Excluding Inadmissible Evidence

1. Objection when the evidence is offered
2. Motion to strike out or Expunge proper in the following cases:
a. When the witness answers prematurely before there is reasonable
opportunity for the party to object (Sec 39)
b. Unresponsive answers
c. Answers that are incompetent, irrelevant, or improper (Sec 39)
Note: There must be an objection before motion to strike.
d. Uncompleted testimonies where there was no opportunity for the
party to cross-examine
e. Conditionally admitted evidence not later substantiated.
Sec. 40.Tender of excluded evidence.
IF documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court:
- the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the
IF the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record:
o the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and
o the substance of the proposed testimony. (n)
Rationale of the Requirement of Attaching Evidence: So that in case of
appeal, the appellate court may be able to examine the same and determined

The ruling of the court on procedural questions and on admissibility of

evidence during the course of the trial is interlocutory.
- They may not be the subject of a separate appeal
- They are to be assigned as errors and reviewed in the appeal taken
from the trial court on the merits of the case.
[RULE 133]
Sec 1.Preponderance of evidence, how determined.
In civil cases, the party having burden of proof:
- must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on
the issues involved lies, the court may consider:
- all the facts and circumstances of the case,
- the witnesses' manner of testifying,

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

66 | P a t i o , E r i c a

their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are
- the nature of the facts to which they testify,
- the probability or improbability of their testimony,
- their interest or want of interest, and also
- their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial.
The court may also consider:
- the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily
with the greater number. (1a)

GR: The findings of the TC will not be disturbed on appeal since it is in a

better position to decide the question, having heard and observed the
demeanor of each witness
- For the same reason, the matter of assigning values to declarations at
the witness stand is best and competently performed by the TC
1. It may be disturbed if the TC has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value which, if properly considered, might effect the
result of the case
2. Also, when the identification of the accused or credibility of witness
and one judge heard the testimony of the prosecution witness BUT
different judge penned the decision GR rule does not apply

Sec. 2.Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In a criminal case, the accused:
- is entitled to an acquittal,
- UNLESS his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt:
- does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainly.
Moral certainly ONLY is required, OR that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a)
Requirements for Evidence to Be Worthy of Credit
- Must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in addition,
be credible in itself It must be natural, reasonable and probable as
to make it easy to believe.
- It should be in accord with the common knowledge and experience
of mankind
GR: Findings of the judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not
to be disturbed on appeal
EXC: It may be disturbed for good cause: if there are substantial facts and
circumstances which have been overlooked and which, if properly
considered, might effect the result of the case
ISSUE: Credibility of the Witness
- Defined: The witnesses is meant his integrity, disposition and
intention to tell the truth in the testimony he has given

Competency of a witness does not mean that the witness is credible or

will be believed by the court.
- Facial expressions are not necessarily indicative of ones feelings.
The TC should not however discredit a witness by the supposed
expression of lack of sincerity in his face, the judge should put that
fact on the record and allow the witness to explain
- Demeanor, emphasis gestures, inflection of the voice aids the proper
evaluation of credibility
- The fact that a person has reached the twilight of his life (advance
age) is not always a guaranty that he would tell the truth
- The facts adduced in a record of a preliminary investigation are
evidence ONLY for the purpose of testing the credibility of the
ISSUE: Number of Witness
- GR: The number of witness should not in and by itself determine he
weight of evidence
- EXC: In case of conflicting testimonies of witness such factor may
be given certain weight
Note: The failure of a party to present merely corroborative or cumulative
evidence does not give rise to any adverse or unfavorable presumption
2 Conflicting Testimonies of 1 Witness
The court can accept either statement as proof
Note: If the witness gives a false testimony he impeaches his own testimony and the court

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

2 Witnesses w/ Conflicting
The court shall adopt the
testimony which he believes
to be true

67 | P a t i o , E r i c a

should exclude it from all consideration

Note: The most subtle and prolific of all fallacies of testimony arises out of
unconscious partisanship (ex. Passengers and driver in an accident)
Bias, defined: That which motivates the disposition to see and report matters
as they are wished for rather than as they are
- It is present when a witnesses relation to the cause or to the parties is
such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his
statements or to suppress or pervert the truth, or to state what is false.
- Bias is NOT a factor: When the witnesses on both sides are equally
interested or biased, especially if there is no numerical
preponderance on either side.
- The testimony of an interested witness is not necessarily biased,
incredible or self-serving
Testimonies in Criminal Cases
- Testimony of a co-conspirator or an accomplice is admissible since
it comes from a polluted source, it must be scrutinized with caution
- The testimony of a SINGLE witness may be sufficient to produce
conviction IF:
o It appears to be trustworthy and reliable, clear and
o NOT if there is unexplained contradictions on an important
- Testimony of the offended party is not essential to convict an
accused if there are already other evidence to prove such guilt
- The fact that the prosecution w/o explanation failed to call several
witnesses mentioned in the information gives rise to the
presumption that their testimonies would not be favorable to the
prosecutions cause.
- Delays of a witness in revealing what he knows about a crime does
not render his testimony false since there is always the inherent fear
or reprisal in criminal cases. Such delay if satisfactorily explained
does not undermine her credibility
- The refusal of a person to submit to investigation to explain the
innocent role he professes is inconsistent with the normal reaction of
an innocent man.
- GR: The mere relationship of the witness to the victim does not
impair his positive and clear testimony nor render the same less
worthy of credit; EXC: When there is a showing of improper motive

Using as witnesses persons who were accomplices w/o including

them in the information does not render the testimony inadmissible
- The identity of the offender like the crime must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt
Rules on Conspiracy
- Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence
- It may be proved by: A number of indicative acts, conditions and
- It may be proved by circumstantial evidence but it must be proved
with as much certainty as the crime itself.
- It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
was committed
Rule on Qualifying or Aggravating Evidence:
- It must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner.
- It must be proved as conclusively as the acts constituting the offense.
Rule on Proving Self-defense
- The one claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own
defense and not on the weakness of the prosecution
- Self-defense must be proved by clear and convincing evidence
Rule on Alibi
- Alibi is one of the weakest defense since it is easily susceptible of
concoction hence must be viewed w/ suspicion
- It may be considered ONLY: by positive, clear and satisfactory
- The accused must not only prove his alibi but also that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime
- Such defense becomes weaker when not corroborated
- Still, the prosecution still has the onus probandi in establishing the
guilt of the accused and the weakness of the defense does not relieve
it from such responsibility
- Defense of alibi must be predicated on substantial and reliable
evidence sufficient and reliable to engender reasonable doubt
Note: When the accused withdraws his appeal after realizing the futility of
his defense and the other escapes from confinement said acts are
unmistakable signs of guilt.
- Flight of the accused is evidence of guilt; however, non-flight is not
indicative of innocence.
Rules on Inconsistent or Contradictory testimony
- If they refer to mere insignificant details they do not materially
impair the credibility of witness

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

68 | P a t i o , E r i c a


It does not affect the material points.

They indicate veracity rather than prevarication and only
tend to bolster the probative value of such testimony

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus: When testimony is believed in part

and disbelieved in part depending upon the corroborative evidence and the
probabilities of the case
- Deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of
law. It is not an absolute one nor mandatory and binding upon the
court which may accept or reject the witnesses testimony
- Does NOT Apply:
o When the challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated
on many grounds
o When such mistakes do not arise from an apparent desire to
pervert the truth but from innocent lapses and the desire of
the witness to exculpate himself although not completely
Rules on Corroborative Testimonies
- Non-production of a corroborative witness w/o any explanation
weakens the testimony of the witness to be corroborated
- Corroboration is NOT required in the crime of rape (EXC. when the
point at issue is whether the act was committed w/ or w/o the use of
force or threat such testimony should be scrutinized with the
greatest caution)
Note: The testimony of persons accidentally present at the time of the
execution of the will is not weighty as that of the subscribing witness
Affirmative Testimony v. Negative Testimony
- Affirmative testimony has greater weight than negative testimony
- Negative testimony cannot prevail over positive statements
- In weighing contradictory declarations greater weight is given to
positive testimony
Note: Witnesses admittedly present while a fact is taking place may not
coincide in describing all the details of the occurrence. It doesnt necessarily
imply falsehood.
Effect of Falsehood
- When a party resorts to falsehood to advance his suit it is presumed
that he knows perfectly well that his cause is groundless

Falsehood, fraud, fabrication or suppression of evidence are receivable as

indications of his consciousness that his cause is weak or unfounded

Rules on Affidavits
- They are subordinated in importance to open court declarations
(Since they are oftentimes executed when the affiant is at a high pitch of
excitement and when his mental state is not as to afford him a fair
opportunity of narrating in full the incident when it transpired)
- They are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in
mind (since the are generally prepared by the administering officer)
- Ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete, hence discrepancies
between the statements of the affiant and that made on the witness stand
do not necessarily discredit him
- It is an affidavit is only prima facie evidence of weak probative force
- When the affidavit is inconsistent with the testimony the latter is
invariably believed.
- Omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent.
Note: These rules do not apply when the omission in the affidavit refers to a
very important detail
Non-Payment of Taxes: Indicative of the fact that the claimant does not
believe himself to be the owner of the property.
Continuous Payment: Great weight in favor of ownership
Tax declarations: NOT conclusive evidence of ownership BUT if
accompanied by open, adverse and continued possession in the concept of an
owner they constitute evidence of great weight
On the Motive of the Accused in a Criminal Case
GR: Motive is immaterial and since it is not an element of a crime it need
not be proved
- Mere proof of motive, no matter how string, cannot sustain a
conviction if there is no other evidence establishing the guilt of the
EXC: Evidence of motive is relevant or essential in the ff instances:
1. When the identity of the assailant is in question
2. To determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the sanity of the
3. To determine from which side the unlawful aggression commenced, as
where the accused invoked self-defense wherein unlawful aggression on
the part of his opponent is an essential element

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

69 | P a t i o , E r i c a

4. To determine the specific nature of the crime committed (ex. When

murder is during a rebellion)
5. To determine whether a shooting was intentional or accidental
6. When the accused contends that he acted in defense of a stranger since
he must not have been motivated by revenge
7. When the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is a doubt
whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has
committed it.
8. When it is an element of the offense (ex. To show malice in libel)
Rule on Identification of Suspects: The Totality of Circumstances Test
- Such test utilizes the following factors
1. The witness opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime
2. The witness degree of attention at that time
3. The accuracy of any prior description given by the witness
4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the
5. The length of time between the crime and the identification and
6. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure
12 Danger Signals That the Identification May be Erroneous
1. The witness originally stated that he could not identify anyone
2. The witness knew the accused before the crime but made no
accusation against him when questioned by the police
3. A serious discrepancy exists between the witness original
description and his actual description of the accused
4. Before identifying the accused at the trial, the witness erroneously
identified some other person
5. Other witnesses of the crime fail to identify the accused
6. Before trial, the witness sees the accused but fails to identity him
7. Before the commission of the crime, the witness had limited
opportunity to see the accused
8. The witness and the person identified are of different racial groups
9. During his original observation of the offender, the witness was
unaware that a crime was involved
10. A considerable time elapsed between the witness view and his
identification of the accused
11. Several persons committed the crime
12. The witness failed to make a positive trial identification
Res Ipsa Loquitor (the thing speaks for itself)

Rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury taken with the
surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a
presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiffs prima facie case
The rule is however, considered as merely evidentiary or in the
nature of a procedural rule the application does NOT dispense with
the requisite of proof of negligence.

Sec. 3.Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction.

An extrajudicial confession made by an accused:
- shall not be sufficient ground for conviction,
- UNLESS corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
Corpus Delicti, defined: Actual commission of someone of the particular
crime charged.
- Literally means The body or the substance of the crime
- It is the actual commission by someone of the particular crimes
1. The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the
criminal charge and
2. The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result
(someone criminally responsible)
Note: The identity of the accuse is NOT a necessary element
How Proved?: When the evidence on record shows that the crime prosecute
had been committed
Corpus Delicti in THEFT
1. That the property was lost by the owner and
2. That it was lost by a felonious taking
Note: The fact of the crime of theft may be established even w/o recovery of
the thing stolen
1. The existence of the firearm
2. That it has been actually held with animus possidendi by the accused
w/o the corresponding license.
Corpus Delicti in MURDER
- The fact of death

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

70 | P a t i o , E r i c a

Note: If there is doubt as to the identity of the cadaver there is no

corpus delicti

Requirement of Independent Evidence of the Corpus Delicti

- Mere EX-J confession uncorroborated by independent proof of
corpus delicti is NOT sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction
- The evidence may be circumstantial, but just the same, there must be
some evidence substantiating the confession
- Corpus Delicti is NOT synonymous with the whole charge so as to
require that all the elements of the crime be established (Hence for a
complex crime of robbery with murder corpus delicti of only
murder will still be admissible although there is no independent
evidence of robbery)

Note: Not only prior and coetaneous actuations of the accused in relation to
the crime but also his acts or conduct after thereto can be considered as CE of
Note: Motive becomes important when the evidence of the crime is purely
Sec. 5.Substantial evidence.
In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
deemed established IF:
- it is supported by substantial evidence, or
- that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)

Sec. 4.Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a)There is more than one circumstance;
(b)The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c)The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (5)
In Order to Convict on the Strength of Circumstantial Evidence (CE)
- It is incumbent on the prosecution to present such CE which will and
must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of
the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
GR: CE is sufficient even for a capital offense
EXC: When the law specified the species and quantum of evidence (ex.
When CE does NOT suffice to sustain conviction:
- Falsification
- Bigamy, adultery, parricide (evidence of 1st marriage is necessary),
- libel through written publications

Note: Substantial Evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as

required in ordinary civil cases, but:
1. That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion or
2. Evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent man in the
conduct of their affiants
In Civil Cases: The proponent must establish the case by preponderance of
- If there is an equiponderance of evidence (same weight) the court
will find for the defendant same rule will apply in criminal cases
if there is an equiponderance , the prosecution will lose
Sec. 6.Power of the court to stop further evidence.
The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular
point when:
- the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the
same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally
- But this power should be exercised with caution. (6)
Note: The court has the power to stop the introduction of testimony which
will merely be cumulative
Sec. 7.Evidence on motion.

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

71 | P a t i o , E r i c a

When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record:

- the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented
by the respective parties,
- BUT the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly
on oral testimony or depositions. (7)
Note: If the affidavits contradict each other on matters of fact the court can
have no basis to make its findings of fact and the prudent course is to subject
the affiants to cross-examination

Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010 [This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda not plagiarized you fuckers!]

72 | P a t i o , E r i c a