RULE 128

EVIDENCE defined-

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding

the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Sources of Rules of Evidence

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

Rules 128 and 133 of the Revised Rules of Court
Resolution of the Supreme Court dated March 14, 1989 approving the Proposed Rules
on Evidence submitted by the Rules of Court Revision Committee on August 31, 1987
Rule 115, Section 1, Formerly Rule III, Section 1 of the Rules of Court (Right of defendant
at the trial);
Substantive and Remedial Statutes;
Judicial decisions

THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE ONLY IN JUDICIAL

PROCEEDINGS

The means of ascertaining in a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of

fact.

The decision of a barrio council, respecting the settlement of ownership and possession
of a parcel of land, is ultra vires because a barrio councils, which are not courts, have no
judicial powers. Miguel v Catalino,20 SCRA 234

Therefore, said decision, if introduced as an exhibit is not admissible in a judicial

proceeding as evidence for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact of
ownership and possession. Supra

TRUTH IS BEST ASCERTAINED UNDER AN ADVERSARY SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. Republic v

Valencia, 141 SCRA 462

EVIDENCE distinguished from:

PROOF-
 Refers to the degree or kind of evidence which will produce full conviction, or establish
the proposition to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Proof is the effect or result of
evidence while evidence is the medium of proof.

TESTIMONY-

That kind of evidence which in a trial is presented by witnesses verbally. Evidence is the
generic term and testimony that of the species.

ARGUMENT-

Argument and evidence, taken together, represent the means by which the tribunal is
sought to be persuaded as to some fact-in-issue.

FACTUM PROBANDUM distinguished from FACTUM PROBANS:

FACTUM PROBANDUM (Fact in issue)-

The ultimate fact or the fact sought to be established

Refers to proposition

FACTUM PROBANS-

Is the evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum probandum is to be

established
Materials which establish the proposition

KINDS AND DEGREES OF EVIDENCE

Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence:

DIRECT EVIDENCE that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any
interference or presumption (Lake County vs. Nellon.)

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is the proof of a fact or facts from which taken

either singly or collectively, the existence or a particular fact, in dispute may be
 inferred as a necessary or probable consequence (State vs. Avery, 113, Mo., 475,
494, 21, S.W. 193)

Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence:

PRIMARY EVIDENCE that which the law regards as affording the greatest
certainty of fact in question. Also referred to as the best evidence

SECONDARY EVIDENCE that which is inferior to the primary evidence and is

permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available. Known as the
substitutionary evidence

Positive Evidence and Negative Evidence:

POSITIVE EVIDENCE 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. There is a total disclaimer of personal knowledge, hence without any
representation or disavowal that the fact in question could or could not have
existed or happened. 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.

Corroborative Evidence and Cumulative Evidence:

CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE is additional evidence of a different kind and

character tending to prove the same point (Wyne v. Newman, 75, Va., 811, 817)

Case:

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the victims died because of
stab wounds inflicted by the armed men who entered their residence on the night
of December 4, 1965 remain uncontroverted. XXX Their death certificates
therefore are only corroborative of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
(People vs. Watson (1965))
 CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE evidence of the same kind and to the same stale of
facts.

Case:
Thus, on the issue of the capacity of a boy to write a certain paper, evidence of
his school fellows as to his capacity is cumulative to that of his teachers and
medical men upon the same question. (Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray (Mass. 434))

Prima Facie Evidence and Conclusive Evidence:

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE is that which suffices for the proof of a particular fact,
until contradicted and overcome by other evidence

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is that which is incontrovertible. When evidence is

received which the law does not allow to be contradicted.

Cases:
Accordingly, a party introducing in evidence a letter written by his agent to the
adverse party, is bound by the statements contained therein. (Lilian Realty Co.
v. Erdum, 120 N.Y.S. 749)

In an action to recover money paid in settlement of an account in stock

transactions, plaintiff is bound by his own testimony that the transactions were
gambling transactions, so as to preclude recovery by him. (Atwater v. A.G.
Edwards Brokerage Co, 147 Mo. A. 436, 126 S.W. 822)

Relevant Evidence and Material Evidence:

RELEVANT EVIDENCE evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove

any matter provable in an action. The test is 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 evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined

by the rules of substantive law and pleadings. The test is whether the fact it
intends to prove is an issue or not. As to whether a fact is in issue or not is in
 turn determined by the substantive law, the pleadings, the pre-trial order and by
the admissions or confessions on file

Competent Evidence:
Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by law in a particular case (Porter
v. Valentine)

Irrelevant, Incompetent, Inadmissible, and Immaterial Evidence:

Irrelevant in strictness, signifies that the offered piece of evidence has no

probative value. The rules of circumstantial evidence are what determine the
irrelevancy.

Incompetent, in strictness, signifies that an offered witness is not qualified,

under the rule of testimonial evidence.

Immaterial, in strictness, signifies that the offered evidential fact is excluded by

some rule of evidence, no matter what the rule. The rules of substantive law ad
of pleading are what determine immateriality.

Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal Evidence:

Rebuttal Evidence is that which is given to explain, repel, counteract or

disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party (State v. Silva).
It is also defined as evidence in denial of some affirmative care or fact which the
adverse party has attempted to prove. (Carver v. United States, 160 U.S. 553)

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 of observation of an exhibition, experiment
or demonstration. This is referred to as autoptic preference.

Documentary Evidence:

Evidence supplied by written instruments or derived from conventional symbols,

such as letters, by which ideas are represented on material substances

Testimonial Evidence:

Is that which is submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of a

witness

Expert Evidence:

Is the testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular subject or

department of human activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other persons
(U.S. v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530)

Substantial Evidence:

Is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to justify a conclusion (Philippine Overseas Drilling and Oil
Development Corp. v. Ministry of Labor, 146 SCRA 79)

ROLE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:

What part does the Rules of Evidence play in the whole system of law?

Enforcement of the rules requires the application of the law to an individual

person.

WHAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE DETERMINE:

All rights and liabilities are dependent upon and arise out of facts.
Every judicial proceeding whatever has for its purpose the ascertaining of some
right or liability. If the proceeding is Criminal, the object is to ascertain the
 liability to punishment of the person accused. If the proceeding is Civil, the
object is to ascertain some right of property or status, or the right of one party
and the liability of other to some form of relief.
NECESSITY FOR RULES OF EVIDENCE:

It is necessary that we have Rules of Evidence which will limit the field of matters
that can properly be taken into consideration in determining the guilt or
innocence of the accused, and the law of evidence, as we have, is in the shape of
a set of primary rules for the exclusion of evidence that is logically probative,
which but for such exclusionary rules would be legal evidence, and a further set
of exceptions to these rules.

To facilitate the ascertainment of truth.

GOOD COMMAND OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL:

Cases are not always won by the righteousness of the clients cause but by the
evidence which his counsel presents in court to support his claim or defense

RULES OF EVIDENCE NOT STATIC:

Rules of Evidenceare not static. They are constantly undergoing change, in the
interest of the successful development of the truth. The changes are sometimes
made by the legislatures, sometimes by the Courts.

Section 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.

(Sec. 2, Revised Rules of Court, hereinafter, RROC)

REASONS FOR THE RULE:

The Rules of Evidence must be applied in all courts and in all trials and hearings
for the following:

The relation between the evidentiary fact and a particular proposition is

always the same, without regard to the kind of litigation in which that
proposition becomes material to be proved;
 If the rules of evidence prescribe the best course to arrive at the truth
that must be ad are the same in all cases and in all civilized countries

DIFFERENCE IN THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES:

CIVIL CRIMINAL
Parties attend by The accused
accord attends by
compulsion
There is no Presumption of
presumption as to innocence attends
either party the accused
throughout the
trial until the
same has been
overcome by
prima facie
evidence of his
guilt
An offer to It is an implied
compromise does admission of guilt
not, as a general
rule, amount to an
admission of
liability
Must prove by Guilt beyond
preponderance of reasonable doubt
evidence: Reason
is that there is no
presumption ad
due to the fact that
the proof will only
result in a
judgment of
pecuniary damages

APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF EVIDENCE:

The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before the Labor
Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (Del Rosario & Sons
 Logging Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC, 136 SCRA 669); Employees Compensation
Commission (Philippine Overseas Drilling and Oil Development Corporation vs.
Minister of Labor, 146 SCRA 79); Securities and Exchange Commission;
Commission on Elections (Geromo v. COMELEC, et al., 118 SCRA 165); Agrarian
Cases (Bagsican v. CA, 141 SCRA 226); Immigration Proceedings (Moy Yoke Shue
v. Johnson, 290 Fed. 621); Court of Tax Appeals (Celestino Co. & Company v.
Collector of Internal Revenue, BTA Case No. 195, Oct. 4, 1954, affirmed by the
Supreme Court on Aug. 31, 1956, G.R. No. L 8506); Probation Court; Board of
Transportation; Police Commission; Oil Industry Commission; and other similar
bodies (Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, 2 Phil. 500; Ayala de Roxas v. Case, 8 Phil. 197)

NO VESTED RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN RULES OF EVIDENCE:

There is no vested right of property in rules of evidence. Hence, any evidence

inadmissible according to the laws in force at the time the action accrued, but
admissible according to the laws in force at the time of the trial, is receivable.

RULES OF EVIDENCE SANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE ALTERED BY

LEGISLATION:

A Constitutional provision sanctioning a rule of evidence has the legal effect of

making it unalterable by ordinary statutory legislation.

RULES OF EVIDENCE MAY BE WAIVED (when available):

The parties may waive such rules during the trial of a case
The can also make the waiver in a contract

Case:

A contract of insurance requiring the testimony of eyewitness as the only evidence

admissible concerning the death of the insured person is valid. (National Acc. Soc.
V. Ralstin, 101, Ill. App., 192; Connel v. Travelling Mens Assn, 139, 444 N.W. 820)

Contract waiving the privilege against the disclosure of confidential

communications made by a patient to a physician is also valid. (Keeler v. Iss. Co., 95
Mo. App., 627, 69 S.W. 612)
 However, if the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been established by law
on grounds of public policy, the waiver is void. Accordingly, the waiver of the
privilege against the disclosure of state secrets is void. (Rowland v. Rowland, 40 N.I.
Eq., 281)

POLICY TO BE OBSERVED BY COURTS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES OF

EVIDENCE:

Reception of evidence of doubtful admissibility is in the long run the less harmful
course, since all materials necessary for final adjudication would come before
the appellate tribunals (Obispo, et. Al. vs. Obispo, 50 O.G. 614)

Case:Trial courts are enjoined to observe the strict enforcement of the rules of
evidence which crystallized through constant use and practice and are very useful
and effective aids in the search for truth and for the effective administration of
justice. But in connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful
relevancy or incompetency or admissibility, it is the safest policy to be liberal, not
rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting themxxx (Banaria
v. Banaria, et. al., CA. No. 4142, May 31, 1950)

Even in case of doubt as to the materiality or relevancy of such question, it would

be more in keeping with the administration of justice to allow the answer to such
question and render the ruling as to its admissibility when all evidence are in.
(People v. Jaca, et al., G.R. No. L-10971, Nov. 28, 1959)

Where a judge is in doubt as to the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence,

he should declare in favor of admissibility rather than non-admissibility. (The
Collector v. Palakadhari, 12 A. (1899))

RULE 128, Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence.

1. Requisites of admissibility of evidence.

a. Evidence is relevant to the issue

b. Evidence is competent, that is, it does not belong to that class of evidence
which is excluded by the law or the Rules of Evidence

Cases:
 People vs. Soriaga (G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011). The non-compliance with
Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs
inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule
which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be
admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the
courts.

BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010). The testimony of
Marasigan on the particulars of respondents supposed bank account with
Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks
adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by
operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as
they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the
prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.

2. Two axioms of Admissibility

a. None but facts having rational probative value are admissible. It

prescribes that whatever is presented as evidence shall be presented on the
hypothesis that it is calculated, according to the prevailing standards of
reasoning, to effect rational persuasion.

b. All facts having rational probative value are admissible, unless some
specific rule forbids. This principle does not mean that anything that has
probative value is admissible. But everything having a probative value is ipso
facto entitled to be assumed to be admissible, and therefore any rule of
policy which may be valid to exclude it is a superadded and abnormal rule.

3. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from weight of evidence

Admissibility of Evidence Weight of Evidence

 The admissibility of evidence is The weight of evidence has to do with
determined by its relevance and the effect of evidence admitted, its
competence. tendency to convince and persuade.

The admissibility of evidence does not The weight of evidence is not

depend on its weight and sufficiency;
credibility and weight being questions of
fact.
determined mathematically by numerical
superiority of witnesses testifying to a
given fact, but depends upon its practical
effect in inducing belief on the part of
the judge trying the case.

It involves credibility of witnesses and all

inherent probabilities and improbabilities
deducible from the evidence as a whole.

ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by way of defense, he attempts to
establish an alibi.
1. His mother testifies that he was at home in bed at the time the
murder was committed; or
2. A distinguished physician testifies that he was attending the
defendant in his home at the time the murder was committed.

As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally admissible. But it is likely that
the court would give greater weight to the testimony of a disinterested physician
than of a mother, who might be expected to commit perjury in an effort to save
her son.

Case:
Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011). Admissibility of evidence
refers to the question whether or not the circumstance or evidence is to be
considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to
the question of whether or not it proves an issue.

4. Types of Admissibility

A. Multiple Admissibility of Evidence.

 When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as it satisfies all
rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other
rule which would be applicable to it if offered for another purpose does not exclude
it.

B. Conditional Admissibility of Evidence.

Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected under the issues that the
relevancy of one depends upon another not yet received, and the party is unable to
introduce them both at the same moment, the offering counsel may be required by
the court as a condition precedent (1) to state the supposed connecting facts, and
(2) to promise to give the evidence later.

Effect if condition precedent is not fulfilled:

Upon motion by the opposite party, the court may strike out the evidence
thus conditionally admitted

C. Curative Admissibility of Evidence.

Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one party and received without
objection and the opponents afterwards, for the purpose of negativing or explaining
or otherwise counteracting, offers a fact similarly inadmissible, such fact is
admissible if it serves to remove an unfair effect upon the court which might
otherwise ensue from the original fact.

5. Rules of Exclusion and Exclusionary Rules

Rules of Exclusion Exclusionary Rules

Governed by the rules of evidence Evidence excluded by the Constitution

Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19, 2004). Note that Rule 24,
Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for sanctions against
persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it
state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render said
records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence
only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal
searches and seizures. Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from
evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents are, therefore,
admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this
administrative case against the respondent.

A. Admissibility of Telephone Conversations.

Unless otherwise objectionable, a telephone conversation between a witness and

another person is admissible in any case in which a face to face conversation
between a witness and another person would be admissible in evidence, provided
that the identity of the person with whom the witness was speaking is satisfactorily
established, but not otherwise.

Proof of Identity through witness recognition of the voice of the person with
whom he was speaking, however, it may be established by means other than the
recognition of the voice.

B. Admissibility of radio broadcast.

Evidence of a message or a speech by means of radio broadcast is admissible as

evidence when the identity of the speaker is established by the following:
By the testimony of a witness who saw him broadcast his message or speech
By the witness recognition of the voice of the speaker

C. Admissibility of wiretapping and tape recordings.

Recording of conversations, statement, confessions, speech, and the sounds of

various kinds, are admissible in evidence, subject of course, to the general rules
relating to hearsay, best evidence, relevancy, privilege and the like, and subject to
the proper authentication by foundation testimony.

1. The wiretapping and other related violations of the privacy of communications

are prohibited and penalized by Republic Act No. 4200.

REPUBLIC ACT 4200, ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT

A. UNLAWFUL ACTS
1. Section 1, par 1.
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to
any private communication or spoken word,
to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken
word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph
or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described
2. Section 1, par 2.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the
act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence,

to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any
other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken
word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the
manner prohibited by this law; or
to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate
the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person

Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence
in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section
3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.

3. Section 2.
Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or
cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding
section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any
order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation.

B. EXEMPTED ACTS
1. Section 3, par 1. Any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order
of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases
involving:
crimes of treason,
espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy,
 mutiny in the high seas,
rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion,
sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage
and other offenses against national security

Requirements:
That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written
application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing:
1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the
crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being
committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in
cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit
sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only
upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may
be, have actually been or are being committed;
2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be
obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the
solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and
3. That there are no other means readily available for obtaining such
evidence.

2. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of

Communications.
(Section 7, Republic Act No. 9372, Human security Act)
The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the
contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the
members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals,
listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or
type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and
tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means
 for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion,
or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared
and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or
of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of

communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients,
journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence
shall not be authorized.

C. Admissibility

Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance,

purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation
of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in
any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation. (Section 4, R. A. 4200)

Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112. The law refers to a tap of wire or cable
or the use of a device or arrangement for the purpose of secretly overhearing,
intercepting, or recording the communication The extension telephone cannot
be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices
enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be
considered as tapping the wire not installed for that purpose.

2. Requisites to be established before a recording of conversation can be given

probative value:
a. A showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony;
b. A showing that the operator of the device was competent;
c. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording;
d. A showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made;
e. A showing of manner of the preservation of the recording;
f. Identification of the speakers; and
g. A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind
of inducement
D. Admissibility of evidence illegally seized.

Rights protected under Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution:
1. Right against unreasonable search and seizure. ( Sec. 2)
2. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication ( Sec. 3)
3. Right of a person under investigation for an offense (Sec. 12)
4. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17)

Case:
Ambre vs. People (G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012). Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or
on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable
cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the
meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and confiscated on
the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the language of the
fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.

This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of
the recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a
lawful arrest. In this exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must
precede the search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.

E. Admissibility of Electronic Documents.

An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:
1. It complies with the Rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules and
related laws; and
2. It is authenticated in the manner by the Rules on Electronic Evidence

F. Scientific Detection Devices.

1. Lie detector
2. Speed detection and recording devices
3. Chemical tests for drunkenness
4. Truth serums and hypnosis
5. Blood grouping tests
RULE 128, Section 4. Relevancy; Collateral maters.

1. Relevancy of Evidence

a. Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue; or to a fact

which, by the process of logic, an inference may be made as to the existence
or non-existence of a fact in issue.
b. Evidentiary facts are relevant where there is such rational and logical
connection between them and the matter in issue that proof of the former
logically tends to make the latter more probable or improbable, that is,
where the facts offered in evidence have a legitimate tendency to establish
the truth concerning a controversial issue.

Case:
Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005). Evidence is admissible when it
is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the
Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule 130,
which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the opinion of
a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not
pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed,
even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

2. Test of Relevancy

a. Every fact or circumstance tending to throw light on the issue is logically

inferable
b. Any circumstance is relevant from which tends to make the proposition at
issue more or less probable, or which is calculated to explain or establish
facts pertinent to the inquiry
c. The test is whether the evidence conduces to the proof of a pertinent
hypothesis being one which, if sustained, would logically influence the issue
d. Facts are relevant if they fairly tend to prove the offense charged
e. The test is the connection between the fact proved and the offense charged.

3. Relevancy does not generally depend upon its source.

 Whether evidence offered is relevant does not, as a general rule, depend upon its
source. Neither does relevancy depend upon the importance or weight of the
evidence, weight being a matter for the court.

4. Logical relevancy distinguished form legal relevancy

Logical relevancy Legal Relevancy

Means that evidence must be absolutely
essential to the fact in issue.
The main condition of admissibility
Requires a higher standard of evidentiary
force and includes logical relevancy.
All rules excluding evidence which is
logically relevant are exceptions to the
general rule.
The attribute of all those logically
relevant matters which are not declared
inadmissible by one or more of the
excluding rules.

Case:
People vs. Yatar (G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004). Generally, courts should only
consider and rely upon duly established evidence and never on mere conjectures
or suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes "something more than
a minimum of probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must
contain a "plus value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from
being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being exaggerated by
prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence without "plus value" may be logically
relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court
to balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely harm that
would result from its admission.

5. Issue defined.

It is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the pleadings which one
side affirms, and the other denies. Issues arise upon the pleading where a fact or
conclusion of law is maintained by one party, and is controverted by the other.

6. Fact defined

It is a thing done, or existing. Facts are thus either:

a. Physical, e.g. the existence of visible objects
b. Psychological, e.g. the intention or animus of a particular individual in doing a
particular act
7. Facts in issue as distinguished from facts relevant to the case

Facts in issue Facts relevant to the issue

Those facts the truth or existence of Facts from the existence of which
which the right or liability to be inference as to the truth or existence of
ascertained in the proceeding depends the right or liability to be ascertained
may logically be drawn

8. Collateral facts defined

Those facts which are outside of the controversy, or are not directly connected
with the principal matter in issue in dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the
parties.

9. Collateral facts in evidence

General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they tend to draw away the
mind of the court and to prejudice and mislead it.

Exception: Evidence on collateral matters shall be allowed when it tends in any

reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

Relevant collateral matters:

a. Intention to commit crime
b. Motive and absence of motive
c. Circumstances preceding the crime
d. Guilty knowledge
e. Plan, design or conspiracy
f. Opportunity
g. Alibi
h. Value

10. Probability and improbability of evidential fact

The truth of any statement of fact may be considered from the standpoint of the
probability or improbability of the fact per se. Its probability or improbability is to be
measured by the degree with which the fact as stated accords with the general
experience of mankind.

RULE 128, Sec. 3.Admissibility of evidence.

6. Requisites of admissibility of evidence.

a. Evidence is relevant to the issue

b. Evidence is competent, that is, it does not belong to that class of evidence
which is excluded by the law or the Rules of Evidence

Cases:
People vs. Soriaga (G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011). The non-compliance with
Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs
inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule
which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be
admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the
courts.

BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010). The testimony of
Marasigan on the particulars of respondents supposed bank account with
Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks
adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by
operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as
they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the
prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.

7. Two axioms of Admissibility

a. None but facts having rational probative value are admissible. It

prescribes that whatever is presented as evidence shall be presented on the
hypothesis that it is calculated, according to the prevailing standards of
reasoning, to effect rational persuasion.

b. All facts having rational probative value are admissible, unless some
specific rule forbids. This principle does not mean that anything that has
probative value is admissible. But everything having a probative value is ipso
facto entitled to be assumed to be admissible, and therefore any rule of
policy which may be valid to exclude it is a superadded and abnormal rule.
8. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from weight of evidence

Admissibility of Evidence Weight of Evidence

The admissibility of evidence is The weight of evidence has to do with

determined by its relevance and the effect of evidence admitted, its
competence. tendency to convince and persuade.

The admissibility of evidence does not The weight of evidence is not

depend on its weight and sufficiency;
credibility and weight being questions of
fact.
determined mathematically by numerical
superiority of witnesses testifying to a
given fact, but depends upon its practical
effect in inducing belief on the part of
the judge trying the case.

It involves credibility of witnesses and all

inherent probabilities and improbabilities
deducible from the evidence as a whole.
ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by way of defense, he attempts to
establish an alibi.
1. His mother testifies that he was at home in bed at the time the
murder was committed; or
2. A distinguished physician testifies that he was attending the
defendant in his home at the time the murder was committed.

As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally admissible. But it is likely that
the court would give greater weight to the testimony of a disinterested physician
than of a mother, who might be expected to commit perjury in an effort to save
her son.

Case:
Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011). Admissibility of evidence
refers to the question whether or not the circumstance or evidence is to be
 considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to
the question of whether or not it proves an issue.

9. Types of Admissibility

A. Multiple Admissibility of Evidence.

When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as it satisfies all
rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other
rule which would be applicable to it if offered for another purpose does not exclude
it.

B. Conditional Admissibility of Evidence.

Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected under the issues that the
relevancy of one depends upon another not yet received, and the party is unable to
introduce them both at the same moment, the offering counsel may be required by
the court as a condition precedent (1) to state the supposed connecting facts, and
(2) to promise to give the evidence later.

Effect if condition precedent is not fulfilled:

Upon motion by the opposite party, the court may strike out the
evidence thus conditionally admitted

C. Curative Admissibility of Evidence.

Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one party and received without
objection and the opponents afterwards, for the purpose of negativing or explaining
or otherwise counteracting, offers a fact similarly inadmissible, such fact is
admissible if it serves to remove an unfair effect upon the court which might
otherwise ensue from the original fact.

10. Rules of Exclusion and Exclusionary Rules

 Rules of Exclusion Exclusionary Rules

Governed by the rules of evidence Evidence excluded by the Constitution

Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19, 2004). Note that Rule
24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for sanctions against
persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it
state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render
said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of
Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of
illegal searches and seizures.Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1,
series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the
exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public
documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into
consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against the
respondent.

G. Admissibility of Telephone Conversations.

Unless otherwise objectionable, a telephone conversation between a witness and

another person is admissible in any case in which a face to face conversation
between a witness and another person would be admissible in evidence, provided
that the identity of the person with whom the witness was speaking is satisfactorily
established, but not otherwise.

Proof of Identity through witness recognition of the voice of the

person with whom he was speaking, however, it may be established by
means other than the recognition of the voice.

H. Admissibility of radio broadcast.

Evidence of a message or a speech by means of radio broadcast is admissible as

evidence when the identity of the speaker is established by the following:
 By the testimony of a witness who saw him broadcast his message or
speech
By the witness recognition of the voice of the speaker

I. Admissibility of wiretapping and tape recordings.

Recording of conversations, statement, confessions, speech, and the sounds of

various kinds, are admissible in evidence, subject of course, to the general rules
relating to hearsay, best evidence, relevancy, privilege and the like, and subject to
the proper authentication by foundation testimony.

3. The wiretapping and other related violations of the privacy of communications

are prohibited and penalized by Republic Act No. 4200.

REPUBLIC ACT 4200, ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT

D. UNLAWFUL ACTS
4. Section 1, par 1.
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties
to any private communication or spoken word,
to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken
word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph
or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described
5. Section 1, par 2.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the
act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence,
to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any
other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken
word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the
manner prohibited by this law; or
to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate
the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person

Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence
in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section
3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
 6. Section 2.
Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or
cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding
section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any
order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation.

E. EXEMPTED ACTS
3. Section 3, par 1.Any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order
of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases
involving:
crimes of treason,
espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy,
mutiny in the high seas,
rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion,
sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage
and other offenses against national security

Requirements:
That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written
application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing:
1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the
crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being
committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in
cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit
sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only
upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may
be, have actually been or are being committed;
 2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be
obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the
solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and
3. That there are no other means readily available for obtaining such
evidence.

4. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of

Communications.
(Section 7, Republic Act No. 9372, Human security Act)
The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the
contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the
members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals,
listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or
type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and
tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means
for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion,
or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared
and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or
of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of

communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients,
journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence
shall not be authorized.

F. Admissibility

Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance,

purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation
of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in
any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation. (Section 4, R. A. 4200)

Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112.The law refers to a tap of wire or cable or
the use of a device or arrangement for the purpose of secretly overhearing,
intercepting, or recording the communication The extension telephone cannot
 be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices
enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be
considered as tapping the wire not installed for that purpose.

4. Requisites to be established before a recording of conversation can be given

probative value:
h. A showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony;
i. A showing that the operator of the device was competent;
j. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording;
k. A showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made;
l. A showing of manner of the preservation of the recording;
m. Identification of the speakers; and
n. A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any
kind of inducement

J. Admissibility of evidence illegally seized.

Rights protected under Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution:
5. Right against unreasonable search and seizure. ( Sec. 2)
6. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication ( Sec. 3)
7. Right of a person under investigation for an offense (Sec. 12)
8. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17)

Case:
Ambre vs. People (G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012).Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or
on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable
cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the
meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and confiscated on
the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the language of the
fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.

This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of
the recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a
lawful arrest. In this exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must
 precede the search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.

K. Admissibility of Electronic Documents.

An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:
3. It complies with the Rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules and
related laws; and
4. It is authenticated in the manner by the Rules on Electronic Evidence

L. Scientific Detection Devices.

6. Lie detector
7. Speed detection and recording devices
8. Chemical tests for drunkenness
9. Truth serums and hypnosis
10. Blood grouping tests

RULE 128, Section 4.Relevancy; Collateral maters.

11. Relevancy of Evidence

c. Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue; or to a fact

which, by the process of logic, an inference may be made as to the existence
or non-existence of a fact in issue.
d. Evidentiary facts are relevant where there is such rational and logical
connection between them and the matter in issue that proof of the former
logically tends to make the latter more probable or improbable, that is,
where the facts offered in evidence have a legitimate tendency to establish
the truth concerning a controversial issue.

Case:
Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005).Evidence is admissible when it
is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the
Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule 130,
which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the opinion of
a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not
pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed,
even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
12. Test of Relevancy

a. Every fact or circumstance tending to throw light on the issue is logically

inferable
b. Any circumstance is relevant from which tends to make the proposition at
issue more or less probable, or which is calculated to explain or establish
facts pertinent to the inquiry
c. The test is whether the evidence conduces to the proof of a pertinent
hypothesis being one which, if sustained, would logically influence the issue
d. Facts are relevant if they fairly tend to prove the offense charged
e. The test is the connection between the fact proved and the offense charged.

13. Relevancy does not generally depend upon its source.

Whether evidence offered is relevant does not, as a general rule, depend upon its
source. Neither does relevancy depend upon the importance or weight of the
evidence, weight being a matter for the court.

14. Logical relevancy distinguished form legal relevancy

Logical relevancy Legal Relevancy

Means that evidence must be absolutely
essential to the fact in issue.
The main condition of admissibility
Requires a higher standard of evidentiary
force and includes logical relevancy.
All rules excluding evidence which is
logically relevant are exceptions to the
general rule.
The attribute of all those logically
relevant matters which are not declared
inadmissible by one or more of the
excluding rules.
Case:
People vs. Yatar (G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004). Generally, courts should only
consider and rely upon duly established evidence and never on mere conjectures
or suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes "something more than
a minimum of probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must
contain a "plus value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from
being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being exaggerated by
prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence without "plus value" may be logically
relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court
to balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely harm that
would result from its admission.

15. Issue defined.

It is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the pleadings which one side
affirms, and the other denies. Issues arise upon the pleading where a fact or
conclusion of law is maintained by one party, and is controverted by the other.

16. Fact defined

It is a thing done, or existing. Facts are thus either:

c. Physical, e.g. the existence of visible objects
d. Psychological, e.g. the intention or animus of a particular individual in doing a
particular act

17. Facts in issue as distinguished from facts relevant to the case

Facts in issue Facts relevant to the issue

Those facts the truth or existence of Facts from the existence of which
which the right or liability to be inference as to the truth or existence of
ascertained in the proceeding depends the right or liability to be ascertained
may logically be drawn
18. Collateral facts defined

Those facts which are outside of the controversy, or are not directly connected
with the principal matter in issue in dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the
parties.

19. Collateral facts in evidence

General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they tend to draw away the
mind of the court and to prejudice and mislead it.

Exception: Evidence on collateral matters shall be allowed when it tends in any

reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

Relevant collateral matters:

i. Intention to commit crime
j. Motive and absence of motive
k. Circumstances preceding the crime
l. Guilty knowledge
m. Plan, design or conspiracy
n. Opportunity
o. Alibi
p. Value

20. Probability and improbability of evidential fact

The truth of any statement of fact may be considered from the standpoint of the
probability or improbability of the fact per se. Its probability or improbability is to be
measured by the degree with which the fact as stated accords with the general
experience of mankind.

G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLLY SORIAGA y STO. DOMINGO

For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to
the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts.

FACTS:
Pursuant to a buy-bust operation conducted by the police, Soriaga was placed under
arrest and brought to the office of the Anti-illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force.
The evidence seized was turned over to police investigator PO2 Reynaldo Juan. An
examination was conducted on the contents of the plastic sachet which tested positive
for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.Soriaga was charged with Violation of Section 5,
Art. II, RA 9165. In addition to the above-mentioned charge, Soriaga was indicted for
illegal use of dangerous drugs under Section 15, Article II, also of R.A. No. 9165. The trial
court rendered a decision acquitting Soriaga of this charge of illegal use of dangerous
drugs but finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegally selling
dangerous drugs. Soriaga appealed the decision arguing that that buy-bust team failed
to comply with the requisites of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its
implementing rules requiring the immediate inventory and photograph of the items
seized in the buy-bust operation. Further, Soriaga proceeds to question the chain of
custody of the seized shabu.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the non-compliance with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of
seized drugs render the items seized or confiscated inadmissible as evidence.

HELD:

No. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are
resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution
of their criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to
be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken."

The that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the
inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render
the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule which forbids
its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only
to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts.

There is no provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the
non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with
said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value
to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence
depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.

G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010

BSB GROUP, INC., represented by its President, Mr. RICARDO BANGAYAN, vs.
SALLY GO a.k.a. SALLY GO-BANGAYAN

The testimony and the documentary evidence presented are not only incompetent for
being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case,
inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the
prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.

FACTS:

Respondent Sally Go, cashier of petioner BSB Group, Inc. was charged with qualified
theft. On the premise that respondent had allegedly encashed the subject checks and
deposited the corresponding amounts thereof to her personal banking account, the
prosecution moved for the issuance of subpoena ducestecum /ad testificandum against
the respective managers or records custodians of Security Bank and Metrobank which
was granted by the trial court. The prosecution was able to present in court the
testimony of ElenitaMarasigan, the representative of Security Bank whose testimony
sought to prove that respondent, while engaged as cashier at the BSB Group, Inc., was
able to run away with the checks issued to the company by its customers, endorse the
same, and credit the corresponding amounts to her personal deposit account with
Security Bank. In the course of the testimony, the subject checks were presented to
Marasigan for identification and marking as the same checks received by respondent,
endorsed, and then deposited in her personal account with Security Bank. But before
the testimony could be completed, respondent filed a Motion to Suppress, seeking the
exclusion of Marasigans testimony and accompanying documents thus far received,
bearing on the subject Security Bank account. This time respondent invokes, in addition
to irrelevancy, the privilege of confidentiality under R.A. No. 1405. The trial court in its
order denied respondents motion to suppress.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of Marasigan and the accompanying documents are
irrelevant to the case, and whether they are also violative of the absolutely confidential
nature of bank deposits and, hence, excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405.

HELD:

Yes. In taking exclusion from the coverage of the confidentiality rule, petitioner in the
instant case posits that the account maintained by respondent with Security Bank
contains the proceeds of the checks that she has fraudulently appropriated to herself
and, thus, falls under one of the exceptions in Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 that the money
kept in said account is the subject matter in litigation. What indeed constitutes the
subject matter in litigation in relation to Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 has been pointedly
and amply addressed in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, in which the
Court noted that the inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No. 1405 must be
premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the
action. Given this perspective, the subject matter of the action in the case at bar is to be
determined from the indictment that charges respondent with the offense, and not
from the evidence sought by the prosecution to be admitted into the records. In the
criminal Information filed with the trial court, respondent, unqualifiedly and in plain
language, is charged with qualified theft by abusing petitioners trust and confidence
and stealing cash. The said Information makes no factual allegation that in some
material way involves the checks subject of the testimonial and documentary evidence
sought to be suppressed. Neither do the allegations in said Information make mention
of the supposed bank account in which the funds represented by the checks have
allegedly been kept. It comes clear that the admission of testimonial and documentary
evidence relative to respondents Security Bank account serves no other purpose than
to establish the existence of such account, its nature and the amount kept in it. It
constitutes an attempt by the prosecution at an impermissible inquiry into a bank
deposit account the privacy and confidentiality of which is protected by law. On this
score alone, the objection posed by respondent in her motion to suppress should have
indeed put an end to the controversy at the very first instance it was raised before the
trial court. In sum, the Court holds that the testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of
respondents supposed bank account with Security Bank and the documentary evidence
represented by the checks adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for
being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case,
inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the
prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.
G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011
RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA, vs. BOARD OF MEDICINE and EDITHA SIOSON

Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or not the circumstance or

evidence is to be considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence
refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue.

FACTS:

A complaint for gross negligence was filed before the Board of Medicine against the
doctors, including the petitioner Atienza, who allegedly participated in the fateful kidney
operation which led to the removal of the private respondents functional right kidney
instead of the left non-functioning kidney. The complaint was heard by the BOM. Private
respondent Editha filed her formal offer of documentary evidence, which is offered for
the purpose of proving that her kidneys were both in proper anatomical locations at the
time she was operated. Petitioner objected to the formal offer of exhibits alleging that
they are inadmissible because the same are mere photocopies, not properly identified
and authenticated, and intended to establish matters which are hearsay and
incompetent to prove the purpose for which they are offered. However, the BOM
admitted the documentary exhibits. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the
petitioner but was denied by the BOM. Hence, a petition for certiorari was filed before
the Court of Appeals but was dismissed by the Court.Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the documentary exhibits are inadmissible as evidence and

incompetent?

HELD:

No. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, admissibility of evidence is distinguished from probative
weight of evidence, as:
 Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or not the
circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all. On the other hand, the
probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it
proves an issue.

The fact sought to be established by the admission of Edithas exhibits, that her "kidneys
were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time" of her operation, need not
be proved as it is covered by mandatory judicial notice. The rules of evidence are merely
the means for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact. Thus, they likewise
provide for some facts which are established and need not be proved, such as those
covered by judicial notice, both mandatory and discretionary. Laws of nature involving
the physical sciences, specifically biology, include the structural make-up and
composition of living things such as human beings. In this case, the Court may take
judicial notice that Edithas kidneys before, and at the time of, her operation, as with
most human beings, were in their proper anatomical locations.

ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19, 2004

PEDRO G. TOLENTINO vs. ATTY. NORBERTO M. MENDOZA

Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on
Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in
question, said public documents are, therefore, admissible as evidence.

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Norberto M. Mendoza was administratively charged with Grossly

Immoral Conduct and Gross Misconduct. Complainants alleged that respondent, a
former Municipal Trial Court Judge, abandoned his legal wife, Felicitas V. Valderia in
favor of his paramour, Marilyn delaFuente, who is, in turn, married to one Ramon G.
Marcos. On the other hand, respondent averred that complainants illegally procured
copies of the birth certificates of his alleged daughters Mara
KhrisnaCharminadelaFuente Mendoza and MyrraKhrisnaNorminadelaFuente Mendoza,
in violation of Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993, thus, such documents
are inadmissible in evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not birth certificates are inadmissible in evidence for having been obtained
in violation of Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 which provides for
strict confidentiality of a persons birth record.

HELD:

No. Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that "evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules."
There could be no dispute that the subject birth certificates are relevant to the issue.
The only question, therefore, is whether the law or the rules provide for the
inadmissibility of said birth certificates allegedly for having been obtained in violation of
Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993.

Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for sanctions
against persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does
it state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render said
records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence only
provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and
seizures. It should be emphasized; however, that said rule against unreasonable
searches and seizures is meant only to protect a person from interference by the
government or the state.

Consequently, in this case where complainants, as private individuals, obtained the

subject birth records as evidence against respondent, the protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply.

Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on
Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in
question, said public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken
into consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against respondent.

G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012

MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of the
recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest.
FACTS:

Ambre was charged with the crime of violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165. From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it appeared that on
April 20, 2005, the Caloocan Police Station Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Unit
conducted a buy-bust operation pursuant to a tip from a police, the buy-bust operation
resulted in the arrest of Ambre having pot session, in particular, was caught sniffing
what was suspected to be shabu in a rolled up aluminum foil. The trial court rendered
its decision declaring that the prosecution was able to establish with certitude the guilt
of Ambre for illegal use of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or violation of Section 15,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, however, acquitted Ambre on the crime of violation of
Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for failure of the prosecution to prove with
particularity the drug paraphernalia found in her possession.

ISSUE:

Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of her person was valid; and
whether the items seized are admissible in evidence.

HELD:

Yes. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be
carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the
existence of probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes
"unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained
and confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted
and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the
language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in
any proceeding.

This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of the
recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest.
In this exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a
person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a
valid warrant of arrest.

In this case, there is no gainsaying that Ambre was caught by the police officers in the
act of using shabu and, thus, can be lawfully arrested without a warrant. His conviction
stands.
G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005
ROSENDO HERRERA vs. ROSENDO ALBA

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise
excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.

FACTS:

Thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before the
trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against
petitioner. Petitioner Herrera denied that he is the biological father of respondent and
denied physical contact with respondents mother.Respondent filed a motion to direct
the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings.Petitioner opposed
DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability and further
argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. The trial
court granted respondents motion to conduct DNA paternity testing on petitioner.
Petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
asserting that the trial court acted "in excess of, or without jurisdiction and/or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing the
order of DNA testing, however, the petition was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a DNA test is a valid probative tool to determine filiation and as such be
admissible in evidence in a paternity suit.

HELD:

Yes. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise
excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section
49 of Rule 130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or
training which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not
pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even
evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue."

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider,
among other things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were
handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in
conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. DNA
analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be conclusive proof of
non-paternity. If the value of Probability of Paternity (W) is less than 99.9%, the results
of the DNA analysis should be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of
Probability of Paternity (W) is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable presumption of
paternity.

The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity
and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the
right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid
this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology,
such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules,
and jurisprudence.
G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"

The legal relevancy of evidence denotes "something more than a minimum of

probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must contain a "plus
value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from being satisfied by
matters of slight value, capable of being exaggerated by prejudice and hasty
conclusions. Evidence without "plus value" may be logically relevant but not legally
sufficient to convict.

FACTS:

Joel Yatar was convicted by the trial court with rape with homicide defined and
penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353,
otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, and was accordingly, sentenced to
Death. Pursuant to Article 47 of the revised Penal Code, an automatic review was made,
the appellant alleging that the trial court gravely erred in giving weight to the evidence
presented by the prosecution notwithstanding their doubtfulness and thereby he should
be acquitted from the crime charged due to reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in convicting the accused of
the crime charged on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

HELD:

No. Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a conviction, must form an

unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the
exclusion of others, is the perpetrator of the crime. To determine whether there is
sufficient circumstantial evidence, three requisites must concur: (1) there is more than
one circumstance; (2) facts on which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly established evidence and
never on mere conjectures or suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes
"something more than a minimum of probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary
relevance must contain a "plus value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court
from being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being exaggerated by
prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence without "plus value" may be logically relevant
but not legally sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court to balance the
probative value of such evidence against the likely harm that would result from its
admission.

The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only when there is relevant evidence
from which the court can properly find or infer that the accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty of guilt in
order to sustain a conviction. Moral certainty is that degree of certainty that convinces
and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are
bound to act conscientiously upon it. It is certainty beyond reasonable doubt. This
requires that the circumstances, taken together, should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency; leading, on the whole, to a satisfactory conclusion that the accused, and no
one else, committed the offense charged. In view of the totality of evidence appreciated
thus far, we rule that the present case passes the test of moral certainty.
However, as a matter of procedure, and for the purpose of meeting the requirement of
proof beyond reasonable doubt, motive is essential for conviction when there is doubt
as to the identity of the culprit. Thus, appellants motive to sexually assault and kill the
victim was evident in the instant case. It is a rule in criminal law that motive, being a
state of mind, is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of
the accused before or immediately after the commission of the offense, deeds or words
that may express it or from which his motive or reason for committing it may be
inferred. Accordingly, the Court is convinced that the appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Appellant
sexually assaulted KathylynUba, and by reason or on the occasion thereof, in order to
conceal his lustful deed, permanently sealed the victims lips by stabbing her repeatedly,
thereby causing her untimely demise.

RULE 129

What Need Not Be Proved

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. MANDATORY DISCRETIONARY
A court shall take judicial notice, without
the introduction of evidence of the: -it is mandatory - Under Sec. 2,
as far as those on matters
a. the existence and territorial extent matters which are of
of states; public
enumerated in
b. their political history, forms of knowledge, or
government and symbols of Sec. 1, Rule 129; are capable of
nationality; unquestionable
c. the law of nations; demonstration,
d. the admiralty and maritime courts of ought to be
the world and their seals; known to judges
e. the political constitution and history because of their
of the Philippines the official acts of judicial
legislative, executive and judicial functions.
departments of the Philippines;
f. the laws of nature;
g. the measure of time;
h. and the geographical divisions.

Judicial Notice, defined:

-It is the cognizance of certain facts
which judges may properly take and act on
without proof because they already know
them.
-It is the notice taken by the court,
without the production of evidence, of
facts, which are within common knowledge
and experience.
Note: The application of the doctrine of
judicial notice is not confined to the courts
of record. Certain special tribunals which
are not strictly courts but which partake of
their nature and the findings of which
partake of the nature of judgments may
take judicial notice on certain matters.
Points to Remember:
a. All courts of justice are bound to take
judicial notice of the territorial extent of the
jurisdiction exercised by the government
the laws of which they administer and of
the extent and boundaries of the territory
under which they themselves can exercise
jurisdiction;

b. It is without an exception for the court

KINDS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
to take judicial notice without of those
great historical events which have affected Matters relating to:
the destiny of our nation or other nations; 1. Legislative Courts are bound to
Department take judicial notice,
c. The rule must be taken with the as a matter of law,
qualification that it relates only to such of dates when
governments as have been recognized by Congress begins and
the home government. The recognition of a closes its session,
the number,
foreign government is a political rather than
function, privileges
a judicial matter and therefore courts of its members;
follow the determination of the executive
department of the forum; 2. Executive Courts judicially
Department recognize all public
d. In conformity to the law of nations all matters which will
courts in a government, where that affect the
government has recognized the existence of government of the
a foreign nation, but not in the absence of country. On this
such recognition will take cognizance of the principle, the
accession and death
flag and great seal of that nation or
of the sovereign and
provinces; principal officers of
the state are
e. Foreign law must be proved as facts,
recognized;
those rules which by common consent of
mankind have been acquiesced in as las
stand upon an entirely different footing;

Note: It is well settled that foreign laws do 3. Judiciary The Supreme Court
not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and Department has taken judicial
our courts are not authorized to take notice of its record
judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, in a previous case in
they must be alleged and proved. connection with the
conduct of the
f. No proof need be given of the seals of litigant or witness in
foreign maritime and admiralty courts. By a similar matter.
common consent and general usage, the
General Rule: Courts
seal of a court of admiralty has been are not authorized
considered as sufficiently authenticating its to take judicial
records; knowledge of
contents of the
other cases, in the
adjudication of cases
g. pending before
 them, even though
the trial judge in fact
knows or remember
the contents
thereof;
i. Courts judicially recognize all public
matters which will affect the
government of the country. On this
principle, the accession and death of
the sovereign and principal officers
of the state are recognized;
j. Judicial Notice is taken of the
familiar and unquestionable laws of
nature and of the existence of fact
which happened according to the
course of nature;
k. Courts will judicially notice the
things belonging to the almanac.
Calendar of the periods within the
calendar.
l. Judicial Notice is taken of the fact
that the Philippines is divided into
provinces, municipalities, cities, and
cities is divided into lots, blocks,
streets;
JURISPRUDENCE
Judicial notice may be taken of
petitioner's oath taking as evidenced by
a certification from the Records Officer
of the office of the Provincial Governor.
The oath taking partakes of an official
act, while the certification is an official
act of an official of the Executive
Department of the government.( Lopez
v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 103911)
We uphold the submission that the
factual defenses of petitioner are
matters within the concept of
mandatory judicial notice. While it is
true that, as pontificated by the Court a
quo, factual defenses on the part of the
accused are evidentiary matters which
may be presented only during trial on
the merits, the facts alleged by the
accused are facts admitted, whether
directly or impliedly, in pleadings of the
prosecution.( Lopez v. Sandiganbayan,
GR No. 103911)
Section 2. Judicial notice, when
discretionary, generally:
a. Matters which are of public
knowledge;
- Judicial knowledge of facts is
measured by general knowledge of the
same fact. A fact is generally known
when its existence or operation when it
is accepted by public without
qualification or contention.
The doctrine of judicial notice rests on
the wisdom and discretion of the courts.
The power to take judicial notice is to be
exercised by courts with caution; care
must be taken that the requisite
notoriety exists; and every reasonable
doubt on the subject should be
promptly resolved in the negative.
Generally speaking, matters of judicial
notice have three material requisites:
(1) the matter must be one of common
and general knowledge; (2) it must be
well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be
known to be within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the court. The principal
guide in determining what facts may be
assumed to be judicially known is that
of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that
judicial notice is limited to facts
 evidenced by public records and facts of
general notoriety. (Latip vs. Chua)
Things of "common knowledge," of which
courts take judicial notice, may be matters
coming to the knowledge of men generally
in the course of the ordinary experiences of
life, or they may be matters which are
generally accepted by mankind as true and
are capable of ready and unquestioned
demonstration. Thus, facts which are
universally known, and which may be found
in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other
publications, are judicially noticed, provided
they are of such universal notoriety and so
generally understood that they may be
regarded as forming part of the common
knowledge of every person.( Latip vs. Chua,
GR NO. 177809)
b. Matters capable of Unquestionable
Demonstration
- This refers o facts, theories and
conclusions which have come to be
established and accepted by the
specialists in the areas of natural
science, natural phenomena,
technology, history, geography,
scientifically facts and other fields of
scientific knowledge.
c. Matters ought to be known by
judges by reason of their judicial
function
Judicial Notice of Proceedings in Another
Case.
GENERAL RULE: Court is not authorized to
take judicial notice of the contents of
another case even if said case was heard by
he same judge.
Exception:
1. When in the absence of any
objection, with the knowledge of the
opposing party, the contents of said
other case are clearly referred to by title
and number in a pending action and
adopted or read into the record of the
latter;
2. when the original record of the
other case or any part of it is actually
withdrawn from the archives at the
courts discretion upon the request, or
with the consent of the parties and
admitted as part of the record of the
pending case.
Note: Judicial notice is not judicial
knowledge. The mere personal
knowledge of the judge is not judicial
knowledge of the court; judicial
cognizance is taken only of those
matters which are commonly known.
SECTION 3 JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN
HEARING NECESSARY
During the trial, the court on its own
initiative, or on request of a party,
may 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, or its
own initiative or on the request of a
party, may take judicial notice of any
matter and allow the parties to be
heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue or in the
case.
 PURPOSE OF HEARING the court is required to pursue
inquiries sufficient to make that
To afford the parties reasonable knowledge real as far as
opportunity to present possible.
information relevant to the
SECTION 4 An admission, verbal or
propriety of taking such judicial
written, made by or a party in the course of
notice or to the tenor of the
the proceedings in the same case, does not
matter to be noticed.
require proof of the admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was
TIME WHEN JUDICIAL NOTICE
made through palpable mistake or that no
MAY BE TAKEN:
such admission was made.

During trial JUDICIAL AND EXTRA JUDICIAL

After trial and before judgment ADMISSIONS DEFINED.
On appeal
In all instances, the court may JUDICIAL is one made in the
act on its own initiative or on pleadings filed or in the progress
request of a party. of a trial. It is conclusive upon
the party making them.
JUDICIAL NOTICE TAKEN
DURING TRIAL DISTINGUISHED EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION
FROM THAT TAKEN AFTER BUT one made out of court. As a rule,
BEFORE JUDGMENT OR ON is disputable except on estoppel.
APPEAL

DURING TRIAL any matter FORM OF JUDICIAL ADMISSION

AFTER TRIAL BUT BEFORE
JUDGMENT OR ON APPEAL Any
matter if such decisive of a
material issue in the case.
DETERMINATION OF FACTS
SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
The court may refer to
appropriate and reliable sources
of information. Where judicial
notice must be taken of a fact,
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS MAY BE:
1. Oral as a verbal waiver of
proof made in open court
2. A withdrawal of a contention
3. A disclosure made before a
court
4. Admission made by a witness
in the course of testimony or
deposition
 5. In writing as in pleadings BILL OF PARTICULARS
6. Bill of particulars
7. Stipulation of facts Written statements in nature of
8. Request for admission bill of particulars, purporting to
9. Judicial admission contained be signed by a partys attorney,
in an affidavit used in a case. and which the opposing party
claims was delivered to his
CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDICIAL counsel as a bill of particular was
ADMISSION been held admissible.

Cannot be contradicted unless

previously shown to have been
made through a palpable
mistake or that no such
admission was made.
ADMISSION IN PLEADINGS
May be made by an express
acknowledgement of some fact
or facts set forth in the pleading
of the opposite party.
VERIFIED AND UNVERIFIED
PLEADINGS
Verification is considered
essential to the admission of
statements in a pleading against
the pleader. If a party does not
verify, authorize or adopt a
pleading, allegations thereof are
not admissible against him.
ADMISSIONS BY ATTORNEY

By failure to deny or otherwise

Admissions by counsel made in
controvert the truth of such fact
the trial of a cause may be
or facts.
conclusive on the party unless
withdrawn or set aside by the
NO ADMISSION ARISES WHEN
court for good cause shown as
DEFENDANT IS ADJUDGED IN
mistake or lack of authority.
DEFAULT.

Such failure to answer does not

amount to an admission of the
facts alleged in the complaint.
 ADMISSIONS IN WITHDRAWN,
SUPERSEDED OR AMENDED
PLEADING
The pleading which has been
withdrawn or stricken out or
superseded by amendment, still
remain as statements seriously
made and are admissible in
evidence, on behalf of the
opposite party as admissions by
the pleader, where he is a party
to the subsequent litigation,
where the statements are
material and relevant to the
issues in connection with which
they are sought to be
introduced, and where, in case
of a pleading withdrawn by leave
of court, no order is made
relieving the pleader from the
admissions made; and the
probative force of such
statements has even been given
a prima facie value.
ADMISSIONS IN STIPULATION
OF FACTS
Stipulations of facts in a case are
agreements or admissions
regarding certain facts included
in the litigation and are
conclusive between the parties.
Acts or facts admitted do not
require proof and cannot be
contradicted, unless it be shown
that the admission was made
through a palpable mistake, for
parties are not allowed to gain
say their own acts or deny rights
which they have previously
recognized. A party may not
withdraw from an agreement of
facts without the consent of the
other party or without leave of
court on justifiable reasons.
BINDING EFFECT OF
STIPULATION OF FACTS
A concession or stipulation as to
a fact made for the purpose of
trial has the force and effect of
an established fact binding on
the party making the same, as
well as on the court, unless the
court in its reasonable discretion
allows the concession to be later
withdrawn, explained, or
modified if it appears to have
been made by improvidence or
mistake.
AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS AND
TESTIMONY
A judicial admission in an
affidavit used in the case is
admissible against the party
making or adopting the affidavit,
and it may also be admitted in
another action to which he is a
party.
Statements made in a
deposition, relevant to the
 issues, may be admitted against previously shown to have been
the deponent as admissions made through palpable mistake.
against the interest in the same
or another action to which he is
STIPULATION OF FACTS IN
a party, even though he is
CRIMINAL CASES
present in court and able to
testify, or has testified
It is not proper to consider a
case closed, or to render
The testimony given by or for a
judgment therein, by virtue of an
party at the trial of a case may
agreement entered into
be used against him as an
between the fiscal and counsel
admission in the same, or on a
for the accused with reference
subsequent trial, or even in
to facts some of which are
another action, provided such
favorable to the defense, and
testimony is material and
others related to the
relevant.
prosecution, without any
evidence being adduced or
testimony taken from the
PROOF OF ADMISSION IN
witnesses mentioned in the
PLEADING, AFFIDAVIT OR
agreement; such practice is not
DEPOSITION
authorized and defeats the
purposes of the criminal law.
Where a pleading, affidavit or
deposition is offered in evidence,
JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF A FACT
the statements relied on as
DISTINGUISHED FROM AN
admissions and the qualifying
ADMISSION THAT A CERTAIN
statements must be construed
WITNESS, IF CALLED, WOULD SO
together. The party offering
TESTIFY.
written admissions is not
stopped to disprove them.
In the first case, there is a
judicial admission of the facts,
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT - and they cannot be
contradicted. In the second case,
A judicial admission in a it will only have the same effect
compromise agreement as if the witness had testified to
submitted to the court cannot the facts. Such testimony of the
be contradicted unless party is free to contradict.
Constitutional Right not violated by
inspection of scene of crime, provided that
the same is with consent of and
accompanied by counsel for the accused, it
further appearing that no evidence was
taken during the inspection.
Information obtained on a view is
independent evidence to be taken into
consideration by the curt in determining the
issues in the case.
Order denying or granting view not
reviewable when it appears that the
condition of the premises or property has
changed since the time of occurrence in
issue and before the demand for a view, or
that the facts involved are such that they
can be accurately described to the court by
oral testimony, or by the use of maps or
diagrams with proper explanations, or view
would be unreasonable expensive or cause
unreasonable delay, or serve no useful
purpose, unless here appears a clear abuse
of discretion.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 Documentary evidence
DOCUMENT any substance having any
matter expressed or described upon it by
marks capable of
being read. If it is produced without regard
to the message which it contains, it is
treated as real evidence.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- evidence
supplied by written instruments, or derived
from the conventional symbols, such as
letters, by which ideas are represented on
material substances; documents;
documents produced for the inspection of
the court or judge.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUEMNTARY
EVIDENCE- subject to the same basic rules
on relevancy, materiality, exclusionary rules
and court discretion as determined by the
issues in the particular case. Identity and
authenticity of the document must be
reasonably established as a pre-requisite to
its admission.
IMPORTANT RULES ON DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE-
1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Rule on Secondary Evidence
3. Parol Evidence Rule
4. Rule on Authentication and
Proof of Documents
5. Inadmissibility of written
document in an unofficial
language unless translated in
English and Filipino
1. Best Evidence Rule
BEST EVIDENCE or PRIMARY EVIDENCE-
particular means of proof which is indicated
by the nature of the fact under
investigation as the most natural and
satisfactory that affords the greatest
certainty of the fact in question and on its
face indicates that no better evidence
remains behind.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule which
requires the highest grade of evidence
obtainable to prove a disputed fact.
Purpose of the rule requiring the
production of the best evidence:
prevention of fraud, because if the best
evidence is not presented then the
presumption of suppression of evidence will
be present.
Best evidence rule applies only when
the purpose of the proof is to establish the
terms of writing, therefore NOT applicable
to external or collateral facts about the
document such as its existence, execution
or delivery.
People v. Tandoy
(1990)
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when
the contents of the document are the
subject of inquiry. It does not apply when
the issue is only as to whether or not such
document was actually executed or in the
circumstances relevant to its execution. An
objection by the party against whom
secondary evidence is sought to be
introduced is essential to bring the best
evidence rule into application. Where
secondary evidence has been admitted, the
rule of evidence might have been
successfully invoked if proper and timely
objection had been taken
WHAT CONSTITUTES THE ORIGINAL:
(a) The original of the document is
one the contents of which are the
subject of inquiry;
(b) When a document is in two or
more copies executed at or about
the same time, with identical
contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as originals; and
(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.
Note:
> Original may depend on the
substantive law applicable
> Original may depend on the act of
the parties
>where there may be duplicate
original, either is an original ad may
be used without accounting for
another
>Whenever a document is executed
in several parts, each part is a primary
evidence
> Whenever a document is executed
in counterpart, each part executed
by one or more of the parties only,
each counterpart is primary
evidence as against the parties who
executed it
People vs Sto. Tomas
138 SCRA 206
The trial court correctly rejected the xerox
copy of the marriage certificate, since the
admission would violate the best evidence
rule.
For the application of the best evidence, it
is essential that:
the original writing or if it is a private
document, be first duly identified, and a
sufficient and a sufficient foundation be
laid, so as to entitle the writing to be
admitted in evidence, and it must be
available to the opposite party for cross-
examination.
Best Evidence Rule in Criminal Cases- 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, the original itself
must be presented.
 US vs Gregorio
17 Phil 522
For only only presenting the Xerox copy of
the falsified documents, prosecution failed
to prove the corpus delicti of the crime
charged. In the absence of the original
document, it Is improper to conclude, with
only copy of the said original in view, that
there has been a falsification of the
document which was neither found nor
exhibited, because in such a case, even the
existence of such document may be
doubted.
Non-production of the original document
unless justified in Section 3, gives rise to the
presumption of suppression of evidence.
Amended Documents- where a duplicate or
copy is amended or altered by the party or
parties, it becomes the original.
Document executed in two or more
identical contents each one of the parts is
primary evidence and the other need not be
proved.
Mechanically reproduced copies:
a) Carbon copy- admissible as
duplicate original when executed
at the same time or about the
same time. Imperfect carbon
copies, although made at the
same time as the original but if
there is something else to be
done for it to be binding or there
is incomplete signature, its not
the best evidence.
b) Reproduction from the same
matrix i.e. mimeograph,
hectograph- admissible as
duplicate original when
produced from the same matrix
as original
c) Blueprints and vellum tracings-
have been held to be originals
rather than copies
d) Telegraph and cable messages-
if the issue is the contents of
the telegram
as received by the
addressee- then the original
dispatch is the copy of the
message sent to the
addressee;
as sent by the sender- the
original is the message
delivered
if the issue is the inaccuracy
of transmission,
both telegrams as sent and
received are originals
e) Letter press copies- merely
secondary evidence as its prone
to improper reproduction and
are not produced simultaneously
as the original
f) Thermofax- merely secondary
evidence as it lacks satisfactory
reproduction as some portions
are not clearly printed
g) Photographs and Xerox- merely
secondary evidence since they
are reproduced at a latter time
but if authenticated photostatic
copy of income tax returns,
public and business records are
allowed as evidence
 People vs Mangulabnan
52 OG 6532
At the trial, presented as evidence a post-
mortem report of the injuries received by
the deceased. This was admitted over the
objection of the accused, who contend that
a mere carbon copy is inadmissible. The
court ruled that the fact the post-mortem
report is a mere carbon copy is also of no
moment for it has been signed by the
physician who executed the same and his
signature was identified b him at the
witness stand.
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs
Reyes
August 5, 1931
The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed two
informations for libel against Guevarra. The
informations alleged that the defendant,
with malicious intent, published on page 9
of the weekly paper Ing Magumasid. The
defendant demurred on the ground of
duplicity of informations, he having
published only one libelous article in the Ing
Magumasid for July 13, 1930. The fiscal
attempted to present as evidence for the
prosecution Exhibits A, B, C, and D, which
are copies of the Ing Magumasid containing
the libelous article with the innuendo.
Counsel for the defendant objected to this
evidence, which objection was sustained.
Petitioner contends that the exhibits in
question are the best evidence of the libel,
the subject matter of the information, and
should therefore be admitted.
Issue: Whether the exhibits are admissible.
Ruling: The rule of procedure which
requires the production of the best
evidence, is applicable to the present case.
And certainly the copies of the weekly
where the libelous article was published,
and its translation, constitute the best
evidence of the libel charged. The
newspaper itself is the best evidence of an
article published in it.
Thus if the issue is the contents of the
articles sent for publication, the best
evidence is the manuscript. But is if issue is
on what was actually published, then the
best evidence is the copy of the news
paper.
Respondent judge of the CFI was required
to admit Exhibits A, B, C, and D, in question.
Manchester & Lawrence vs Fisk
(1856)
A copy of the standard tariff rate posted at
the railway depots, the court held them to
be the best evidence in an action over a
railway freight charge as each of the printed
copies as original and the whole of the
natre of duplicates, so that the proof of
anyone would be competent evidence of
the contents of the whole; there being
necessary in the whole nature of the
process of printing strong presumptive
evidence that the impression from the
same types must be similar.
Section 3. Original document must be
produced; exceptions
GENERAL RULE: when the subject of the
inquiry is the contents of the document, the
original document must be produced.
EXCEPTIONS: When secondary evidence be
admitted
1. When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody or
under the control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of
time and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
4. When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in
a public office
Compania Maritima vs Allied Free Workers
Union
77 SCRA 24 (1977)
Facts: In 1952, Compania Maritima (CM)
and Allied Free Workers Union (AFWU)
entered into a written contract whereby the
Union agreed to perform arrastre and
stevedoring work in Iligan, effective for one
month.
It was stipulated that the Company would
revoke the contract before the expiration of
the agreed term, if the Union failed to
render proper service. After a month, the
contract was verbally renewed. In 1954, the
Union sent a letter to CM requesting to
recognize it as the exclusive bargaining unit,
to load and unload he cargo of its vessels in
Iligan. CM ignored the request. The Union
subsequently filed in CIR a petition for
certification election. Despite the
certification case, CM sent notice to the
Union for termination of their contract and
entered into a new contract with another
stevedoring association.
CM assailed that the termination of the
contract was due to Union workers
inefficiency and that the Company suffered
financial losses due to such service. To
ascertain its annual losses, CMs manager
hired auditors. CM relied only upon such
auditors report and presented in court only
a summary of damages. The sales invoices
were not produced.
Issue: WON the non-submission as evidence
of the records of the alleged losses of the
Company is excused because of the rule
exempting voluminous records from being
produced in court.
Ruling: The best evidence of the Companys
losses would have been the sales invoices
instead of the Manager oral testimony. The
rule that 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 in only the general result of the
whole, the original writings need not be
produce, CANNOT BE APPLIED because the
voluminous character f the records was
NOT DULY ESTABLISHED. It is also a
requisite for the application of the rule that
the records of accounts should be made
accessible to the adverse party so that the
correctness of the summary may be tested
on cross-examination.
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 regarded as
originals. For as long as they are made
within reasonable time, it is sufficient. A
much longer but reasonable delay and
when entries appear to have been made
while the memory as to the transaction as
clear or the source of such knowledge was examined have been added in the
unimpaired, still makes it admissible. present provision.

However, a book of account containing only

a single entry, or charge of money lent,
which show no mutual recourse of dealing
between the parties, is not admissible.
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
Object (real) evidence defined Object
(real) evidence is that which is
addressed to the senses of the tribunal,
as where objects are presented for the
inspection of the court.

A. OBJECT (REAL EVIDENCE) Object (real) evidence may consist of

articles or persons, which may be exhibited
SECTION 1, RULE 130 inside or outside the courtroom; it may also
consist in the mere inspection of an object;
Object as evidence object as
or in an experiment.
evidence are those addressed to the
senses of the court. When an object
Scope of object (real) evidence -- This
is relevant to the fact in issue, it may
source of persuasion has been resorted to
be exhibited to, examined or viewed
in a great number of instances. A witness
by the court.
may use his own body, or an article, to
Source This provision is a illustrate or explain the evidence. In the
reproduction of Section 1, Rule 130 of the same way counsels, to show its meaning on
Rules of Court with the following their theory of the case, may make any use
differences: of the court room or furniture; and it has
also been held permissible to use the
a. The title of the section View of an
furniture from the room where a crime was
object, has been changed to Object as
committed, arranged so as to illustrate the
evidence, in the present provision;
testimony of a witness.
b. The phrases as to afford reasonable
grounds of belief respecting the latter;
Object (real) evidence is not limited
such object; or its existence, situation,
to that which may be known by the sense of
condition, or character proved by
vision; it extends to what is perceived by
witnesses, as the court in its discretion
the senses of hearing, taste, smell or touch.
may determine; and has such a
Any article made important by the evidence
relation, have been deleted in the
or by the nature of the investigation may be
present provision;
produced for inspection, or where the
c. The phrase Objects as evidence are
circumstances are such that it cannot be or
those addressed to the senses of the
should not be brought to the court, it may
court and the words is relevant; it;
be inspected at the place where it is to be
found. Inspection evidence of this
character may range over any line of human
activity, as building or mechanical trades,
the medical or surgical profession, or
nautical affairs. A frequent application of
the rule is found in the production of the
tools or implements with which as certain
act was, or is claimed to have been worn by
a person at the time of an occurrence in
controversy.
Where properly identified and
where relevant to a material issue, objects
such as the following have been received in
evidence:
a. In abortion cases, the instrument
or medicine with which the
crime was committed, and the
clothing of the victim;
b. In arson, articles used in starting
the fire, and burned objects;
c. In any case where a weapon is
used, the weapon, including, if it
is a firearm, bullets and shells;
weapons other than the one
used, to show intent; weapons
found on or near the victim, to
show self-defense;
d. In cases involving an assault or a
homicide, the clothing of the
victim to show the location of
wounds, the manner or means
of death, the relative positions
of the victim and his assailant or
the distance between them, or
to throw light on any material
issue; also the clothing of the
victims companion where
relevant;
e. In homicide, the bones or flesh
of the victim, to show the
character and location of
wounds (it is within the courts
discretion to order the victims
skull exhumed so it may be
offered in evidence); objects
used to help hide the body;
f. In theft cases, the stolen goods,
burglars tools, other objects
which help accomplish the theft;
g. In a hit-and-run case, headlight
glass partly recovered from the
scene and partly from the garage
where repairs were made;
h. In a drunken driving case, liquor,
tools to aid in its manufacture,
marked money used in its
purchase;
i. In liquor cases, the liquor, tools
to aid in its manufacture,
marked money used in its
purchase;
j. In narcotics trials, the drug, a
drug container, the syringe,
needle and spoon, marked
money used to purchase the
drug;
k. In fraud and cheating cases, any
object which shows how the
result was accomplished;
l. In counterfeiting; the
counterfeiting machine;
m. In gambling cases, the gambling
paraphernalia;
 n. In rape, any weapon used to Requisites for admissibility of
subdue or intimidate the victim, object (real) evidence an object may be
the clothing of the victim, the exhibited, examined or viewed by the court
clothing of the accused; when (1) it is relevant to the fact in issue,
o. In sex cases other than rape, and (2) the present condition of the object
objects which throw light on the is the same at the time in issue.
crime;
p. The clothing of the accused, to
If, by some principle of relevancy, a
identify him or to throw light on
fact offered to be shown is not admissible,
other issues;
because irrelevant, it cannot be shown,
q. Any object which is used in
either in this or in any other way. For
accomplishing the crime;
example, whether a persons color is black
r. Drawings and maps which help
or white is best ascertained by inspecting
explain the crime or the
the person; but if his color when
defendants escape route;
ascertained would be irrelevant for the
s. Objects which illustrate a
purpose concerned, an inspection to learn
consciousness of guilt on
his color would obviously be unnecessary,
defendants part;
and therefore improper. Thus, his color
t. Objects which corroborate or
might be relevant to show his race-
illustrate verbal testimony.
ancestry, but not to show his state of
health; in the former case inspection would
Reason for admissibility of object
be allowed in the latter case not, the ruling
(real) evidence to a rational man of
in each instance depending on the
perfect organization the best and highest
admissibility of the fact shown by
proof of which any fact is susceptible is the
inspection. In a large number of instances
evidence of his senses. This is the ultimate
this is the real question.
test of truth, and is therefore the first
Admission of clothing worn by
principle in the philosophy of evidence.
plaintiff at time of accident has been held
Hence, the evidence of ones own senses,
improper where the fact of injury was
furnishes the strongest probability and
uncontroverted.
indeed the perfect and indubitable
The present condition of an object
certainty of the existence of any sensible
offered may not be the same as to be
fact.
proper evidence of its former condition;
Physical evidence is evidence of the
accordingly, autoptic preference is
highest order. It speaks more eloquently
allowable only on the assumption that the
than a hundred witnesses.
condition is the same or sufficiently similar.
Experiments to show the quality or
operation of a substance, a machine, etc.,
are often excluded because of the
dissimilarity of circumstances or because of
probable confusion of issues; and for this
reason the exhibition of such experiments
before the tribunal may of course be
forbidden.
As a general rule it seems essential
that articles shown to the court be
connected, at least prima facie, with the
crime in issue. An article of personal
property, the relevancy of which has been
shown by its identification with the subject-
matter of the crime, may be exhibited in
the courtroom, whether as direct evidence
of a relevant fact, or to enable them to
understand the evidence or to realize more
completely its cogency and force, or to
assist the court in solving a material,
controverted or doubtful point. Admission
of visual, exhibitive or demonstrative
evidence is much within the discretion of
the court, and the extent of identification of
such articles necessary before admission
varies with circumstances. The court may
inspect and smell the contents of a bottle
properly identified and admitted in
evidence. Comparison of materials may
also be made by the court, aided by the
evidence of expert witnesses. So in case
the quality of an article, or its adaptability
to a specific use or purpose, is in issue, a
sample may be shown to the court,
together with a specimen of a like material
which is shown to be of good quality or
adapted to the required purpose, and the
court may then make a comparison to
ascertain possible points of difference.
Exhibition of person Trial courts,
in actions to recover damages, have an
inherent discretionary power to order a
reasonable physical examination of the
plaintiff to be made before trial by
competent physicians and surgeons
whenever such examination is necessary to
ascertain the nature, extent, or permanency
of alleged injuries. Trial courts also are
generally deemed to have power to compel
the exhibition of the plaintiffs person,
under proper restrictions, in the trial of a
personal-injury action; and it is within the
discretion of the trial judge, when the
physical condition of a party is in question,
as in personal-injury actions, to permit the
injured party to exhibit his person to the
court in order to show the extent and
nature of his injury. Such exhibitions of part
of the plaintiffs person are often permitted
without objections. Under the rule stated,
the plaintiff may be permitted to exhibit an
arm, hand, leg, foot, and other parts of the
body, such as the shoulder, head, etc.,
provided the exhibition is not objectionable
on the ground of indecency. Where an arm
or a leg has been amputated, the exhibition
of the naked remnant may be permissible.
The extent to which one may be
allowed to exhibit his person to the court
on the trial is a matter largely of discretion
of the court. If it appears that the
exhibition by the plaintiff would necessitate
an exposure which would be indecent, the
court, in the exercise of its discretion,
should not permit the exhibition before the
court.
 Where an issue as to personal
injuries or disability is involved, the injured
person may be permitted to exhibit to the
court the wound or injury, or the member
or portion of his body on which such wound
or injury was inflicted. Thus, the court has
permitted the exhibition of an ankle, a
knee, a foot, a leg, an arm, a hand, an eye
socket, and various other parts of the body.
A similar exhibition may be made where the
injury has resulted in the death of the
injured person or the loss of a member or
part of his body.
Indecency or impropriety as ground
for disallowing the introduction of object
(real) evidence; exception when the
object produced as evidence is indecent, or
improper, it should be excluded, unless the
same is necessary for ascertaining the truth.
But when justice and the discovery
of truth, are at stake, the ordinary canons
of modesty and delicacy of feeling cannot
be allowed to impose a prohibition upon
necessary measures. If such matters were
not unshrinking discussed and probed,
many kinds of crime would remain
unpunished. Nevertheless, needless
spectators having no responsibility for the
course of justice may well be avoided.
Where it is a question of what would
otherwise be an indecency, two limitations
seems appropriate: (a) there should be fair
necessity for inspection, the trial court to
determine; (b) the inspection should take
place apart from the public courtroom, in
the sole presence of the tribunal and the
parties.
Introduction of object (real)
evidence for the purpose of arousing
undue prejudice The object of all
evidence is to inform the trial tribunal of
the material facts, which are relevant as
bearing upon the issue, in order that the
truth may be elicited and that a just
determination of the controversy may be
reached. It is not objectionable, in these
cases, which the evidence may go beyond
the oral narrative and may be addressed to
the senses; provided that it is kept within
reasonable limits by the exercise of a fair
judicial discretion. It should be only of a
nature to assist the court to an
understanding of a situation, of an act, or to
comprehend objective symptoms resulting
from an injury. Examples of this class of
evidence are frequent; in the viewing of the
place of an occurrence, in the exhibition of
the person and of the marks, or obvious
evidences, of injuries sustained. Personal
injuries may be simulated and deception
may be practiced in such exhibitions; but
that cannot more be prevented, than can
perjury in testimony. When, however,
proof is attempted to be made by allowing
the plaintiff to act out upon a judicial stage
before the court what he or his physicians,
have testified to be some nervous affection,
resulting from an injury, the exhibition is
improper because it is unfair. As something
under the sole control of the witness
himself, it is beyond the ordinary tests of
examination. Nor does such evidence allow
any record, beyond the reporters notes of
what he saw upon the trial. It is intended to
prejudice the mind of the judge and it is
calculated to affect the calm judicial
atmosphere of a court of justice. The
plaintiff, in such cases, has sufficient
advantages without adding to them a
spectacular illustration of his symptoms.
The exhibition of the weapons or
tools of a crime, or of the clothing or the
mutilated members of the victim of the
crime, has often been objected to on
grounds of Undue Prejudice. The objection
thus indicated seems to be two-fold. First,
there is a natural tendency to infer from the
mere production of any material object,
and without further evidence, the truth of
all that is predicated on it. Secondly, the
sight of deadly weapons or of cruel injuries
tends to overwhelm reason and to associate
the accused with the atrocity without
sufficient evidence. The objection in its first
phase may be at least partly overcome by
requiring the object to be properly
authenticated, before or after the
production; and this requirement is
constantly enforced by the courts. The
objection in its second phase cannot be
entirely overcome, even by express
instruction from the Court; but it is to be
doubted whether the necessity of thus
demonstrating the method and results of
the crime should give way to this possibility
or undue prejudice. No doubt such an
effect may be occasionally and in an
extreme case be produced; and no doubt
the trial court has a discretion to prevent
the abuse if the process. But, in the vast
majority of instances where such objection
is made, it is frivolous and there is no
ground for apprehension. Accordingly, such
objections have almost invariably been
repudiated by the Courts.
Where it appears that the real
evidence is produced merely for the
purpose of arousing feeling, admission has
been held error. For example, where the
plaintiff, a little girl, sues for the loss of her
leg, and the defendant admits the fact of
amputation and the child is present in
court, the introduction of the amputated
limb as preserved in spirits warrants a new
trial. Of such a case, the court said that, it
may however, be assumed that technically
the rule of evidence authorized the
exhibition of the foot. Such rule, however,
is without force when the legitimate
purpose for which the exhibit may be made
is light, and the strong tendency is to work
improper and illegitimate results. It is
perfectly clear in the present case that the
direct tendency of the exhibition of this
mangled foot, coupled with the other
considerations already noted, was to arouse
the prejudice and inflame the passions of
the court into an angry resentment against
the author of the misfortune. This
condition far overbalanced any legitimate
purpose for which the exhibit might have
been made, and made the exhibition of this
foot, under the circumstances of this case,
improper.
Other grounds for denying
application for the production of object
(real) evidence Beyond question it rests in
the discretion of the court to deny
applications for the production of real
evidence in cases where the order will
cause great inconvenience, or where, for Where depositions of subscribing
other reasons, it is unjust. Thus, in witnesses to a will are taken, a
Mississippi case, the court refused to order photographic copy of the will may be
the exhumation of a dead body; although presented to the witnesses on their
the defendant, an insurance company, examination and they may be asked the
claimed that the deceased had made same questions with respect to said copy as
admissions that he had in childhood if it were the original will and testimony as
received a severe injury to the skull which to the identity of the photographic copy
could only be prove by an examination. It shown to the witnesses is admissible in
may happen that it is impracticable to bring evidence.
an animal into the room where the court is
sitting, and in such cases the examination In the case of Rodelas vs. Aranza; G. R. No.
need not necessarily be has in the L-58509 December 7, 1982:
courtroom, so long as it is under the
direction of the court and in the presence of
The appellant Marcela Rodelas filed
the parties. Similar holdings may be found
a petition for the probate of the
with reference to articles of great weight,
holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and
such as large steel bars.
the issuance of letter testamentary in her
favor. However, it was opposed on the
Photographs the courts take
following ground:
judicial notice that all civilized communities
rely on photographic pictures for presenting
a.) Can a holographic will which was
resemblances of persons and animals,
lost be proved by means of a
scenery, natural objects, buildings, and
photostatic copy?
other artificial objects. It is accordingly well
established that photographs of persons,
Held: The Supreme Court ruled in
things, and places, when duly verified and
the affirmative. It is necessary that there be
shown by extrinsic evidence to be faithful
a comparison between sample handwritten
representations of the subjects as of the
statements of the testator and the
time in question, are, in the discretion of
handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy of
the trial court, admissible in evidence as
a holographic will may be allowed because
aids to it in arriving at an understanding of
comparison can be made with the standard
the evidence, the situation or condition of
writings of the testator.
objects or premises, the circumstances of
an accident, or the condition or identity of a
The facts as depicted by
person when any such matter is relevant to
photographs are usually reasonably correct
the issues being litigated.
representations and constitute evidence of
a satisfactory and conclusive nature.
 Photographs of any place which may
be viewed by the trial court are admissible
in evidence upon proof of their exactness
and accuracy.
The logic underlying the admission
of photographs which have been
authenticated by the operator of the
camera, or by some other witness who can
testify from personal knowledge as to the
accuracy of the representation, is drawn
principally from the cases admitting maps
and diagrams. There are, however, two
fundamental distinctions between
diagrams, or drawings, and photographs,
which emphasize the prejudicial
implications to the latter: (1) the
photograph is generally accepted by courts
as an accurate machine-made reproduction
of nature; while the diagram or drawing is
recognized by them as man-made and
considerably less accurate; a slight
inaccuracy or distortion of size, distance or
shape in a photograph is thus far more
objectionable that an error of similar
degree in a diagram; (2) the vital, mirror-
like appearance of a photograph makes it
capable of inciting passions and prejudices
of a court, whereas a lifeless map or
drawing of the same subject would not
have this effect. Thus, while photographs
may be of a fairly similar evidential
character as diagrams, and maps, there is
little room for comparison as to their
respective degrees of probative force. The
court has in effect an eye witness view of
the subject matter. Photographs are
admissible in evidence in criminal cases
upon the same principles and rules
governing their admission in civil cases.
The test of admissibility is whether
the photograph accurately portrays the
scene at the time of the crime, and the
photographer is not a necessary witness.
Photographs of the scene, taken several
months after the crime was committed,
were properly admitted where it appeared
that the condition of the premises has not
materially changed in the meantime.
If the correctness of the photograph
as a likeness shown prima facie, either by
the testimony of the person who made it or
by other competent witnesses, to the effect
that it faithfully represents the object
portrayed, it should go to the court subject
to impeachment as to its accuracy.
Whether the photograph is an accurate
likeness then becomes a question of fact to
be determined by the court.
The photograph or must be relevant
as well as correct. Its relevancy will depend
on the relevancy of the scene or object it
represents. If a photograph purports to
represent a relevant scene or object, but
portrays it in a grossly inaccurate manner,
so that it practically represents something
else, and the scene or object would scarcely
be recognized thereby, the non-reliability of
the photograph as a correct likeness may
almost be considered as producing
irrelevancy. But usually the question of
relevancy is distinct from that of
correctness, and is for the judge exclusively.
It is to be determined upon the
considerations which govern when the
relevancy of any other sort of evidence is
corrected.
Photographs are received in
evidence for the following purposes:
a. To show the scene of the crime
(the picture need not show the
complete premises) sometimes
with the body of the victim still
at the scene;
b. To show the victim of an assault
or a homicide;
c. To show the identity of persons
alive or dead, including the
defendant and the victim or his
remains, even when
decomposed;
d. To show wound or other physical
injuries, or that a child or an
animal has been ill-treated or
not properly fed;
e. To show the fruits of the crime,
contraband, and the weapons
used;
f. To supply facsimiles of public
records;
g. To illustrate handwriting
testimony and fingerprint
testimony;
h. To rebut testimony of the other
side.
Use of devices to accentuate
photographic evidence In many instances
a photograph will not sufficiently depict
important details of a scene to give it
significance in the eyes of the court. This is
especially true in cases involving skid marks,
scratches, gouges, and other marks left on
the road by tires or other parts of vehicles
involved in a collision. In such instances it is
not an unusual practice to lay down sticks,
rocks or other objects to indicate or
intensify such features of the picture. These
do not affect its admissibility when the
presence of the markers is verified and
explained by the witnesses. Obviously,
when a photographic representation
includes foreign objects marking such
details it is not sufficient that the general
accuracy of the photograph be verified.
Someone must also explain why the objects
appear therein and what they purport to
represent or mark. If the object is nothing
more than a marker, the exhibit is not
subject to the objection that it is a posed
picture for it does not purport to recreate a
bygone scene. An example of this would be
the placing of a yardstick to indicate the
distance between the ground and rear
fender of the cat involved in a fatal hit and
run accident.
Enlargements Although
magnification that constitutes distortion
may be objectionable, it is no valid
objection to the introduction of the
photograph that it is an enlargement made
from an original. Enlargements are, of
course, subject to the usual tests of
accuracy and relevancy that any
photograph would be.
Color pictures color photographs
or slides are admissible on the same basis
as ordinary black and white pictures. The
same test is applies by courts, the test of
probative value. The color tends to be
regarded as a more faithful type of
representation that black and white
photographs.
Aerial photographs Aerial
photographs, depicting ground areas
pertinent to the particular issue, are held
admissible upon the same foundation basis
as other photographs.
X-ray In one way or another, X-
rays are perhaps the modality of medical
treatment or diagnosis most commonly
appearing in litigation. Diagnostic X-ray
films often provide counsel with his best
source of objective proof of his clients
injuries, establishing in a manner that all
can see that plaintiffs leg bones indeed
were fractured a year before trial, and the
like. Even when X-ray films do not reveal
their secrets clearly enough for a court to
understand them without expert
interpretation, they nevertheless comprise
a means of dramatic persuasion often of
inestimable value.
The same rules and principles which
apply to ordinary pictures are applicable to
an X-ray photograph, although subject to
explanation or interpretation by experts in
order to make them intelligible to the court.
Motion pictures Principles
underlying admissibility of talking motion
pictures are not different from those
governing the admissibility of still pictures
and phonograph records. It is a matter of
common knowledge that motion pictures
are no longer a novelty. They are
constantly used for commercial and
scientific purposes. The talking motion
picture, or movie tone, as it is technically
known, results merely from adaption of the
scientific processes used in producing
photographic records in order that words
spoken, or sounds produced at the time of
the taking of the picture, may be
reproduced with the picture. The movie
tone, in basic characteristics, is no different
from ordinary photography, in regard to the
visual pictures reproduced, and on the
other hand, from phonographic records, in
regard to the auditory recording of sound.
A movie tone, duly authenticated as a true
portrayal of the actions and words of a
defendant at the time it was taken is
admissible evidence.
The question of permitting a motion
picture to be displayed before the court is
wholly within the discretion of the court,
and where the picture does not amplify
matters, no reversible error is committed in
refusing to allow its admission or display as
evidence.
Authentication of motion pictures
ordinarily includes (1) evidence as to the
circumstances surrounding the taking of the
film; (2) the manner and circumstances
surrounding the development of the film;
(3) evidence in regard to the projection of
the film; (4) testimony by the person
present at the time the motion pictures
were taken that the pictures accurately
depict the events as he saw them when that
occurred.
 Video tape The use of the video
tape in the courtroom have become more
commonplace in recent times. A Michigan
court has said: A video tape is nothing
more than a motion picture synchronized
with a sound recording. Therefore, a
complete video tape may be received into
evidence if the offering party lays the
foundation necessary to admit a motion
picture and the foundation necessary to
admit sound recording. Thus, where it is
testified that the video tape is a true and
accurate representation of what it is
purported to represent, it is sufficient
authentication. Video tapes have been
admitted for confessions, admissions,
lineups, crime scenes, witnesss testimony,
drinking drivers condition and even to
show the actual commission of the crime.
Diagrams, sketches and maps
Pencil, pen and ink drawings and maps have
been received to identify or explain
localities or positions of objects. Though
they are received as primary evidence
appealing to the eyes of the court under the
rule admitting photographs, they differ
from the latter in that their accuracy as
portraits or likeliness must be affirmatively
shown by the testimony of the artist or
other competent witness. There is no
presumption of correctness founded on
general use and employment, or on their
being mechanical reproductions by a
process which the court will judicially
notice, as exists in the case of photographs.
The witness called to prove their
correctness must testify of his own
knowledge that they faithfully represent the
object depicted, and their accuracy, if
disputed, is a question for the court, turning
upon the credibility of the witnesses
The draftsman of the map must
testify as to its accuracy, but any other
witnesses may refer to it while testifying, to
illustrate his testimony. It is not material
by whom the map or diagram was prepared
providing that he can testify that the map
or diagram is accurate and based on
knowledge derive from his own
investigation.
The use of diagrams, models and
casts as testimony of the objects
represented rests fundamentally upon the
theory that they represent a method of
pictorial communication of a qualified
witness which he may use of instead of, or
in addition to, some other method.
Evidence of this character is helpful in
aiding the court to visualize the objects and
scenes in the action. Thus a model of a
machine, a mechanical device or a bridge,
may be submitted to the court to aid them
in understanding how an event occurred or
might have been prevented. This type of
evidence is properly described as illustrative
evidence. It is a type of demonstrative
evidence especially useful to police officers
and other witnesses in describing traffic
accident scenes.
Fingerprints, palm prints,
footprints, tracks, etc. A method of proof
now commonly resorted to in providing
identity is in the use of evidence as to the
correspondence or similarity of the
fingerprints, palm prints and footprints.
Authenticated fingerprints, palm prints, or
footprints or photographs thereof of a
person may be introduced in evidence and
compared with other fingerprints, palm
prints, or footprints found at or near the
scene of the crime. This comparison is
usually made by experts.
Testimony concerning tracks and
footprints discovered near the scene of
crime is admissible if a connection with
defendant by means of comparison or
otherwise is shown. A comparison of
footprints, proved to have been made by
the prisoner, with other tracks or footprints
found near the scene of the homicide is
relevant, but the opinion of the witness that
footprints near the scene of the crime were
those of the accused not based on a
comparison, is not admissible. The witness
generally must have made some actual
comparison of the footprint not just
looked at it.
The correspondence of footprints to
shoes, feet or other footprints is a matter
not restricted to expert opinion. A witness
may give his opinion as to the
correspondence of footprints to shoes, feet
or other footprints after testifying as to the
measurements or peculiarities thereof upon
which such opinion is based.
Phonograph and tape recordings
Sound recordings are generally admitted in
evidence where a proper foundation has
been laid to assure the authenticity of the
recording. The phonograph, the
Dictaphone, the talking motion picture
machine, and similar recording devices,
with reproducing apparatus, are now in
such common use that the verity of their
recordingand reproducing sounds, including
those made by the human voice in
conversation, is well-established; and as
advances in such matters of scientific
research and discovery are mad and
generally adopted, the courts will be
permitted to make use of them by way of
present-evidentiary facts.
Voiceprints (spectrograms) It is
established law that an accused person in
lawful custody may be required to
demonstrate his voice for identification
purpose on the same grounds that he may
be subjected to fingerprinting,
photographing, measurements, and the
like. This can be done through line-ups,
tape recordings, video tape, or other similar
methods, in addition to speaking in court.
Another method of voice
identification has been developed in recent
years called voice print or
spectrograms. This device consists of a
magnetic recording device, a variable
electronic filter, a paper-carrying drum
which is coupled to the recording device,
and an electronic stylus that marks the
paper as the drum rotates. Spectrograms
can be compared point for point to
determine if any significant similarities
exist. It is based on the theory that no two
persons have exactly the same physical
voice properties.
 Personal appearance of a person
It has been held that to determine whether
a person is an alien or not, his personal
appearance, ethnological and racial
characteristic, language, customs, dress and
manners may be taken into consideration.
The age of a person may also be
determined by his personal appearance.
The resemblance between a minor and his
alleged father is competent and material
evidence to establish parentage. Of course,
the absence of such resemblance would not
be sufficient to show that parentage does
not exist.
The accused cannot object if he be
identified in open court without being
required to stand. A direction to a witness
to look about the court and point out a
person in court who he thinks committed
the crime is always proper. The court or the
prosecuting attorney may even point out
the accused and ask a witness if that is the
person who committed the crime. If the
accused shall voluntarily stand up and so
thus be identified by a witness pointing him
out, he should not be granted a new trial
upon the ground that he has been
compelled to testify as against himself. And
it has been held merely directing the
accused to stand up for identification is not
compelling him to be a witness against
himself, nor is the bringing of the defendant
into court for inspection or identification or
dressed in clothes connected with the
crime. It has been held in some cases,
however, that to go father and require
accused to do some affirmative act, such as
putting on clothing found at the scene of
the crime, violates his constitutional rights.
Experiment In instances where it is
necessary to show the condition or quality
of a certain article or substance, the thing
itself is the most powerful evidence that
can be produced; it may be introduced in
evidence as supplementing the testimony
of witnesses, or as direct evidence when
properly identified. Evidence of the result
of an actual experiment or test is admissible
to aid in determining the issues in a case
where it is shown that the conditions under
which the experiment or test was made
were the same or similar to the
circumstances prevailing at the time of the
occurrence involved in the controversy.
Such evidence should, however, be
admitted only where it is obvious to the
court from the nature of the experiments
that the court will be enlightened, rather
than confused.
When evidence of an experiment is
not admissible Evidence of experiments
performed is admissible in both civil and
criminal cases when the judge, in his
discretion, is of the opinion that the
evidence is beneficial, and that it does not
tend to distract or confuse. On the other
hand, tests and experiments are not
without danger. Obviously, if the
experiment is too complicated to afford any
fair inference, or if it cannot be performed
in such a manner as fairly to illustrate the
fact to be found, it should be excluded. If
the trial judge, exercising reasonable
judgment, concludes that evidence of such
experiment is more likely to confuse than to
shed light upon the matter in dispute, he
may exclude such evidence. It is plain that
evidence of an experiment whereby to test
the truth of testimony that a certain thing
occurred is not admissible where the
conditions attending the alleged
occurrences and the experiments are not
shown to be similar.
Mode and place of presentation
and inspection No distinction shall be
taken as regards the mode of presentation
by the party. An object may be merely set
forth for inspection, or some experimental
process may be conducted in the tribunals
presence; whether the mode involves a
showing or doing, neither is in itself
objectionable. Nor is any distinction to be
taken as to the mode of inspection by the
tribunal. It may merely employ its senses
directly; or it may use some suitable
mechanical aid, such as a microscope; and it
may merely look on, or it may take an active
share in the process of experimentation.
Nor is there any distinction as to the place
of inspection; the thing may be brought into
the court, or the tribunal may go to the
place where the thing is.
Object must be inspected in open
court and in the presence of the defendant
When the trial court is of the opinion that
the ends of justice will be advanced by
permitting the introduction of an object in
evidence, the court may permit its
examination or inspection, but such
examination or inspection must be in open
court, and in the presence of the defendant,
and at all times subject to the control of the
court. The rule permitting an inspection by
the judge of places or premises, when in his
judgment the ends of justice will be
promoted thereby, is simply an extension of
the power of inspection to places and
premises which cannot be brought into
court.
Ocular inspection or view of an
object out of court where the object in
question cannot be produced be produced
in court because it is immovable or
inconvenient to remove, the natural
proceeding is for the tribunal to go to the
object in its place and there observe it. This
process, traditionally known as a view has
been recognized as an appropriate one. It
should be remembered, however, that
whether or not an ocular inspection or view
of an object out of the court should be
made, rest entirely on the sound discretion
of the trial court. The inconvenience of
adjourning court until a view can be had, or
of postponing the trial for the purpose, may
suffice to overcome the advantages of a
view, particularly when the nature of the
issue or of the object to be viewed renders
the view off small consequence.
Ocular inspection or view must be
made in the presence of, or with notice to
the parties The inspection or view outside
the court room should be made in the
presence of the parties or at least previous
notice to them in order that they may show
the object to be viewed. Such inspection or
view is a part of the trial, inasmuch as
evidence is thereby being received, which is
expressly authorized by law. Thus, it is
error for the judge to go alone to the land in
question, or to the place where the crime
was committed and take a view, without
previous knowledge or consent of the
parties.
Constitutional Right not violated by
inspection of scene of crime Provided
that the same is with consent of and
accompanied by counsel for the accused, it
further appearing that no evidence was
taken during the inspection.
Information obtained on a view is
independent evidence To be taken into
consideration by the curt in determining the
issues in the case.
Order denying or granting view not
reviewable When it appears that the
condition of the premises or property has
changed since the time of occurrence in
issue and before the demand for a view, or
that the facts involved are such that they
can be accurately described to the court by
oral testimony, or by the use of maps or
diagrams with proper explanations, or view
would be unreasonable expensive or cause
unreasonable delay, or serve no useful
purpose, unless here appears a clear abuse
of discretion.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 Documentary evidence
DOCUMENT any substance having
any matter expressed or described upon it
by marks capable of
being read. If it is produced without regard
to the message which it contains, it is
treated as real evidence.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
evidence supplied by written instruments,
or derived from the conventional symbols,
such as letters, by which ideas are
represented on material substances;
documents; documents produced for the
inspection of the court or judge.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUEMNTARY
EVIDENCE- subject to the same basic rules
on relevancy, materiality, exclusionary rules
and court discretion as determined by the
issues in the particular case. Identity and
authenticity of the document must be
reasonably established as a pre-requisite to
its admission.
IMPORTANT RULES ON
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Rule on Secondary Evidence
3. Parol Evidence Rule
4. Rule on Authentication and
Proof of Documents
5. Inadmissibility of written
document in an unofficial
language unless translated in
English and Filipino
2. Best Evidence Rule
BEST EVIDENCE or PRIMARY EVIDENCE-
particular means of proof which is indicated
by the nature of the fact under
investigation as the most natural and
satisfactory that affords the greatest
certainty of the fact in question and on its
face indicates that no better evidence
remains behind.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule which
requires the highest grade of evidence
obtainable to prove a disputed fact.
Purpose of the rule requiring the
production of the best evidence:
prevention of fraud, because if the best
evidence is not presented then the
presumption of suppression of evidence will
be present.
Best evidence rule applies only when
the purpose of the proof is to establish the
terms of writing, therefore NOT applicable
to external or collateral facts about the
document such as its existence, execution
or delivery.
People v. Tandoy
(1990)
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when
the contents of the document are the
subject of inquiry. It does not apply when
the issue is only as to whether or not such
document was actually executed or in the
circumstances relevant to its execution. An
objection by the party against whom
secondary evidence is sought to be
introduced is essential to bring the best
evidence rule into application. Where
secondary evidence has been admitted, the
rule of evidence might have been
successfully invoked if proper and timely
objection had been taken
WHAT CONSTITUTES THE ORIGINAL:
(a) The original of the document is
one the contents of which are the
subject of inquiry;
(b) When a document is in two or
more copies executed at or about
the same time, with identical
contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as originals; and
(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.
Note:
> Original may depend on the
substantive law applicable
> Original may depend on the act of
the parties
>where there may be duplicate
original, either is an original ad may
be used without accounting for
another
>Whenever a document is executed
in several parts, each part is primary
evidence
> Whenever a document is executed
in counterpart, each part executed
by one or more of the parties only,
each counterpart is primary
evidence as against the parties who
executed it
People vsSto. Tomas
138 SCRA 206
The trial court correctly rejected the xerox
copy of the marriage certificate, since the
admission would violate the best evidence
rule.
For the application of the best evidence, it
is essential that:
the original writing or if it is a private
document, be first duly identified, and a
sufficient and a sufficient foundation be
laid, so as to entitle the writing to be
admitted in evidence, and it must be
available to the opposite party for cross-
examination.
Best Evidence Rule in Criminal
Cases 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, the original itself
must be presented.
US vs Gregorio
17 Phil 522
For only only presenting the Xerox copy of
the falsified documents, prosecution failed
to prove the corpus delicti of the crime
charged. In the absence of the original
document, it Is improper to conclude, with
only copy of the said original in view, that
there has been a falsification of the
document which was neither found nor
exhibited, because in such a case, even the
existence ofsuch document may be
doubted.
Non-production of the original
document unless justified in Section 3, gives
rise to the presumption of suppression of
evidence.
Amended Documents- where a
duplicate or copy is amended or altered by
the party or parties, it becomes the original.
Document executed in two or more
identical contents each one of the parts is
primary evidence and the other need not be
proved.
Mechanically reproduced copies:
h) Carbon copy- admissible as
duplicate original when executed
at the same time or about the
same time. Imperfect carbon
copies, although made at the
same time as the original but if
there is something else to be
done for it to be binding or there
is incomplete signature, its not
the best evidence.
i) Reproduction from the same
matrix i.e. mimeograph,
hectograph- admissible as
duplicate original when
produced from the same matrix
as original
j) Blueprints and vellum tracings-
have been held to be originals
rather than copies
k) Telegraph and cable messages-
if the issue is the contents of
the telegram
as received by the
addressee- then the original
dispatch is the copy of the
message sent to the
addressee;
as sent by the sender- the
original is the message
delivered
 if the issue is the inaccuracy
of transmission,
both telegrams as sent and
received are originals
l) Letter press copies- merely
secondary evidence as its prone
to improper reproduction and
are not produced simultaneously
as the original
m) Thermofax- merely secondary
evidence as it lacks satisfactory
reproduction as some portions
are not clearly printed
n) Photographs and Xerox-merely
secondary evidence since they
are reproduced at a latter time
but if authenticated photostatic
copy of income tax returns,
public and business records are
allowed as evidence
People vsMangulabnan
52 OG 6532
At the trial, presented as evidence a post-
mortem report of the injuries received by
the deceased. This was admitted over the
objection of the accused, who contend that
a mere carbon copy is inadmissible. The
court ruled that the fact the post-mortem
report is a mere carbon copy is also of no
moment for it has been signed by the
physician who executed the same and his
signature was identified b him at the
witness stand.
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs Reyes
August 5, 1931
The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed two
informations for libel against Guevarra. The
informations alleged that the defendant,
with malicious intent, published on page 9
of the weekly paper IngMagumasid. The
defendant demurred on the ground of
duplicity of informations, he having
published only one libelous article in
the IngMagumasid for July 13, 1930. The
fiscal attempted to present as evidence for
the prosecution Exhibits A, B, C, and D,
which are copies of
the IngMagumasid containing the libelous
article with the innuendo. Counsel for the
defendant objected to this evidence, which
objection was sustained. Petitioner
contends that the exhibits in question are
the best evidence of the libel, the subject
matter of the information, and should
therefore be admitted.
Issue: Whether the exhibits are admissible.
Ruling: The rule of procedure which
requires the production of the best
evidence, is applicable to the present case.
And certainly the copies of the weekly
where the libelous article was published,
and its translation, constitute the best
evidence of the libel charged. The
newspaper itself is the best evidence of an
article published in it.
Thus if the issue is the contents of the
articles sent for publication, the best
evidence is the manuscript. But is if issue is
on what was actually published, then the
best evidence is the copy of the news
paper.
Respondent judge of the CFI was required
to admit Exhibits A, B, C, and D, in question.
Manchester & Lawrence vs Fisk
(1856)
A copy of the standard tariff rate posted at
the railway depots, the court held them to
be the best evidence in an action over a
railway freight charge as each of the printed
copies as original and the whole of the
natre of duplicates, so that the proof of
anyone would be competent evidence of
the contents of the whole; there being
necessary in the whole nature of the
process of printing strong presumptive
evidence that the impression from the
same types must be similar.
Section 3. Original document must be
produced; exceptions
GENERAL RULE: when the subject of
the inquiry is the contents of the document,
the original document must be produced.
EXCEPTIONS: When secondary evidence be
admitted
1. When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody or
under the control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of
time and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
4. When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in
a public office
CompaniaMaritimavsAllied Free Workers
Union
77 SCRA 24 (1977)
Facts: In 1952, CompaniaMaritima (CM) and
Allied Free Workers Union (AFWU) entered
into a written contract whereby the Union
agreed to perform arrastre and stevedoring
work in Iligan, effective for one month.
It was stipulated that the Company would
revoke the contract before the expiration of
the agreed term, if the Union failed to
render proper service. After a month, the
contract was verbally renewed. In 1954, the
Union sent a letter to CM requesting to
recognize it as the exclusive bargaining unit,
to load and unload he cargo of its vessels in
Iligan. CM ignored the request. The Union
subsequently filed in CIR a petition for
certification election. Despite the
certification case, CM sent notice to the
Union for termination of their contract and
entered into a new contract with another
stevedoring association.
CM assailed that the termination of the
contract was due to Union workers
inefficiency and that the Company suffered
financial losses due to such service. To
ascertain its annual losses, CMs manager
hired auditors. CM relied only upon such
auditors report and presented in court only
a summary of damages. The sales invoices
were not produced.
Issue: WON the non-submission as evidence
of the records of the alleged losses of the
Company is excused because of the rule
exempting voluminous records from being
produced in court.
Ruling: The best evidence of the Companys
losses would have been the sales invoices
instead of the Manager oral testimony. The bad faith on his part, may prove its
rule that when the original consists of contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
numerous accounts or other documents contents in some authentic document, or
which cannot be examined in court without by the testimony of witnesses in the order
great loss of time and the fact sought to be stated.
established in only the general result of the
whole, the original writings need not be
produce, CANNOT BE APPLIED because the 1. Source.This provision is a
voluminous character f the records was reproduction of Section 4, Rule 130 the
NOT DULY ESTABLISHED. It is also a Rules of Court with the following
requisite for the application of the rule that differences:
the records of accounts should be made
Section 4 Section 5
accessible to the adverse party so that the
Title of secondary when
correctness of the summary may be tested
the evidence original
on cross-examination.
section when original document is
When an entry is repeated in the regular is lost or unavailable
course of business, one being copied from destroyed
another at or near the time of the Change and loss or deleted
transaction, all the entries are regarded as s destruction,
originals. For as long as they are made or
within reasonable time, it is sufficient. A unavailability
much longer but reasonable delay and ; may be
when entries appear to have been made proved;
while the memory as to the transaction as recollection
clear or the source of such knowledge was Added: or
unimpaired, still makes it admissible. existence
and the
However, a book of account containing only cause of its
a single entry or charge of money lent, unavailabilit
which show no mutual recourse of dealing y without
between the parties, is not admissible. bad faith on
his part,
may prove
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE and the
words
SECTION 5, RULE 130 document
; the
Sec. 5 . When original document is offeror;
unavailable. When the original testimony
document has been lost or destroyed, or ; in the
cannot be produced in court, the offeror, order
upon proof of its execution or existence stated
and the cause of its unavailability without
 2. Secondary evidence explained.
Definition:
a. That which shows that better, or
primary evidence exists as to the
proof of the fact in question.
b. It is that class of evidence which
is relevant to the fact in issue, it
being first shown that the
primary evidence of the fact is
not obtainable.
c. Performs the same function as
that of primary evidence but is
LESS RELIABLE and WORTHY OF
BELIEF
Ex. A warrant itself is better
evidence of what it contains
than a copy of it
A check is better evidence of
what it contains than the stub
On why secondary evidence is
admitted:
It is admitted upon the theory that
the original cannot be produced by the
party by whom the evidence is offered
within a reasonable time by the exercise of
reasonable diligence.
*This is applicable in both civil and criminal
cases.
Rationale for requiring production
of original, two-fold:
1. Copies and oral testimony are more
prone to inaccuracy and subject to
fraud.
2. The appearance of the document
may furnish information as to its
authenticity.
3. Requisites for the admissibility of
secondary evidence:
a. Execution and existence of the
original
b. Loss and destruction of the original
or its non-production in court
c. Unavailability of the original is not
due to bad faith on the part of the
offeror
4. Proof of due execution and
existence of original
Meaning of execution:
The accomplishment of a thing, the
completion of an actor instrument,
the fulfilment of an undertaking
Even though the production of
an original may be excused
because of loss or destruction, it
is still necessary to authenticate
the absent document.
Before proof of contents can be
admitted, the court should be
satisfied of the existence and
due execution of the original in
the same manner as if the
original were produced.
Before a party can be permitted
to introduce secondary evidence
of the contents of a written
instrument, satisfactory proof
must be made of he former
existence of the instrument, and
this necessarily involves proof of
its proper execution or
genuineness.
 5. Due execution of lost ancient
documents need not be
established.
Lost document is more than 30
years old-secondary evidence of
their contents is admissible without
proof of their execution
6. Proof of lost or destruction of
original.
Destruction Loss
Signifies
The thing no merely that it
longer exists cannot be
discovered
But the two come together
consideration in this rule.
Test for the sufficiency of proof of loss:
Includes practically not only the cases of
loss in the narrower sense but also the
cases in which destruction is more or less
explicitly put forward as the reason for non-
production.
Destruction of the instrument may be
proved by:
1. Any person knowing the loss
2. Anyone who has made, in the
judgment of the court, a sufficient
examination in the place or places
where the document or papers of
similar characters are usually kept
by the person in whose custody the
document was lost was, and has
been unable to find it
3. Who has made any other
investigation which is sufficient to
satisfy the court that the instrument
is indeed lost
*A REASONABLE PROBABILITY of its loss is
sufficient, and this may be shown by a
BONAFIDE and DILIGENT SEARCH, fruitlessly
made, for it in places where it is likely to be
found.
7. Proof of execution, loss or
destruction of the original writing
recorded in a public registry
Before the record or a certified copy
of the recital made in a public
for registry of the contents of the
document, it is indispensable to
establish the following:
1. The document/deed really
existed
2. It was duly executed
3. It was lost
8. Proof of loss dispensed with by
admission
1. Where both parties admit that
an instrument has been lost, this
is sufficient to warrant the
reception of secondary evidence.
2. The contents of an instrument
may be proved against a party by
his admissions in writing,
without accounting for non-
production of the original
document.
9. Proof of non-production in court
1. It is sufficient to show that it is
deposited in a place from which
it cannot be removed for the
purpose of being produced in
court;
2. Or that it is not in the possession
or under the control of the party
seeking to show the facts;
3. He is unable to produce it within
a reasonable time after the
exercise of reasonable diligence.
*When the original of the
document e.g. receipt, cannot be
produced in court, the Photostat
copy thereof is admissible as
evidence.
10. Absence of bad faith on the part of
the offeror
1. Secondary evidence is
inadmissible when the party
offering it had himself destroyed
the original, with the object of
preventing its production in
court, for in such a case,
secondary evidence of its
contents could probably be
regarded as in all likelihood false
or misleading.
2. If destruction was done in the
ordinary course of business or by
mistake, or where the proponent
first removes, to the satisfaction
of the court any reasonable
suspicion of fraud, secondary
evidence is admissible.
*When primary evidence has
been wilfully destroyed, receipt
of secondary evidence may
depend upon the reasons for the
destruction, and such evidence
will not be received from the
party who destroyed the primary
evidence.
*The burden of proving absence
of bad faith falls on the
proponent.
11. Diligent search for the document
claimed to have been lost must be
shown.
There must be proof that a diligent
search has been made in the place
where it is most likely to be found
and that the search has not been
successful.
a. Where the paper is such that
from its nature it may be fairly
assumed that it has some
particular place of deposit, that
search should be search in the
utmost good faith, or the person
in whose custody it is shown to
have been should be produced.
b. The testimony of the last
custodian of the paper or record
should be produced; and, if this
person is shown to be dead, his
representative or successor
should be called.
c. The general statement that
diligence has been used, or a
mere perfunctory showing of
 some diligence will not ordinarily
suffice.
d. In every case, the testimony
Important points:
should show that the party has
in good faith exhausted all the
sources of information and
means of discovery which the
circumstances naturally suggest
and which have been accessible
to him.
GR: The loss or destruction of the
document need not be proved
beyond the possibility of mistake; it
is enough if the testimony satisfies
the court of the fact with reasonable
certainty. And the lost or
destruction may be proved by
circumstantial evidence.
What constitute a diligent search:
The matter of the whole foundation
or predicate for admission of such
secondary evidence is subject to the
wide discretion of the court
although courts should be cautious
in the reception of such evidence.
General rule concerning proof of a
lost instrument:
1. Reasonable search shall be made
for it in the place where it was
last known to have been;
2. If such search does not discover
it, then inquiry should be made
of persons most likely to have its
custody; or
3. Who have some reason to know
of its whereabouts.
1. The party must show that he has in
good faith, and to a reasonable
degree, made an effort to discover
the instrument, and to that end has
exhausted all sources of information
and means of discovery which were
open to him, and which in the
nature of the case were possible.
2. No fixed rule as to the necessary
proof to establish loss, or what
constitutes reasonable search, can
be formulated.
3. The sole object of such proof is, to
raise a reasonable presumption,
merely that the instrument is lost,
and this is a preliminary inquiry
addressed to the discretion of the
judge.
12. Proof of true copy of original.
This may be shown by the testimony
of a person who has had the
opportunity to compare the copy
with the original and found it to be
correct.
In order that the testimony of such
person may be admissible, it is
sufficient:
1. That the original was read to him
by another person while he read
the copy and found that it
corresponded with what was
read to him.
 2. Where the person who made the
original a short time thereafter
made a copy by writing down
the dictation of another reading
from the original.
*When originals of a public document in the
possession of the parties have been proven
lost, a CERTIFIED COPY of the document
made before it was lost is admissible as
SECONDARY EVIDENCE of its contents, and
the BURDEN OF PROOF is upon the PARTY
QUESTIONING ITS AUTHENTICITY to show
that it is not a true copy of the original.
Case:
1. Country Bankers Insurance Corp. vs.
Antonio Lagman G.R. No.
165487 July 13, 2011
A photocopy, being a mere
secondary evidence, is not admissible
unless it is shown that the original is
unavailable. Section 5, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court states:
SEC.5 When original
document is unavailable.
When the original document
has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in
court, the offeror, upon
proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad
faith on his part, may prove
its contents by a copy, or by
a recital of its contents in
some authentic document,
or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order
stated.
Before a party is allowed to adduce
secondary evidence to prove the contents
of the original, the offeror must prove the
following: (1) the existence or due
execution of the original; (2) the loss and
destruction of the original or the reason
for its non-production in court; and (3) on
the part of the offeror, the absence of bad
faith to which the unavailability of the
original can be attributed. The correct
order of proof is as follows: existence,
execution, loss, and contents.
In the case at bar, Lagman
mentioned during the direct examination
that there are actually four (4) duplicate
originals of the 1990 Bond: the first is kept
by the NFA, the second is with the Loan
Officer of the NFA in Tarlac, the third is with
Country Bankers and the fourth was in his
possession. A party must first present to
the court proof of loss or other satisfactory
explanation for the non-production of the
original instrument. When more than one
original copy exists, it must appear that all
of them have been lost, destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court before
secondary evidence can be given of any
one. A photocopy may not be used
without accounting for the other originals.
Despite knowledge of the existence
and whereabouts of these duplicate
originals, Lagman merely presented a
photocopy. He admitted that he kept a
copy of the 1990 Bond but he could no
longer produce it because he had already
severed his ties with Country
Bankers. However, he did not explain why
severance of ties is by itself reason enough
for the non-availability of his copy of the
bond considering that, as it appears from
the 1989 Bonds, Lagman himself is a
bondsman. Neither did Lagman explain
why he failed to secure the original from
any of the three other custodians he
mentioned in his testimony. While he
apparently was able to find the original with
the NFA Loan Officer, he was merely
contented with producing its
photocopy. Clearly, Lagman failed to exert
diligent efforts to produce the original.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Section 9, Rule 130
Sec. 9 .Evidence of written agreements.
When the terms of an agreement have
been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the
written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of
written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written
agreement;
b) The failure of the written agreement
to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
c) The validity of the written
agreement; or
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.
General Rule
Parol Evidence Rule
- The so-called parol
evidence forbids any
addition to or contradiction
of the terms of a written
instrument by testimony
purporting to show that, at
or before the signing of the
document, other or different
terms were orally agreed
upon by the parties
- The existence of a valid
contract is a condition
precedent to the application
of the rule.
- Where the terms of an
agreement are reduced to
writing, the document itself,
being constituted by the
parties as the expositor of
their intentions, is the only
instrument of evidence in
respect to that agreement
which the law will recognize,
so long as it exists for the
purpose of evidence.
- When an agreement has
been reduced to writing, the
parties cannot be permitted
to adduce evidence to prove
alleged practices which to all
purposes would alter the
written agreement.
Whatever is not found in the
 writing must be understood
to have been waived and
abandoned. Soriano vs.
Compania General de
Tabacos de Filipinas, 125
Phil.80
- If oral testimony or parol
evidence is presented on
facts or circumstances which
do not refer to the terms or
contents of a writing, the
prohibition in the parol
evidence rule does not apply.
Talosig vs. Vda. De nieba, 43
SCRA 472.
Parol evidence rule not applicable to strangers to the instrument
Reason for the Rule
- The purpose of the rule is
give stability to written
agreements and to remove
the temptation and
possibility of perjury, which
would be afforded if parol
evidence were admissible.
Castro vs. CA GR L-34613,
January 26, 1989
Parol evidence rule distinguished
from best evidence rule

- The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by
either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties
to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to the written instrument in
question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right
originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby. Lechugas vs.
CA, 143 SCRA 335

Parol evidence not admissible to validate a void contract

- Where an instrument is on its face illegal or void, because it shows a violation of

some statutory provision, or omits something which the law makes essential to
its validity, or for any reason, parol evidence cannot be admitted to contradict to
show a violation of the statute, to supply the omission, or otherwise to make
effectual that which the law declares shall be of no effect, unless it can be shown
that the provision which renders the instrument void was inserted by mistake.

Waiver of benefit of rule

- by failure to object to the introduction of parol evidence

 Exceptions to parol evidence must be put in issue in the pleading

Parol evidence rule applicable to wills

- That means that there is no evidence on the terms of the will and of its
attestation clause other than the contents of the same
- If the ambiguity is patent (one which appears upon the face of the instrument)
o extrinsic evidence not admissible
o testators intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will, taking
into consideration the circumstances under which it was made, excluding
oral declarations
- If the ambiguity is latent (one which is not discoverable from a perusal of the
will)
o extrinsic evidence admissible
when it names a person as the object of a gift or a thing as the subject
of it and there are two persons or things that answer such name or
description
where there is a mis-description of the object or subject

Exceptions

When parol evidence is admissible

- When any of the following is put in issue in the 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

Kinds of ambiguities in documents

a. patent - instrument on its face is intelligible

b. latent - the words of the instrument are clear, but their application to the
circumstances is doubtful

Test of the difference between latent and patent ambiguities

- A good test of the difference between the two forms of ambiguities is to put the
instrument into the hands of an ordinarily intelligent educated person. If on
perusal he sees no ambiguity, but there is nevertheless an uncertainty from
merely reading the instrument, it is patent.
 Latent or intrinsic ambiguity defined

- An uncertainty which does not appear on the face of the instrument, but which
is shown to exist for the first time by the matter outside the writing may be
explained or clarified by parol evidence

Kinds of latent ambiguities

a. where the description of the devises or the property devised is clear upon
the face of the will, but it turns out that there is more than one estate or
person to which the description applies
b. where the devisee or property devised is imperfectly or, in some respects,
erroneously described, so as to leave it doubtful what person or property is
meant

Extrinsic or patent ambiguity not a justification for reforming the writing

- The contest and every legitimate rule of exposition may be listed and used in
obedience to the maxim ut res magisvaleat quam pereat (That the thing may
rather have effect than be destroyed) but parol testimony or extraneous proof of
any kind, is deemed to be inadmissible
- The rule expressly mentions intrinsic or latent ambiguity and not extrinsic or
patent ambiguity as one of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule.
- Reason for the rule: if the language be too doubtful for any settled construction,
by the admission of parol evidence, you create and do not merely construe the
contract; you attempt to do that for the party which he has not chosen to do for
himself.

Where both intrinsic and extrinsic ambiguities appear in the writing

- Where the words are all sensible, and have a settled meaning but the same time
consistently admit of two interpretations.
- In such a case, parol evidence may be admitted to show the circumstances under
which the contract was made, and the subject-matter to which the parties
referred

Rules governing the admissibility of parol evidence to explain ambiguity (latent

ambiguity)

a. Where the instrument itself seems to be clear and certain the ambiguity arises
from some extrinsic or collateral matter, the ambiguity may be helped by parol
evidence. (latent ambiguity)
b. Where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words designating the
person or subject-matter, parol evidence of collateral or extrinsic matter may be
 introduced for the purpose of aiding the court in arriving at the meaning of the
language used. (intermediate ambiguity)
c. Where the ambiguity is such that a perusal of the instrument shows plainly that
something more must be added before the reader can determine what of
several things are meant, the rule is inflexible that parol evidence cannot be
admitted to supply the deficiency.

Mistake in the written instrument

- To justify the reformation of a written instrument upon the ground of mistake,

the concurrence of three things is necessary: (a) that the mistake should be of
fact; (b) that the mistake should be mutual or common to both parties to the
instrument; (c) that the mistake should be alleged an proved by clear and
convincing evidence.
a. Mistake of fact The rule admitting parol evidence in case a written
instrument, through mistake, does not correctly express the intention of the
parties applies only in cases of mistake of fact and not where a party has
contracted under a mistake of law.
b. Mistake must be mutual The parties must show that there was a valid
contract between them, which contract is not correctly set forth in the
writing to be reformed.
c. Mistake should be alleged and proved the existence of mistake must be
alleged in the pleadings and the allegations must be sustained by proof

Imperfection in the written agreement

- Parol evidence is admissible where there is imperfection of the writing

Written agreement does not express the true intent and agreement of the parties

- If a written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that all contractual

intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere inspection of the
instrument, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the contract, of the
relations of the parties to each other, and the facts and circumstances
surrounding them when they entered into the contract may be received to
enable the court to make a proper interpretation of the instrument.
- Parol evidence is admissible where it is offered, not for the purpose of varying
the terms of a written contract, but for the purpose of explaining and showing
that true nature and character of the transaction evidenced thereby.

Prior Contemporaneous Distinct greement

 - The rule excluding parole evidence to vary or contradict a writing but does not
extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence to show prior or
contemporaneous collateral parole agreements between the parties.
- Such evidence may be received regardless of whether or not the written
agreement contains reference to such collateral agreement.

Inducement in Written Agreement or Contract

- Where a parole contemporaneous agreement was the inducing and moving

cause of the written contract, or where the execution of a written agreement
has been induced on the faith of which the party executed the writing and
without which he would not have executed it, evidence of the oral agreement or
stipulation may be given although it may have effect of varying the contract.

Proof of Fraud

- The rule which prefers written to unwritten evidence does not so apply as to
exclude the latter when its object to prove that the writing was fraudulently
obtained and thereby avoid the contract evidenced by it.

- Furthermore, the rule does not extend to evidence offered to show that the
contract was made in furtherance of objects forbidden by statute, by the
common law or by public policy.

Validity of Written Agreement

- The prohibition does not apply where the purpose of the parole evidence is to
show that no written contract ever existed and that there never existed any
consideration upon which such an agreement could be founded.
- Parole Evidence Rule finds no application where the validity of the document is
the very fact in dispute.

Subsequent Agreements

- The parole evidence rule does not apply so as to prohibit the establishment by parole
an agreement between the parties to a writing entered into subsequent to the time
when the written instrument was executed regardless such agreement varies or
contradicts.

- Reason: parties cannot be presumed to have intended the written instrument to cover
all their possible subsequent agreements which for that reason may be considered as
separate transactions.
RECENTLY DECIDED CASES

Heirs of PolicronioUreta, Sr. vs. Heirs of LiberatoUreta

G.R. No. 165748. September 14, 2011

The applicability of the parol evidence rule requires that the case be between parties to the
written instrument in question and their successors-in-interest.

Facts:

In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta (Alfonso) begot 14 children, namely, Policronio, Liberato,
Narciso, Prudencia, Vicente, Francisco, Inocensio, Roque, Adela, Wenefreda, Merlinda,
Benedicto, Jorge, and Andres. The children of Policronio (Heirs of Policronio), are opposed to
the rest of Alfonso's children and their descendants (Heirs of Alfonso). Alfonso and four of his
children, namely, Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco, met at the house of Liberato.
He executed four (4) Deeds of Sale covering several parcels of land in favor of his four children
in order to reduce the inheritance taxes. No monetary consideration was given, Alfonso
continued to own, possess and enjoy the lands and their produce. Years after Alfonsos and
Policronios death, the formers heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, which
included all the lands that were covered by the four (4) deeds of sale that were previously
executed by Alfonso for taxation purposes.

Believing that the six parcels of land belonged to their late father, and as such, excluded
from the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, the Heirs of Policronio filed a Complaint for
Declaration of Ownership, Recovery of Possession, Annulment of Documents, Partition, and
Damages against the Heirs of Alfonso. The RTC ruled in favor of the Heirs of Alfonso. Likewise,
the CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that the Deed of Sale was void. It found the Deed of Sale
to be absolutely simulated as the parties did not intend to be legally bound by it.

Issue: Whether or not parol evidence rule may be properly invoked by either party in the
litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy
of a party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or
assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.

Held:

Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

 Section 9.Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of an agreement
have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms
of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:

(a)An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written

agreement;

(b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;

(c)The validity of the written agreement; or

(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.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) are applicable in the case at bench.

The failure of the Deed of Sale to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
was clearly put in issue in the Answer of the Heirs of Alfonso to the Complaint. It was alleged
that the Deed of Sale was only made to lessen the payment of estate and inheritance taxes and
not meant to transfer ownership. The exception in paragraph (b) is allowed to enable the court
to ascertain the true intent of the parties, and once the intent is clear, it shall prevail over what
the document appears to be on its face. As the true intent of the parties was duly proven in the
present case, it now prevails over what appears on the Deed of Sale.

The validity of the Deed of Sale was also put in issue in the Answer, and was precisely
one of the issues submitted to the RTC for resolution. The operation of the parol evidence
rule requires the existence of a valid written agreement. It is, thus, not applicable in a
proceeding where the validity of such agreement is the fact in dispute, such as when a contract
may be void for lack of consideration. Considering that the Deed of Sale has been shown to be
void for being absolutely simulated and for lack of consideration, the Heirs of Alfonso are not
precluded from presenting evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement.

Indeed, the applicability of the parol evidence rule requires that the case be between
parties and their successors-in-interest. In this case, both the Heirs of Alfonso and the Heirs of
Policronio are successors-in-interest of the parties to the Deed of Sale as they claim rights
under Alfonso and Policronio, respectively. The parol evidence rule excluding evidence
aliunde, however, still cannot apply because the present case falls under two exceptions to the
rule, as discussed above.

CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS vs. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS,

INC.

G.R. No. 190515. June 6, 2011

Theparol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence, should not be strictly applied in labor cases.

Facts:

The then Acting Secretary of Labor Manuel G. Imson ruled that the wage increases to be
given are P10 per day effective January 1, 2004 and P15 per day effective January 1, 2005.
Respondent averred that the Secretary of Labor cannot insist on a ruling beyond the
compromise agreement entered into by the parties.

Issue: Whether or not the parol evidence rule should be strictly applied in labor cases.

Held:

In determining arbitral awards then, aside from the MOA, courts considered other
factors and documents including, as in this case, the financial documents submitted by
respondent as well as its previous bargaining history and financial outlook and improvements
as stated in its own website.

The appellate court's ruling that giving credence to the "Pahayag" and the minutes of
the meeting which were not verified and notarized would violate the rule on parol evidence is
erroneous. Theparol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence, should not be strictly applied in
labor cases. Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc. teaches:

[R]eliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced. In labor cases pending

before the Commission or the Labor Arbiter, the rules of evidence prevailing
in courts of law or equity are not controlling. Rules of procedure and evidence
are not applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases. Hence, the
Labor Arbiter is not precluded from accepting and evaluatingevidence other
than, and even contrary to, what is stated in the CBA.

MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 199430 March 21, 2012

Based on theparol evidence rule, there can generally be noevidence of the terms other than the
contents of the written agreement

Facts:

Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of violation of R.A. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) for acting
in evident bad faith in the purchase of the property sold by Glicerio Plaza as part of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines Retirement Separation and Benefit System (AFP-RSBS) Calamba
Land Banking Project, The Sandiganbayan found that the true consideration of the sale made by
Plaza to AFP-RSBS was only P227,460 as stated in a unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale, and not
the disbursed amount of P1,531,564 as reflected in the bilateral Deed of Sale.

Issue: Whether or not the unilateral Deed of Sale should be the basis to determine the true
consideration.

Held:

In any event, the finding that the true consideration was only P227,460 and not
P1,531,564 is supported by the evidence on record. Here, the Sandiganbayan found that the
unilateral Deed of Sale was the official document used by the buyer AFP-RSBS and seller Plaza
in the registration of the sale; as well as in the payment of the registration fee, transfer tax,
capital gains tax, and documentary stamp tax necessary to effect transfer. This finding was not
disputed by the petitioner.

At most, petitioner relied on the testimony of Plaza, which referred to a consideration of

P1,137,300 to P1,213,120 as purchase price of the property. However, based on
the parol evidence rule, there can generally be no evidence of the terms other than the
contents of the written agreement; and even if this were the case, it still appears that the
consideration cannot be the P1,531,564 disbursed according to the Status Transaction Report
signed by petitioner.

Neither did the seller or the buyer dispute the validity of the unilateral Deed of Absolute
Sale. The subsequent bilateral Deed of Absolute Sale did not repeal or modify the earlier sale
either. As the deed was a valid agreement of conveyance, notwithstanding that only the seller
signed the deed, theSandiganbayan did not err when it used the unilateral Deed of Sale as
basis to determine the true consideration.

MODESTO LEOVERASvs. CASIMERO VALDEZ

G.R. No. 169985. June 15, 2011

 To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the Rules of Court allows a party to
present evidence modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of the written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading, as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or
accident, which nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties.

Facts:

When BenignaLimas died, she willed her share of a parcel of land equally to her sisters
Alejandra Llamas and Josefa Llamas. Thus, Alejandra and Josefa each owned one-half (1/2) of
Benigna's share. On June 14, 1969, Alejandra's heirs sold their predecessor's one-half (1/2)
share (roughly equivalent to 10,564 square meters) to the respondent, as evidenced by a Deed
of Absolute Sale. Also on June 14, 1969, Josefa sold her own one-half (1/2) share (subject
property) to the respondent and the petitioner, as evidenced by another Deed of Absolute
Sale.

Years later, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner, seeking the
reconveyance of the 1,004-square meter portion (disputed property), on the ground that the
petitioner is entitled only to the 3,020 square meters identified in the parties' Agreement. On
the other hand, the petitioner claimed that the respondent voluntarily participated in executing
the Affidavit, which corrected the mistake in the previously executed Agreement and confirmed
the petitioner's ownership over the disputed property. He claimed that since the Agreement
does not reflect the true intention of the parties, the Affidavit was subsequently executed in
order to reflect the parties' true intention.

Issue: Whether or not the written agreement failed to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties therefore beyond the ambit of parol evidence rule.

Held:

The petitioner's argument calls to fore the application of the parol evidence rule, i.e.,
when the terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the written agreement is deemed to
contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of these terms can be admitted other than
what is contained in the written agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood
to have been waived and abandoned.

To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the Rules of Court allows a party to
present evidence modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of the written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading, as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or
accident, which nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties.
 At the trial, the petitioner attempted to prove, by parol evidence, the alleged true
intention of the parties by presenting the Affidavit, which allegedly corrected the mistake in the
previously executed Agreement and confirmed his ownership of the parcels of land covered by
his titles. It was the petitioner's staunch assertion that the respondent co-executed this
Affidavit supposedly to reflect the parties' true intention. TCcIaA

In the present petition, however, the petitioner made a damaging admission that
the Benigna Deed is fabricated, thereby completely bolstering the respondent's cause of action
for reconveyance of the disputed property on the ground of fraudulent registration of title.
Since the Affidavit merely reflects what is embodied in the Benigna Deed, the petitioner's
admission, coupled with the respondent's denial of his purported signature in the Affidavit,
placed in serious doubt the reliability of this document, supposedly the bedrock of the
petitioner's defense.

INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS

Interpretation of Contracts under the CIVIL CODE:

Article 1370 Civil Code - If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the
intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.

If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail
over the former.

- It is an elementary rule of contract that the laws in force at the time the contract was
made must govern its interpretation.
- Matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation, and validity of a contract are
determined by the law of the place where the contract is made.
- The terms of the contract where unambiguous are conclusive, in the absence of
averment and proof of mistake, the question being not what the intention existed in
the minds of the parties but what intention is expressed by the language used.

Article 1371, Civil Code - In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their
contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.

- The contemporaneous and subsequent acts that may serve as indicia of the intention of
the parties are those in which both of them participate.

Art. 1372, Civil Code- However general the terms of a contract may be, they shall not be
understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are different from those upon
which the parties intended to agree.
 - Where a specific provision in a contract is followed by a general provision covering the
same subject matter, the former will be held to prevail over the latter when the two
cannot stand together.
- Where both the general and special provisions may be given reasonable effect, both are
to be retained.

Art. 1373, Civil Code- If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings, it
shall be understood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual.

- When an agreement is susceptible of several meanings one of which would make it

effectual, it should be given such interpretation. The terms of a contract must if possible
be construed to mean something rather than nothing.

Art. 1374, Civil Code - The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together,
attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.

Art. 1375, Civil Code - Words which may have different significations shall be understood in that
which is most in keeping with the nature and object of the contract.

- When a term is susceptible of different meanings, it should be understood in that sense

which is most in accord with the nature and object of the contract in which it is used, in
line with the rule that the intention of the parties must prevail.

Art. 1376, Civil Code- The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the
interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the omission of stipulations which
are ordinarily established.

- The usage or custom of the place where the contract was entered into may be resorted
to as aids in making definite what is uncertain or in clearing up what is doubtful or
ambiguous in a contract.

Art. 1377, Civil Code- The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not
favor the party who caused the obscurity.

Art. 1378, Civil Code- When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules established
in the preceding articles, and the doubts refer to incidental circumstances of a gratuitous
contract, the least transmission of rights and interests shall prevail. If the contract is onerous,
the doubt shall be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests.

If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract in such a way that it cannot be
known what may have been the intention or will of the parties, the contract shall be null and
void.
 - Thus if the Contract is gratuitous such interpretation should be made which would result
in the least transmission of rights and interest.
- If the doubt refers to the principal object of the contract in question and such cannot be
resolved notwithstanding the application of said rule, the contract shall be null and void.

Art. 1379, Civil Code- The principles of interpretation stated in Rule 123 of the Rules of Court
shall likewise be observed in the construction of contracts.

INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER THE REVISED RULES OF COURT

Section 10: Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning 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.

REQUISITES:

1. The court must give to the legal words or phrases the meaning they bear in the place
where the writing was executed;
2. That such meaning shall be disregarded if the contract shows that the parties have
intended to give such words or phrases a meaning different from that they have at the
place of the execution of the writing.

Section 11: Instruments construed so as to give effect to all provisions In the construction of
an instrument where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if
possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.

a. CONSTRUCTION AS A WHOLE- A contract must be construed as a whole, and the

intention of the parties is to be collected from the entire instrument and not from
detached portions, it being necessary to consider all of its parts in order to determine
the meaning of any particular part as well as of the whole.

- An agreement should be interpreted as a whole and the meaning gathered from the
entire context, and not form the particular words, phrases, or clauses.

b. INTERPRETATION OF SEVERAL INSTRUMENTS WHICH ARE PART OF ONE TRANSACTION-

Where several instruments are made as part of one transaction, they will be read
together, and each will be construed with reference to the other.

Section 12: Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions - 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. So a
particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
 a. INTENTION OF THE PARTIES The court must ascertain the intention of the parties only
when the terms of the contract are not clear and leave doubt upon the intention of the
contracting parties, otherwise, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control.

Section 13: Interpretation according to circumstances 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 places in the position
of those whose language he is to interpret.

a. CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENT ACCORDING TO SURROUNDING CIRCUSTANCES the

surrounding circumstances at the time it was made should be considered for the
purpose of ascertaining its meaning, but not for the purpose a new distinct undertaking.
b. PRELIMINARY AGREEMENTS AND NEGOTIATIONS In the interpretation of a writing
which is intended to state the entire agreement, preliminary negotiations between the
parties may, however, be considered in order to determine their meaning and intention,
but not to vary or contradict the plain terms of the instrument.

Section 14: Peculiar signification of terms - The terms of a writing are presumed to have been
used in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they
have 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.

a. MEANING OF WORDS: ORDINARY SENSE - in construing a written contract the words

employed will be given their ordinary and popularly accepted meaning, in the absence
of anything to show that they were used in a different sense.
b. TECHNICAL WORDS CONSTRUED Where technical words are employed by parties who
are obviously unfamiliar with their meaning, they may be construed in such manner as
to effectuate the true intention of the parties.
c. IDIOMATIC USAGE PREVAILS OVER LITERAL TRANSLATION A translation made in
accordance with the idiomatic usage of the language from which it is made will prevail
over a literal translation which, while word for word correct, is not idiomatic.

Section 15:Written words control printed- When an instrument consists partly of written words
and partly of printed forms, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter.

a. INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN WRITTEN AND PRINTED PROVISIONS where a part of a

contract is written and part is printed, and the written and printed parts are apparently
inconsistent or there is reasonable doubt as to the sense and meaning of the whole, the
words in writing will control.
 b. DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WORDS AND FIURES In case of an inconsistency between
words and figures in a contract the words govern.

Section 16:Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings When 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 the persons skilled in deciphering the characters,
or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language.

a. ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY TO EXPLAIN THE CHARACTERS OF AN

INSTRUMENT WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO DECIPHER A person who is skilled in the
handling and inspection of documents may state meaning of abbreviations, and of
obscure or elliptical entries or figures; and whether a set of figures, letters, marks, or
writings contain an arrangement in cipher, and, if so, what they mean.

Section 17: Of two constructions, which preferred 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.

a. CONSTRUCTION AGAINST PARTY USING WORDS- Where a contract is ambiguous it

will be construed most strongly against the party preparing it. The reason for the
rule being that a man is responsible for ambiguities in his own expressions and has
no right to induce another to contract with him on the supposition that his words
mean one thing, while he hopes the court will adopt a construction by which they
would mean another thing more to his advantage.

Section 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.

a. NATURAL RIGHT is meant those rights which are necessarily inherent, rights which are
innate and which come from the very elementary laws of nature such as life, liberty, the
pursuit of happiness, and self- preservation.

Section 19:Interpretation according to usage An instrument may be construed according to

usage, in order to determine its true character.

a. USAGE ADMISSIBLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS DOUBTFUL Usage may be admissible to

explain what is doubtful, it is never admissible to contradict what is plain.

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Sec 20 Rule 130

Qualification of Witnesses

-Can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others.

General Rule- A disinterested person could be compelled to give his testimony through
subpoena.

Exceptions- Persons who are immune from the process of subpoena by tradition, convention or
law:

Ambassadors of foreign countries by virtue of treaty obligations

President of the Philippines or other country

Case: People Vs. De Jesus

The fact that complainant displayed difficulty in comprehending the questions

propounded on her is undisputed. However there is no showing that she could not convey her
ideas y words or signs. It appears in the records that complainant gave sufficiently intelligent
answers to the questions propounded by the court and the counsels. The trial court is satisfied
that the complainants can perceive and transmit in her own way her own perceptions to
others. She is therefore found to be a competent witness.

Testimonial Duty of Citizens= to support the administration of justice by attending its courts
and giving his testimony whenever he is properly summoned.

Process to enforce duty= the performance of the citizens testimonial duty can only be invoked
by the State after adequate notice is given.

Witness= a person who testifies in a case or gives evidence before a judicial tribunal.

= a person called to be present at some transaction soa s to be able to attest to its

having taken place.

Interested persons as witnesses= while rightfully subjected to careful scrutiny, should not be
rejected on the ground of bias alone.

= if testimony is reasonable and consistent ad is not contradicted by evidence from any reliable
source, there is no reason, as a general rule, for not accepting it.

Case: US vs. Mante 27 Phil 134

 The testimony s interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny but they
should not be rejected on the ground of bias alone.

Case: People vs. Natividad (CA) 50 OG 5824

Such testimony must be judged on their own merits. If they are clear ad convinving and
are not destroyed by other evidence of record, they may be believed. And the testimony of
these witnesses fulfil the requirement.

Attorney as witness= counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary and that they
should withdraw from the active management of the case.

= except when it is essential to the ends of justice

Judge as witness= judicial conduct should not be subject to cross-examination or comment, the
peculiar duties of the judge in administering oaths to the witnesses in case the court has no
clerk, and in deciding upon their competency, with his power to commit for contempt when his
testimony concerns merely formal or preliminary matters about which there is no dispute, as
where he testifies in a perjury prosecution that the defendant gave testimony before him in
another proceeding in another court.

Persons convicted of crime as witness= persons ho have been convicted of perjury are not
excluded law.

=since perjury is a crime involving moral turpitude, the convict whenever mad a co-
accused in any criminal case, cannot be discharged to become a witness for the government in
that case, because under the ROC, the court may direct the discharge of one of the several co-
accusers for that purpose when, in its judgement, such accused has ot at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

Presumption of competency of witness= means legal fitness or ability of a witness to be heard

on the trial of a case.

Objection to competency of witness= must be made before he has given any testimony;

=If the incompetency appears on the trial, it mst be interposed as soon as it becomes
apparent.

Waiver of objection= may be done expressly or by silence.

 The ff may be considered a waiver of the objection:

a. Where the witness testifies without objection, though at that time the party knows
of his incompetency.
b. Here the party who might have made the objection owns the witness in support of
his own case.

Sec 21 Rule 130

Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity

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 truthfuly.

Case: People vs. Salomon

A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness.

Case: People vs. Mendoza

Requisites of competency of a child as witness,:capacity of observation, capacity of

recollection, and capacity of communication.

Insane person as a witness= general rules is that a lunatic or a person affected with insanity is
admissible as a witness if he has sufficient understanding to apprehend the obligation of an
oath and is capable of giving correct account of the matters which he has seen or hears with
respect to the questions at issue.

Monomanica as witness= he understand the nature and obligation of an oath and can give
correct account of what he ha seen or heard.

Deaf and Dumb = may be a competent witness although he us uneducated in the use of signs
and his capacity to convey his ideas to others is very circumscribed and limited.
Rule 130, Section 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, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.

General Rule
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse.

Reason
This is based on principles which are deemed important to preserve the marriage relation as
one of full confidence and affection, and that this is regarded as more important to the public
welfare than that the exigencies of the lawsuits should authorize domestic peace to be
disregarded, for the sake of ferreting out facts within the knowledge of strangers.

This applies only to a lawful wife not a bigamous one, nor to a paramour, nor to an affiance.

Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72 (Riano)

The specific reasons for the rule are the following:
a. there is identity of interests between husband and wife
b. if one were to testify for or against the other, there is a consequent danger of
perjury
c. the policy of the law is to guard the security and confidence of private life, even at
the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic disunion and
unhappiness
d. where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is danger of punishing one spouse
through the hostile testimony of the other

Scope
The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or against the other applies to any form of
testimony; therefore it protects against using the spouse-witness admission, or against
compelling him/her to produce documents. However, res gestae declarations of husband and
wife are admissible for or against each other, even though each is incompetent to testify.
A husband may not testify for or against his wife without her consent; nor a wife for or against
her husband without his consent, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed against the other. This provision deals with two different matters
which rest on different grounds of policy: the disqualification of the husband and wife to testify
in each others behalf, as well as their privilege not to testify against each other.
People vs. Pansensoy, 388 SCRA 669 (Riano)
Under this rule, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against
the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the
latters direct descendants or ascendants. However, objections to the competency of a
husband and wife to testify in a criminal prosecution against the other may be waived as
in the case of other witnesses generally. The objection to the competency of the spouse
must be made when he or she is first offered as a witness. In this case, the
incompetency was waived by appellants failure to make a timely objection to the
admission of his wifes testimony.

Either Spouse Must Be a Party to the Case

As to the adverseness of the testimony, courts generally hold this to mean that the other
spouse must be a party to the cause, not a third person who happens to be involved somehow
in the case; otherwise the testimony does not hurt the other spouses legal interests.

When Privilege Ceases

After the death or the divorce of one spouse, the privilege ceases for the reason ceases. When
the marriage is dissolved by death, there is no more marriage and therefore, the privilege can
no longer be claimed.

It has been held that no unfavorable inference may be drawn from a fact that a party spouse
invokes the privilege to prevent the witness-spouse from testifying against him or her.

Exceptions
a. that the case in which the husband or the wife is called to testify is not a civil case
instituted by one against the other
b. that it is not a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other

Reason for the Exceptions

The identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that
identity is non-existing. The security and confidence of private life which the law aims at
 protecting will be nothing but ideals which, through their absence, merely leave a void in
the unhappy home.

Ordono vs. Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270 (Riano)

The Supreme Court ruled that the wife is allowed to testify against her husband
who was accused of raping their daughter. It ruled that the correct rule is the one laid
down in Cargill vs. State which held that, The rule that the injury must amount to a
physical wrong upon the person is too narrow. The better rule is that, when an offense
directly attacks or directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relations, it comes within the
exception to the statute

People vs. Quidato Jr., 297 SCRA 1 (Riano)

May a spouse testify in a trial where the spouse is a co-accused? The Court ruled
in the affirmative but likewise held that the testimony of the wife in reference to her
husband must be disregarded since the husband timely objected thereto under the
marital disqualification rule. The Court explained that the disqualification is between
husband and wife, but the rule does not preclude the wife from testifying when it
involves other parties or accused. Hence, the wife could testify in the murder case
against the brothers who were jointly tried with the husband of the witness. The Court
stressed, however, that the testimony cannot be used against accused-appellant directly
or through the guise of taking judicial notice of the proceedings in the murder case
without violating the marital disqualification rule. What cannot be done directly cannot
be done indirectly.

Waiver of Privilege
Wigmore asserts that the privilege of objecting to testimony concerning anti-marital facts
belongs to the spouse who is a party to the action and not to the spouse who is being used as a
witness. This seems to be the rule in this jurisdiction. Hence, the right to object to the
competency of one spouse pertains solely to the spouse-party and not to the other spouse who
is offered as a witness.

Bar 2006 (Riano)

Leticia was estranged from her husband Paul for more than a year due to his
suspicion that she was having an affair with Manuel, their neighbor. She was
temporarily living with her sister in Pasig City. For unknown reasons, the house of
Leticias sister was burned, killing the latter. Leticia survived. She saw her husband in the
vicinity during the incident. Later, he was charged with arson in an Information filed
 with the RTC, Pasig City. During the trial, the prosecutor called Leticia to the witness
stand and offered her testimony to prove that her husband committed the arson. Can
Leticia testify over the objection of her husband on the ground of marital privilege?

Suggested Answer
Leticia cannot testify. Section 22 of Rule 130 bars her testimony without the
consent of the husband during the marriage. The separation of the spouses has not
operated to terminate their marriage. (Note: This is an answer based on the tenor of the
Rules of Court.)
The following answer should also be considered:
Leticia may testify over the objection of her husband. Where the marital and
domestic relations between her and the accused-husband have become so strained that
there is no more harmony, peace, or tranquility to be preserved, there is no longer any
reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule. (People vs. Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504;
Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72)

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. Parties or

assignor of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an
executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person
of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or
against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before
the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.

Object and Purpose of the Rule

This is to guard against the temptation to give false testimony in regard of the transaction in
question on the part of the surviving party and further, to put the two parties to a suit upon
terms of equality in regard to the opportunity to giving testimony. If one party to the alleged
transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the
other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and
unexplained account of the transaction. The underlying principle of the prohibition and the
reason for the same is to protect the estate from fictitious claims and to discourage perjury.

Dead Mans Statute (Riano)

To level the playing field between the lucky survivor and the poor deceased, our
remedial law ancestors devised a rule that would seal the lips of the survivor by
declaring him incompetent to testify on the transaction between him and the deceased.
The rule is definitely one that does not protect the survivor even at the risk of not
paying a just and valid claim because it is the survivor who has the stronger reason to
 file a false claim. The rule is for the protection of the guy who died. Hence, the name
Dead Mans Statute.

Requisites of the Disqualification

a. that the witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case or of a person in whose behalf
a case is prosecuted It is only parties who assert claims against an estate who are
rendered incompetent to testify. The word parties does not refer to the executor or
administrator who is the party defendant. The term assignor of a party means
assignor of a cause of action which has risen, and not the assignor of a right assigned
before any cause of action has arisen. However, this rule does not operate to exclude
the testimony which is favorable to the representative of the deceased or incompetent
person.

b. that the action is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a

deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind The term representative of a
deceased person has been interpreted to include not only the executor or
administrator of a deceased person but also the person or party who has succeeded to
the right of the deceased whether by purchase or descent or operation of law.

Razon vs. IAC, 207 SCRA 234 (Riano)

As held by the Court, the rule contemplates a suit against the estate, its
administrator or executor and not a suit filed by the administrator or executor of the
estate. A defendant who opposes the suit filed by the administrator to recover alleged
shares of stock belonging to the deceased is not barred from testifying as to his
transaction with the deceased with respect to the shares.

Sunga-Chan vs. Chua, 363 SCRA 249 (Riano)

Also when a counterclaim is set up by the administrator of the estate, the case is
removed from the operation of the dead mans statute, the plaintiff may testify to
occurrences before the death of the deceased to defeat the counterclaim which is not
brought against the representative of the estate but by the representative.

c. that the subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against such person of unsound mind The words claim or
demand mean any action or proceeding which may affect the real or personal
properties of a deceased or insane person. They are restricted to debts or demand
enforceable by personal actions upon which money judgments can be rendered. As to
other actions against estates, no incompetency of witnesses exists. An action for
 damages for breach of an agreement to devise property for services rendered is a claim
against an estate.

Bar 2001 (Riano)

Maximo filed an action against Pedro, the administrator of the estate of the
deceased Juan, for the recovery of a car which is part of the latters estate. During the
trial, Maximo presented witness Mariano who testified that he was present when
Maximo and Juan agreed that the latter would pay a rental of P20,000 for the use of
Maximos car for one month, after which Juan should immediately return the car to
Maximo. Pedro objected to the admission of Marianos testimony. If you were the
judge, would you sustain Pedros objection? Why?

Suggested Answer
The objection of Pedro should not be sustained. The testimony is admissible
because the witness is not disqualified to testify. Those disqualified under the dead
mans statute or the survivorship disqualification rule are parties to a case or persons in
whose behalf a case is prosecuted. The witness is not one of those enumerated under
the rule (Sec. 23, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

d. that his testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind This refers to
testimonies which relates to any matter of fact occurring before the death of the
decedent or before the person became of unsound mind. The phrase matter of fact is
literally interpreted to include not only facts tending to establish the claim or demand
but also incidental facts. Negative facts are not included in the matters prohibited by
law. The testimony of a plaintiff denying the occurrence of a transaction with the
deceased may be admitted on the ground that such plaintiff does not testify to a fact
occurring before the death of the decedent but on the contrary, that such fact has not
occurred.

Waiver
A waiver occurs when plaintiffs deposition is taken by the representative of the estate, when
counsel for the representative cross-examines the plaintiff as to matters occurring during
deceased lifetime.

(Riano) The survivorship disqualification rule is intended to benefit the estate of the deceased
or insane person, hence, this protection may be waived by:
a. failing to object to the testimony
 b. cross-examining the witness on the prohibited testimony (Santos vs. Santos, 366 SCRA
395)
c. by offering evidence to rebut the testimony

Bar 2007 (Riano)

True or False
The surviving parties rule bars Maria from testifying for the claimant as to what
the deceased Jose had said to her, in a claim filed by Pedro against the estate of Jose.

Suggested Answer
False. The rule bars only a party plaintiff or his assignor or a person in whose
behalf a case is prosecuted. Maria is merely a witness and is not one of those
enumerated as barred from testifying.

Sec. 24- Disqualification by reason of privilege communication. - The following persons cannot
testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without
the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from
the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
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 employment, nor can an attorney's secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such
capacity;

(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
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)

1. Source
A. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE
2. The rule
- The husband or the wife during of after the marriage, cannot b examined without
the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one
from the other during the marriage.

3. Reason of the rule-

That the admission of such testimony would have a powerful tendency to disturb
the peace of families
To weaken, if not destroy the mutual confidence upon which the happiness of the
married state depends.

4. Requisite of the rule

a. Spouses must be legally married
- If they live together in illicit cohabitation, they are not entitled to the privilege
- It is immaterial whether they believed in good faith that they were married if in fact
they were not.
b. The communication must be confidential and made during the marriage
- Only those communication, whether by word or deed, as pass from one to the other
by virtue of the confidence resulting from their intimate relation.
- Only the knowledge which the husband and the wife obtains from the other which
for the marital relation and the confidence growing out of it, would have been
communicated, or which is of such nature or character as that to repeat the same
would tend to unduly embarrass or disturb the parties in their marital relations.
c. Form of communication
- Applies to any form of confidence disclosure.
- Maybe words or conduct.
e.i > letters from husband to the wife
> wife saw husband counting stolen money and put it in his pocket.

5. Communication presumed confidential

 - Marital communication presumed to be confidential, but the presumption may be
overcome by proof that they were not intended to be private.
Notwithstanding that one spouse subsequently without consent of the other
disclosed such communication to a third person.

6. When communication between husband and wife cease to be confidential

a. When made in the presence of a third person.
XPN: if the confidential communication is overheard by a third person
still considered to be as confidential
the prohibition to testify is directed only to the wife and not to the third
person so the latter cannot be prevented from testifying
XPN to XPN: if the third person comes into the possession of the
communication by COLLUSION and VOLUNTSRY DISCLOSURE on either
spouse, he becomes an agent of such spouse and cannot testify without
the consent of the other.
b. Communication intended for transmission to third person.
A letter written to the defendant by his wife and seized by the police in
search of his effects on the day of his arrest is admissible because a
privilege communication from one spouse to another comes into the
hands of a third party, whether legally or not without collusion and
voluntary disclosure on the part of either spouse , the privilege is thereby
extinguished and if competent becomes admissible.
Statements from the notes of a stenographer to whom the husband
dictated the letter and who had transcribed it is admissible, because
normally the husband and the wife communicate without a stenographer
. here the communications have been voluntarily revealed.
Statements in the wifes diary not shown to the husband is admissible.
Those business and other communication not related to or dependent on
mutual trust are not privilege. But sometimes business transaction
between husband and wife are held privileged
Res gestae made in the presence of the spouse may be received.
Testimony of the former wife as to the sanity of the husband who is
charged with homicide is admissible.

7. Rule not applicable to dying declaration- on the trial of the one who killed him.
- The widow is competent to testify on behalf of the defense regarding the dying
declaration made to her by the deceased, considering the cause of death.
8. Duration of the privilege
- Continues in effect even after the marital relation has been terminated.
- This privilege is not affected by death of the other spouse or absolute divorce.
But when the communication is needed in behalf of his estate, the surviving
should be entitled to waive it.
9. Exceptions
a. That the case in which the husband or the wife is called to examined is a civil case
instituted by one against the other; or
b. a criminal case for a crime omitted by one against the other

10. Anti-marital facts

- The spouse may not testify as to as to facts related to the crime she learned before
they got married.
11. Incompetency as to anti0marital facts distinguished from incompetency as to privilege
communication

Incompetency as to incompetency as to
anti-marital facts privilege
communication
Prohibits adverse Prohibits only as to
testimony knowledge
regardless of the obtained through
source confidence or the
marital realtio
Exists only when a Exists whether the
party to the action is husband or wife is
the husband or wife a party to the
action or not
Ceases upon death Continues even
or either spouse after the
termination of the
marriage.

12. Waiver of privilege

- This privilege may be waived if not objected to.
Objection to the admission is timely if made before the answer to the
question for its revelation.
 - Privilege belongs to the communicating spouse. The prohibition arises only when the
person in whose favor the privilege exist demands by timely objection to the
testimony.

B. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT

13. The rule
- The attorney could not be compelled, nor would be allowed to disclose the
following:
a. the privilege communication made by the client to his attorney or his advice given
thereon in the course of or with a view o professional employment
confidentiality is inferred and presumed until the contrary is shown
there must be an existing attorney and client relation.
There must showing that the parties agreed there is an employment ;or
At least that he had consulted the witness to that end and the latter had not
refused the employment
If a lawyer friend without express employment or hope of compensation,
was asked by the accused while visiting that latter would plead guilty, the
communication is not privilege.
Communication in the ordinary intercourse is not privilege.
b. any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired by the attorneys secretary,
stenographer or clerk, in their respective capacity.

- It is not essential to create the privilege that any proceeding or civil, should be
pending or even in contemplation.
The attorney may testify or communication not privilege:
a. that his client did not communicate certain things to him
b. as to the residence of client
c. as to the circumstance surrounding the drawing of the will and the
conversations had with the testator at the time
d. attorney employed merely to act as scrivener
e. copying a will
f. preparing assignments or leases
g. attorney acting as attesting witness
h. notary public as agent to procure a loan
i. manager of clients property
j. acting as intermediary between members of a family
k. as to corporation affairs when the attorney is elected as a director
l. identification of the copy of the by-laws
 AS A GENERAL RULE A LAWYER MAY NOT REFUSE TO DIVULGE THE IDENTITY OF HIS
CLIENT; RATIONALE. As a matter of public policy, a client's identity should not be
shrouded in mystery. Under this premise, the general rule in our jurisdiction as well as in
the United States is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the
name or identity of his client. The reasons advanced for the general rule are well
established. First, the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged
information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood. Second, the privilege begins to
exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been established. The attorney-client
privilege does not attach until there is a client. Third, the privilege generally pertains to
the subject matter of the relationship. Finally, due process considerations require that
the opposing party should, as a general rule, know his adversary. "A party suing or sued
is entitled to know who his opponent is. He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark
against unknown forces. (Regala vs. SandiganBayan, G.R. No. 105938)
EXCEPTION; WHEN THE CLIENT'S IDENTITY IS PRIVILEGED. The general rule is,
however, qualified by some important exception. 1) Client identity is privileged where a
strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate that client in
the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice. 2) Where disclosure would
open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged. 3) Where the government's
lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's name,
the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony
necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is privileged. Apart from
these principal exceptions, there exist other situations which could qualify as exceptions
to the general rule. For example, the content of any client communication to a lawyer
lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on
which the client seeks legal assistance. Moreover, where the nature of the attorney-
client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended
to be confidential, the identity of the client has been held to be privileged, since such
revelation would otherwise result in disclosure and the entire transaction. Summarizing
these exceptions, information relating to the identity of a client may fall within the
ambit of the privilege when the client's name itself has an independent significance,
such that disclosure would then reveal client confidences. (Regala vs. SandiganBayan,
G.R. No. 105938)

14. Reason for the rule

- Based on upon the ground of public policy
 - To encourage clients to make full disclosure of facts in the interest of the
administration of justice
- Intended to enable a client to place unrestricted and unbounded confidence in his
attoryney in matters affecting his rights and obligations without danger of having
disclosures forced from the attorney on the witness stand.

15. Requisite of the rule

a. Professional employment
- The atty-client relationship must exist at the time the communication is made.
- Test whether the communications are made to an attorney with a view to obtaining
professional assistance or advice- if so, then privilege.
When is communication not privilege:
1. No professional relation exist the time the communication was made but
subsequently employs the atty in relation to such statement
2. those voluntarily made after the attorney refused to accept employment
- for the claim of this privilege it is not necessary that the attorney sought to be
prevented from testifying be in active practice.
b. Communication by client to attorney
- The privilege is not confined to verbal or written communications but extends to
other means of communications.
- It is necessary that the communication is confidential and be intended as
confidential otherwise if confidence was not contemplated then the testimony of
the attorney or client may be compelled.
- It is held that there is no privilege in cases where abstract legal opinions are sought
and obtained on general questions of law, either civil or criminal because no facts
are disclosed so nothing confidential of character to conceal.
c. Communication must have been made to the attorney in the course of professional
employment or with a view or professional employment or in hi professional
capacity
- A communication to an attorney us said to be in his professional capacity when
the client makes the same with the purpose of obtaining from hi a legal advice and
opinion concerning his legal rights, obligation or duties relative to the subject matter
of communication.
- It must be related to which the attorney is consulted or to put him in possession of
information to ebale him to properly and intelligently serve the client.
- Privilege also applies to agents and a consultaion with an agent in the attorneys
office.
When privilege does not apply
 1. An inquiry made of a friend who is not an attorney
2. Consultation with e.i clerk of court, deputy sheriff an unadmitted law student
3. The attorney cannot testify to the fact the he had received silver coin as part
of his retainer from a client who is accused for stealing a quantity of current
silver coin.
4. Those information obtained by a detective posing as an attorney of celebrity
is excluded by court (PP v. Barker)
5. Sidewalk advice from attorney upon legal questions do which no
compensation is asked or expected and none given except a luncheon should
not be regarded as privilege.
6. Those communication between an attorney and witness for the client to
show that the attorney attempted to corrupt or influence a witness to color
his testimony in favor of the accused.
16. Privilege applicable to counsel de oficio
- A counsel de oficio cannot testify in open court without the consent of his client as
to any fact imparted by h, to his client in professional consultation.
- Even if the consent is obtained, it is his duty to ask first to be relieved and have
another attorney take his place before testifying and not to leave his client without
proper representation

17. Privilege not applicable to attorney who is subscribing witness to his clients will
- Attorney may testify to the attending circumstances of the execution of his clients
will.
- The testator waives privilege as to his attorneys testimony concerning testamentary
communication.

18. Communication made to judges are privilege

- The principle is not affected by the fact that the attorney in this case was also a
judge. The fact that he occupied that position gave an increased weight to his
advice.
- It is in the nature of the confidence which exist between the client and the attorney.

19. Communications to an attorney as a public officer to enable the latter to act in that
capacity not privilege
- Because a complaint made to a prosecutor will usually be made for the purpose of
inciting public prosecution and not for the protection of the complainants rights.

20. Communication for unlawful purpose not privilege

 - Those for the purpose is to commit a crime partakes of the nature of conspiracy or
attempted conspiracy
- It is not unlawful to divulge such communication and under some circumstances it is
the duty of the attorney to do so.
- Communication is not privilege where the client seeks advice that will enable him to
pertpetrate a fraud.
- The attorneys ignorance of his clients intentions deprives the information of a
professional character as full confidence has been withheld. But where a
contemplated act is criminal only if committed under certain circumstances or with a
certain intent and such circumstances or intent are not shown to be present, the
lawfulness of the act will be presumed and the privilege will hold.
21. Communication by a client to his attorney in the presence of, or overheard by third
persons not within the privilege
- This contemplates a situation where the third party is not an agent of either client or
attorney.
who are considered as agent, presence of which does not negate the
confidential nature of the communication
1. Interpreter
2. Agent of the client
3. Parent of the client who is a child.
4. Representative of an attorney
- The privilege exists if the client if not notice the presence of the third person
overhearing the communication
- Third person foreign to the relation are competent to testify to the communications
they overheard.
- Where the communication was made for the purpose of having the attorney tell
others, it was not a privileged communication
- An employee of a corporation who was also stenographer where such counsel may
give evidence as to corporate correspondence where such evidence did not come
from her relationship with corporation attorney
22. When an attorney may be compelled to produce or disclose the contents of a
document entrusted to him by his client
- If the documents are not privilege while in the hands of the client he cannot make
them privilege by placing them in possession of his counsel
- An attorney cannot be compelled cannot order the opening of the art metal filing
cabinet it having proven that it belongs to the attorney and that he keeps records
and documents of his client there.
 23. Privilege not applicable to actions brought by client against attorney
- Because if the attorney is not allowed in such case to disclose confidential
communications of his client he will suffer manifest injustice.
24. To whom privilege belongs
- The privilege belongs to the client and he alone can invoke it.
- He may claim not only when his attorney is called to disclose professional
communicatios but also when he himself is asked to make disclosure.
- When the privilege belongs to two or more client, the consent of each is essential to
constitute waiver.
- In a criminal trial, the court may interpose of its own motion for the protection of an
accused who is entirely ignorant of his rights to remain silent when he is called to
state what he said to is attorney.

Duration of privilege: Continues even after the relation of client and attorney is terminated,
the seal of the law once fixed upon them remains forever, unless removed by the party himself
in whose favor it is there placed.

Waiver of privilege: either be express or implied

Result: the attorney may give in evidence matters confidentially communicated either for the
purpose of giving evidence in chief or purposes of impeachment
Implied waiver consists of:
a) Clients failure to object to attorneys testimony
b) In giving evidence on the privilege communication
c) When privilege communication falls on the hands of the adverse party
d) In calling or cross examining his attorney regarding privileged communication

The clients representative may, waive the privilege, but only when the application of the rule
would be disadvantageous to his estate.
The waiver of the right precludes the assertion of the right upon appeal or upon subsequent
trial of the case but does not constitute a waiver of the privilege in another independent
transaction.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT (curative, preventive or palliative

treatment)
Privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe, full and confidential disclosure by patient of all
facts, circumstances and symptoms, untrammeled by apprehension of their subsequent and
enforced disclosure and publication on the witness stand
-to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion and be enabled safely and
efficaciously to treat his patient
 -lend a sense of security and confidence to the relation of patient and physician so that
the patient will not be reticent about making disclosures which may be material to his physical
welfare

Requisites for the rule to apply:

a) Action in which the Advice or treatment given or any information be in a civil case
b) Physician and patient relations existed
c) Information was acquire while professionally attending the patient
d) Information was necessary for the performance of his professional duty
e) Disclosure of the information would tend to blacken the reputation of the patient

Limited to civil cases only: in criminal cases the privilege does not apply for the
maintenance of public order and the life and liberty of the citizens are deemed more
important than the purpose for which the privilege was created
- Not conferred to shield/ weapon to be used by a person charged with crime
Not indispensable that the patient should have actually employed the physician,
surgeon or obstetrician. May be applied in extremis in view to a curative treatment
any information obtained by him for that reason is privilege

Privilege cannot be extended by construction to persons employing curative processes not

coming within the ordinary meaning of the term practice of medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
Communications made by a patient to dentist, pharmacists, and nurses who are not acting as
agents of physicians, surgeons, or obstetrics are not privileged.

Covers all facts learned by the observation and by all methods necessary to enable the
physician to prescribe, including communication by the physician by third person on behalf of
the patient to enable him to perform his professional duty. Communications of the body,
observation of symptoms, results of the doctors examination, the patients condition as fund
by the doctor, the name of the ailment, the nature of any operation performed, the
statement of facts or opinion given to the patient. Including opinions and prescriptions.

The attending physician may not testify even though employed as an expert witness by the
other side.

Privilege includes examination of patients employed by a third party in order for the
physician to report to his principal and to the efficacy of certain treatment, being given by
other physicians.

X-ray plates and radiographs are considered privilege including the oral communications or
observations made or had for the purpose of enabling the physician to treat or prescribe for
his patient.

Where information is clearly immaterial to the patients treatment, it cannot be considered

privilege, but if it was obtained from observation and inspection of the patients body,
privilege applies regardless of whether or not such information was necessary for the
treatment.

Tend to blacken his reputation- which might bring reproach or disgrace upon the patient.
Privilege rests upon the person objecting and must show that relation of physician and
patient existed.

The court not the physician determines whether the physician must testify, court may hold
preliminary hearing to determine circumstances. Not the duty of the court to require physician
to testify.

After the patient has gone to his grave, the living are not permitted to impair his name and
disgrace his memory. An express waiver maybe made by the patient himself, or the deceased
persons representative or the beneficiary of the insurance policy.
Also by giving express consent, to the testimony of the physician, or by calling the physician to
testify as to the privilege matter. The guardian of the minor may also give his consent provided
that it is not to the minors prejudice.
Implied waiver is found when the patient himself takes the stand to testify about his
physical condition, including the sending of a physicians certificate of a cause of death, as
part of the proofs of death required by a life insurance policy.

Once the waiver is made, such waiver is final and cannot be recalled. Privilege is not waived by
the patient in making voluntary disclosure outside the court. Where the waiver is procured by
fraud or coercion, the waiver is not effect and the privilege may not be claimed.

Privilege not applicable where patient brings action against physician, for is a patient makes
public in a court of justice the occurrences of the sickroom, for obtaining a judgment for
damages against his physician , he cannot shut out the physician himself not any other who
was present at the time covered by the testimony. By his voluntary act he breaks down the
barrier and the professional duty of secrecy ceases.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MINISTER OR PRIEST OR PENITENT

REASON: To compel a minister or priest to testify to a confession to him by a peninet is

equivalent to an annulment of the confessional institution, for many would no longer make
confessions, not done by government where religious tolerance is sanctioned by law.

The privilege covers only confessions of a penitential in their character, confessions of sins
with a view to obtaining pardon and spiritual advice or assistance, to clergymen in
obedience to some supposed religious duty or obligation and do not embrace
communications clergymen, however, confidential, when not made in connection with or in
discharge of some such supposed religious duty or obligation;
or when made to them while in discharge of duties other than those which pertain to the
office of a clergyman.

Communications made not in the course of religious discipline but in the contemplation of a
crime, are not privileged.
Accuse met the priest on a railroad train and with no intent to secure his professional advice,
assistance or consolation, told his story incriminating himself, it was held that the
communication was not privileged.
Prosecution for the crime of bigamy that the statements made by the accused to a priest who
was to communicate them to the first wife, to induce are not privileged.
A communication to a priest made otherwise than in his ecclesiastical capacity is not
privileged.

Confession must be made in the profession character of the priest and in the course of
discipline enjoined by the rules of practice of the denomination to which the priest or
minister belongs.
Not including statements made by a church member in the presence of his minister and fellow
members. There can be no privilege, where a minister is consulted, but as a notary or a friend
and interpreter,
Determination through the question from the circumstances and facts leading up to the
making of the confession, disclosure should not be required unless it appears that the claim of
privilege is erroneously made.

Waiver of privilege when a penitent to the extent of giving evidence of what took place at
the confessional he cannot complaint of evidence which goes no further to established the
facts revealed by him.

Exceptions to the rule:

1) Policy of the state requires the disclosure
2) Innocent party is charged with a crime, conviction for which he can escape only by a
disclosure of facts given in the confessional
3) Clergyman receiving the confession is authorized to testify by the person confessing
4) Disclosure is necessary in order to prevent an impending crime

Canon 1757: The following are excluded as incapable of witnessing. Priests, in whatever
concerns any knowledge they may received through sacramental confession,
eventhough they may have been released from the obligation of the seal, even more,
anything whatsoever heard by anyone, or in any way in the confession may not be
accepted as even an indication of the truth.

PUBLIC OFFICERS AND PUBLIC INTEREST

Reason for the rule: It is the duty of every citizen to communicate to his government any
information which he has of the commission of an offense against the law;
and a court of justice will not compel or allow such information to be disclosed, either
by the subordinate officer to whom it is given, by the informer himself or by any other person
without the permission of the government.

The evidence being excluded not for the protection of the witness or of the party in the
particular case, but upon general grounds of public policy,
because of the confidential nature of such communication.

Public interest means more than mere curiosity, something in which the public, the community
at large, has some pecuniary interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.

COMMUNICATIONS to public officials: privilege applies to communication to such offers only as

have a responsibility or duty to investigate or to prevent public wrongs, and not to officials in
general.

The law recognizes the duty of every citizen to communicate to the government and to its
officers such information as he may have concerning the commission of offenses against the
laws.
Purpose: for encouraging the performance of their duties without fear of consequences,
a witness cannot be compelled to disclose the names of persons by whom and to whom
information had been given which led to the discovery of the offense.

Communications between officials: covers matters not ordinarily made public in the course of
their duties, and whom their disclosure would tend to injure seriously the welfare of the State.

Privilege can be recognized in matters involving data upon the National Defense or upon
international negations pending.
Courts will not compel the disclosure of
state secrets by the other departments of the government in ordinary judicial
proceedings,
or require the publication of a state document that may involve the danger to the
nation
or of communications between government of a confidential nature.

Privilege does not apply: Disclosure will be compelled

When what is asked is useful evidence to vindicate the innocence of an accused person,
Or lessen the risk of false testimony,
Or is essential to the proper disposition of the case
Or the benefit to be gained by a correct disposition of the litigation was greater than any
injury which would inure to the relation by disclosure of the information

Disclosure of the name of the informer maybe necessary in a case where the accused claims
 he is the victim of false accusations by an enemy
Or where he claims he is the victim of a groundless arrest or persecution by the police

OTHER PRIVILEGED MATTERS

Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news-

The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical or
general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information
appearing in said publication unless the court or a house of committee of congress finds that
such revelation is demanded by the security of the state.

Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted

to protect legal voters in the secrecy of ballot
The practice compelling qualified electors to disclose for whom they voted has long
been condemned as a kind of inquisitorial power unknown to the principles of a free
government. An illegal voter may decline to answer for whom he voted, on the ground that his
answer might incriminate himself, but in such case the contents of the ballot maybe shown by
other testimony.

+ TRADE SECRETS
There is a privilege not to disclose ones trade secrets. It covers usually formulas of
manufacture, but may also include price lists and customers lists. It is not absolute; the trial
court may compel disclosure where it is indispensable for doing justice.

+Tax census returns

+Bank Deposits- all bank deposits are absolutely confidential and may not be examined,
inquired or looked into except in those cases enumerated therein
-Anti Graft
-unexplained wealth is similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty

2. Testimonial Privilege

Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
Scope: The former filial privilege taken from Art. 315 of the Civil Code was expanded to include
other direct ascendants and to exempt parents from being compelled to testify against their
children or other direct descendants.

Reason of the rule: To preserve family cohesion.

When privilege may be invoked: the privilege may now be invoked in both civil and criminal
cases.

3. Admissions and Confessions

Section 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.

1. Admission defined.
An admission is a voluntary acknowledgement in express terms or by implication, by a
party interest or by another by whose statement he is legally bound, against his interest, of
the existence or truth of a fact in dispute material to the issue.

2. Admission Classified.
Admission may be classified into judicial, extra-judicial, express and implied.

Express admissions- made in express terms and of the very fact in issue or in dispute.

Implied admissions- those which result from an act done or undone.

3. Certainty.
An admission should possess the same degree of certainty as would be required in the
evidence which it represents, and hence mere conjectures or suggestions as to what
might have happened are not competent.

4. Admission distinguished from confession.

Admission: usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do
not directly involved an acknowledgement of the guilt of the accused or of criminal intent to
commit the offense with which he is charged.

Confession: a declaration made at any time by a person, voluntary and without compulsion
or inducement, stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the
commission of a crime.

THE UNITED STATES, vs. JOSE CORRALES G.R. No. L-9230, Nov. 10, 1914

But a distinction must be made between confessions and admissions. A confession, as

distinguished from an admission, is a declaration made at any time by a person, voluntarily
and without compulsion or inducement, stating or acknowledging that he had committed or
participated in the commission of a crime. The term admission, on the other had, is usually
applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve
an acknowledgment of the guilt of the accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense
with which he is charged. The statutory provision excluding evidence as to confessions until
and unless the prescribed foundation is laid not applicable to admissions, which do not
amount to confessions although they may be sufficient, when taken together with other
evidence of surrounding circumstances to sustain an inference of the guilt of the accused.
The reason for the rule excluding evidence as to confessions unless it is first made to appear
that they are made voluntarily does not apply in cases of admissions, although, of course,
evidence of the fact that a particular statement was made under duress would tend very
strongly to destroy its evidentiary value.

5. Admission distinguished from declaration against interest.

Admission:

Primary evidence;

Receivable when declarant is available as witness;

Competent only when declarant is a party to the action.

Declaration against interest:

Secondary evidence;

Receivable only when declarant is unavailable as witness;

Competent even if declarant is not a party to the action.

 6. Admission distinguished from self-contradiction.
Admission is for a party-opponent.

Self-contradiction is to witness- a statement made somewhere else, and inconsistent with

his allegations of claim or defense in the case on trial.

7. Relevancy and materiality.

In order that a statement offered as an admission may be received it must, at the time
when it is offered be relevant to, and have a material bearing on the issues in the case.

ADMISSION BY ACT

Admission implied from conduct or utterance of a party.

GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC., vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION G.R. No. L-
14936 July 30, 1960

The record also shows that the company has voluntarily paid a part of the compensation, which
circumstances likewise indicates admission of the compensability of the claim, (Bachrach Motor
Co. Inc. vs. Domingo Panaligan, 99 Phil., 238; 52 Off. Gaz., [7] 3583). The above facts are
admissions against interest and admissible in evidence against the respondent company (Sec. 7,
Rule 123, Rules of Court).

There may be no other evidence presented by the claimant but the admissions of the company
as above-indicated together with the causes stated in the claim, are sufficient evidence to
sustain the decision sought herein to be set aside. The finding that the claim is compensable
involves an exercise of discretion by the Workmen's Compensation Commission and the same
should not be disturbed on appeal because there is no abuse thereof.

ADMISSION BY DECLARATION

It may be introduced in evidence in two ways: a) as independent evidence, and b) as

impeaching evidence.

a) As independent evidence- admission are original evidence and no foundation is

necessary for their introduction of evidence.
i. Oral Admissions. Admission was made orally, it may proved by any competent
witnesses who heard them.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSEFINA N. SAMSON, G.R. No. L-14110
March 29, 1963

The appellant claims that there is no competent evidence that the victim and the appellant
were husband and wife. The claim is without merit. The testimony of the appellant on direct
examination disclosed several times that she was married to the deceased in both Church
and civil marriages. On cross examination, she testified on the exact date of her marriage to
the deceased (4 July 1934) and the place (Pili, Camarines Sur) where they were married. She
did not only admit that the deceased was her husband but also brought out the fact that out
of the marriage they had five children and that only three are living, namely: Glenda, Manuel
and Felix. Indeed, there could be no better proof of marriage in a parricide case than the
admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage. More, Ramon M. Velasco, mayor
of Libon, Albay, and uncle of the deceased testified that when he saw the appellant in the
afternoon of 13 October 1954 at the municipal jail, she immediately begged for his
forgiveness and told him that she had shot her husband Pepe (referring to the deceased)
because the latter had a mistress and she could not bear or suffer it any longer.

Admission made over telephone.

An admission made in a telephone conversion may be proved, where the witness

identified the speaker by his voice or otherwise, and there is no doubt as to the identity of the
person who made the admission.

Admissions made through interpreter.

A competent oral admission may be made through an interpreter, where such method
of conversation is, in some manner, voluntarily adopted by the parties.

i. Written Admissions. When the admission is in a private document, there must be some
proof of the authenticity or identity of the document in accordance with Section 20,
Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, that is, the party offering it must prove its due
execution and authenticity.

Admission made in letters.

Where the statement offered against a party is in the form of a written declaration, such
admissions requires greater weight than mere verbal admissions.

Admissions made in documents or memoranda.

MUNICIPALITY OF OAS, vs. ROA,G.R. No. L-2017 November 24, 1906

The two statements signed by Roa, one in 1892 and the other in 1893, are competent evidence
against him. They are admissions by him to the effect that at that time the pueblo was the
owner of the property in question. They are, of course, not conclusive against him. He was
entitled to, and did present evidence to overcome the effect of these admissions. The evidence
does not make out a case of estoppel against him. (sec. 333, par. 1, Code of Civil Procedure.)

The admissibility of these statements made by Roa do not rest upon section 278 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, which relates to declarations or admissions made by persons not a party to the
suit, but it rests upon the principle that when the defendant in a suit has himself made an
admission of any fact pertinent to issue involved, it can be received against him.

EVANGELISTA, vs. BASCOS, ET AL., G.R. No. 2332, November 10, 1905.

The evidence does not show that he has any documentary title to any of the land. He
introduced in evidence a paper, executed by the principales of the town in 1860, which
purported to give him and Leonardo Evangelista the ownership of a certain tract of land in said
barrio for the purpose of cultivating the same. The title to this land could not have been
granted by this instrument, because the persons executing it had no power to convey it.
There is nothing in the description contained in this document which indicates that it is the
same land described in the complaint in this action. The Plaintiff, however, testified that it was,
and that he had been in possession thereof from 1860 to 1902, when he was dispossessed by
the Defendants.
There is no other evidence in the case which relates to any of the Defendants except to the
Defendant Tranquilino Bascos. As to him the Plaintiff introduced in evidence a document signed
by Bascos in May, 1893. This document stated that the tract of land for which Bascos had
obtained the deed from the State had been returned by him to its former owner, the Plaintiff.

It showed that the Defendant Bascos had not delivered the possession of this land to the
Plaintiff, and his claim is that he was induced to sign the document by reason of threats made
at the time by the parish priest of the locality. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that this document
operated as a transfer of the title of the land from the Defendant Bascos to the Plaintiff. We do
not think that it can be given any such effect. It amounted, in our opinion, only to an
extrajudicial admission that the Plaintiff was the owner of the land. It was competent for the
Defendant to overcome the effect of this admission by evidence showing that the Plaintiff was
not in fact the owner of the land, and the evidence produced by the Defendant did, in our
opinion, prove that the Plaintiff was not the owner.
ASUNCION GEFES, vs. SALVIO, ET AL., G.R. No. L-11387, February 7, 1917

The fact is indisputable that these lands did not belong to the defendant, and if he bought them
at public auction in December, 1908, for P661, he did so with his wife Asuncions own money.
This is evidenced by Exhibit A, a document signed by the said Salvio before the notary Nicolas
Tomas on March 27, 1909, in which he clearly sets forth that the said sum of P661, Philippine
currency, which he paid for the properties above-mentioned, belonged to the private funds of
his wife Asuncion Gefes. He furthermore declared in the said document that she was the true
and absolute owner of the said lands by him purchased out of his wifes funds and in her behalf.
This document was ratified before a notary and attests the truth of all its contents, even against
third persons. The defendants denial of its authenticity is not supported by any reliable
evidence, nor by the affidavit (record, p. 75) presented for the purpose of obtaining a
reopening of the case. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the defendant Salvio cannot be heard
to repudiate what he solemnly declared in a notarial document.

Admissions made in previous case.

THE UNITED STATES, vs. CHING PO G.R. No. L-7707, December 6, 1912.

The procedure in criminal cases in the Philippine islands provides that a defendant in a criminal
proceeding may be a witness in his own behalf. When he avails himself of this right, he is
subject to a rigid cross-examination and is bound by his admissions, voluntarily given, in such
examination. His admissions are presumed to be given voluntarily and when thus given on a
previous trial, they may be used against him in a subsequent cause.

In the Matter of the Estate of JOAQUINA MIJARES DE FARInAS. - ENRIQUE DE LA VEGA, vs.
VICENTE LAVIN G.R. No. L-4878 February 27, 1909

Later in the proceedings an answer was presented in her behalf. In this she stated that what
she declared when asked to recognize the authenticity of the documents was that her deceased
husband owed Lavin 1,171 pesos and not 1,233 pesos. It does not appear that she signed this
answer. It may have been signed by her solicitor. Under these circumstances the contents of the
answer can not be considered as admissions made by her which could be used as evidence
against her in another proceeding entirely disconnected with the subject-matter of the
proceeding in which the answer was made. There is, therefore, nothing in the proceeding of
1894 which proves either the existence of a debt from the husband Paulino Lavin or any
recognition of such supposed indebtedness by the deceased.

b) As impeaching evidence- if proof of the admissions is sought for impeachment

purposes, a proper foundation must be laid for the impeaching questions, by calling the
attention of such party to his former statement so as to give him an opportunity to explain
before such admissions are offered in evidence.

JUAN YSMAEL & CO., INC., vs.NAGEEB T. HASHIM and AFIFE ABDO CHEYBAN GORAYEB G.R.
No. L-26247, March 18, 1927

The third assignment of error cannot be sustained. In offering in evidence the testimony given
by Mr. Hemady and the Hashims in the earlier case, the defendant-appellant did not claim that
said testimony contained admissions against interest by the parties to the action or their
agents; if such had been the case, the testimony would have been admissible without the laying
of a foundation and without the witnesses having testified in the case at bar. But the purpose of
the offer of the testimony was evidently to impeach the testimony of the same witnesses in the
present case and if so, a foundation should have been laid by calling the attention of the
witnesses to the former statements so as to give them opportunity to explain before the
statements were offered in evidence.

UNITED STATES, vs. JOSE I. BALUYOT G.R. No. L-14476, November 6, 1919

It is almost universally accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross-examination,
evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to impeach a witness; though
undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the discretion of the court.

ADMISSION BY OMISSION

An admission may be implied from an omission.

GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, vs. DE LA RIVA January 12, 1909, G.R. No. 4604

The plaintiffs having been made it at a certain rate and having notified the defendant thereof it
was clearly his duty to object to the rate if he was not satisfied with it. As is seen, he made no
objection whatever at the time, and as far as appears never made any objection until he filed
his answer herein. The evidence is sufficient to show that he assented to the rate at which the
change was made. The judgment of the court below with reference to this objection must be
sustained.

People v. Belendrez, et al. 47 O.G. 5134

Delay in instituting a criminal prosecution unless satisfactorily explained, creates suspicion

about the motive of the supposed offended party and gives rise to reasonable doubt of the guilt
of the defendant.
CONSTRUCTION, CONCLUSIVENESS AND WEIGHT OF ADMISSIONS

Construction of admissions- Every admission is to be taken as an entirety of the fact which

makes for the one side with the qualifications which limit, modify or destroy its effect on the
other side.

Admission not conclusive evidence- The general rule is that admissions are not conclusive when
proved, but maybe disproved by ordinary evidence. This rule is not affected by the fact that the
admission was made under oath as a witness or otherwise. Weight to be given to evidence of
admissions may depend upon various matters affecting its accuracy.

SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS

Self-serving declarations are unsworn statements made by the declarant out of the court and
which are favorable to his interests.

Self-serving declarations are not admissible in evidence as proof of the facts asserted, whether
they arose by implications from acts and conduct or were made orally or reduced in writing.
Objections: hearsay character; untrustworthy declarations, open door to fraud and perjuries.

Death does not render self-serving declarations admissible.

LIM-CHINGCO,vs. TERARIRAY, ET AL., G.R. No. 2123, October 3, 1905

Plaintiff also offered in evidence another written document, which was a protest made by the
defendants against this inventory, on the ground that it did not include the land in question.
The court refused to admit this document, to which the plaintiff excepted. The claim of the
plaintiff is that the inventory made by the executor contained the same lands as those
described in the will of Marcelo, and consequently that the protest made by the defendants
was an admission that the will did not describe these lands. It does not appear from the
evidence in the case that the lands described in this inventory are the same as those described
in the will. There was no error in this ruling.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. BEDIA, G.R. No. L-2252, May 31, 1949

Appellant's defense hinges on the jamming of the deceased's pistol. His theory is that the
deceased failed to fire his pistol because it jammed when he attempted to fire the first shot
against appellant. It appears, however, upon expert testimony on record, that the jamming of
the firearm was due not to any mechanical defect but to intentional insertion of a bullet from
the outside into the pistol's barrel. The fact that the appellant had experience in handling
firearms and the fact that it took him more than the necessary length of time from the moment
he took the pistol of the deceased to the moment when he presented it to the authorities
together with his own, lay strong grounds for the belief that appellant concocted the jamming
of the pistol so as to enable him to present in court a self-serving evidence.

THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, vs. CUSTODIO, G.R. No. L-26170, January
27, 1969

As to the appellants' having repudiated their signatures, the same was a self-serving act, more
indicative of a belated intention to squirm out of a disadvantageous transaction, after they
entered it with open eyes, which is no ground for setting the same aside (Noble vs. City of
Manila, 67 Phil. 1). Certainly, it should take much weightier proof to invalidate a written
instrument (cf. Mendezona vs. Phil. Sugar Estates, 41 Phil. 493; Bank of the Phil. Is. vs. Fidelity
Surety Co., 51 Phil. 57).

Persons whose unsworn declarations in behalf of a party are not admissible in favor of the
latter are: 1) agents, as regards their principal; 2) a guardian, as regards his ward; 3) a co-
defendant or co-partner, as regards the other; 4) a principal, as regards his surety; 5) a husband
or wife, as regards his or her spouse; 6) an employee, as regards his employer; 7) officers of the
corporation, as regards the corporation; 8) a public officer, as regards a public corporation; and
9) predecessors in title, as regards an owner of the property.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.AURELIO ALVERO (alias RELI) G.R. No. L-820, April 11, 1950.

As a rule, diaries are inadmissible because they are self-serving in nature, unless they have the
nature of books of account (51 L. R. A. [N.S], 813-815); but it has also been held that an entry in
a diary being in the nature of a declaration, if it was against interest when made, is admissible.
Self-serving declarations made by a party are admissible in his own behalf in the following
cases:
1) when they form part of res gestae, including spontaneous statements, and verbal acts;
2) when they are in the form of complaint and exclamation of pain and suffering;
3) when they are part of a confession offered by the prosecution;
4) where the credibility of a party has been assailed on the ground that his testimony is a
recent fabrication, provided they were made at a time when a motive to misrepresent did
not exist;
5) When they are offered by the opponent.
6) When they are offered without objection, the evidence cannot afterward be objected to as
incompetent.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. DEMIAR G.R. No. L-15130, May 31, 1960

It is also contended for appellant that the trial court erred in admitting appellant's letter to his
brother-in-law Lope Mayol (Exh. A) and that there is nothing in the letter which would show
that appellant admitted his guilt. Appellant argues that, instead of considering said letter as
evidence indicative of his guilt, the trial court should have considered it in his favor, because he
disclaimed therein asked forgiveness from his sisters and begged them to testify that their
mother died of natural illness and not of strangulation, we fail to see why said statements could
not be taken as an admission of appellant's guilt. As to the argument that said letter should
have been considered in appellant's favor, it may stated that self-serving statements made
extra-judicially cannot be admitted as evidence in favor of the person making them, although
the incriminating statement is evidence against him.

Section 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, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed
by law to be compromised, an offer of compromised 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.

Compromise defined

Compromise is an agreement made between two or more parties as a settlement of

matters in dispute.

Offer of compromise in civil cases

An offer to compromise in civil cases does not amount to an admission of liability. It is

not admissible in evidence against the offeror.

Offer of compromise in criminal cases

In criminal cases, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as

an implied admission of guilt.

When offer of compromise in criminal cases not an implied admission of guilt

Jurisprudence: U.S vs. Torres (34 Phil. 994)

In criminal cases where compromise is allowed by law, as in opium or usury cases, no

implied admission of guilt arises against the accused who makes an offer to compromise. The
Collector of Internal Revenue may compromise any civil or other case arising under the Tax
Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
 Similarly, in criminal cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) an offer of
compromise does not constitute an implied admission of guilt.

Civil Code provisions on compromise

No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:

The civil status of persons

The validity of a marriage or a legal separation
Any ground for legal separation
Future support
The jurisdiction of courts
Future legitime

Payment of medical and similar expenses

The traditional ground for this rule is that the payment or offer is usually made from the
humane impulses and not from an admission of liability.

Section 28. Admission by third party. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.

General rule:

Unless he assents thereto, a party to an action cannot be affected by the admission of a

person who does not occupy toward him any relation of privity, agency, or joint interest. The
act, declaration or omission of another is generally irrelevant and that in justice a person should
not be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers.

Exceptions:

Admission by a co-partner
Admission by an agent
Admission by joint owner or debtor or one jointly interested
Admission by conspirator
Admission by privies

Section 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 to the act or declaration of a
joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.

Requisites for the rule

Admission by partner

That the partnership be previously proven by evidence other than the admission itself
That the admission refers to a matter within the scope of his authority
That the admission was made during the existence of the partnership

Reason for the rule

The admissions of one partner are received against another, not on the ground that
they are parties to the record, but on the ground that they are identified in interest, and that
each is agent for the other, and that the acts or declarations of one during the existence of the
partnership, while transacting, while transacting its business and within the scope of the
business are evidence against the other or others.

Admission by agent

that the agency be previously proved by evidence other than the admission itself
that the admission refers to a matter within the scope of his authority
that the admission was made during the existence of the agency

Reason for the rule

As a general rule parties are not chargeable with the declarations of the agents, unless
such declarations or statement are made during the transaction of business by the agent for
the principal and in relation to such business, and while within the scope of agency. In other
words, what is so done, by an agent, is done by the principal through him, as a mere
instrument.

Admission by joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party

that there exists a joint interest between the joint owner, joint debtor, or other person
jointly interested with the part and such party, which joint inter must first be made to
appear by evidence other than the act of declaration itself
that the act or declaration was made while the interest was subsisting
that the act relate to the subject matter of the joint interest for otherwise it would be
immaterial and irrelevant

Person jointly interested with the party

The mere fact that several persons have a common interest, as contradistinguished
from a joint interest, in the subject matter involved in the suit, does not render their admissions
competent against each other. This is properly true with regard to rights under will.
 There may be many legatees and devisees, but, although they derive their benefit from
a common source (testator) they clearly have no rights based on the benefit of each other. They
have interest in common in that each derives his interest form the same source; but plainly
they have no joint interest through any relation inter se.

Section 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.

Requisites of the rule

that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself
that the admission relates to the common object
it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy

Two requisites are necessary for the existence of a conspiracy

determination or decision to act, that is, a definite purpose to commit a crime

agreement or meeting of the minds of two or more persons

Jurisprudence:
People vs. Carbonel (43 Phil. 65, 78)

If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment
of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently
independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual
meeting among them to concert means is proved.

Radin vs. U.S., 189 Fed. 568, 570 111 CCA 6

Conspirators do not go out upon the public highways and proclaim their intentions. They
accomplish their purpose by dark and sinister methods and must be judged by their acts.

People vs. Catao, G.R. No. L-9532 June 30, 1960

It is enough that from the individual acts of each accused, it may be reasonably deduced
that they had a common plan to commit the felony.
People vs. Silvestre (56 Phil. 353)

It is well-known rule that, without the proof of conspiracy, mere passive presence at the
scene of anothers crime does not constitute complicity.

Failure to prove conspiracy

People vs. Caayao, (G.R. No. L-4035, December 16, 1949)

Where there is lack of proof of conspiracy, the responsibility of the accused is individual
and each is liable for the result of his act in the degree and manner of participation.

Section 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.

Privity and privies defined

Privity means mutual succession of relationship to the same right of property.

Privies are those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same right of
property or subject matter, such as personal representative, heirs, devisees, legatees, assignes,
voluntary grantees or judgement creditors or purchases from them with notice of the facts.

Reason for the rule

It is an established rule of evidence that the declarations of a person under whom title is
claimed are receivable against the successor so claiming, on the theory that there is sufficient
identity of interest to render the statements of the former equally receivable with the
admissions of the present owner, and that the rights of the latter are those, and only those, of
the former.

The principle on which such evidence is received is that the declarant was so situated
that he probably knew the truth, and his interest were such that he would not have made the
admissions to the prejudice of his title or possession, unless they were true. The regard which
one so situated would have to his interest is considered sufficient security against falsehood.

Limitations of rule

The most important limitations upon the admission in evidence of admissions of a

predecessor in interest, or other privy, is that such evidence is not admissible to contradict the
terms of written instrument, as for example, to vary the tenor of a deed or destroy the record
title.
 It would be an anomaly in our law if by the rules of evidence, titles to real estate can be
made to depend on the mere declaration of a prior owner, when every contact for the sale of
land is required to be in writing and title can only be conveyed by deed. Such declarations are
not admissible to affect the title to lands, although they may be admitted to explain the
character of a possession.

Hence, in as much as the basis of admissibility of the statement is privity, it cannot be

used against on who claims no under, but against the interest derived from the grantor. Such a
claim cannot be affected be the mere declarations of the holder of an adverse title which, in
that case, are akin to self- serving statement.

Three exceptions are recognized to the rule that declarations of the transferor, made
subsequent to the transfer, are admissible:

where the declarations are made in the presence of the transferee and he
acquiesces in the statements, or asserts no rights where he ought to speak
Where there has been a prima facie case of fraud established as where the thing
granted has a corpus and the possession of the thing after the sale or transfer,
remains with the seller or transferor.
Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to defraud, which
conspiracy exists between the vendor and the vendee

Section 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.

Requisites of the rule

That he heard and understood the statement

That he was at liberty to interpose a denial
That the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which
he as ten interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer
That the facts were within his knowledge
That the facts admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be
material to the issue.

Reason for the rule

The rule that the silence of a party against who a claim or a right is asserted may be construed
as an admission of the truth of the assertion rests on that instinct of nature, which leads us to
resist an unfounded demand. The rule rests on that universal principle of human conduct which
leads us to repel an unfounded imputation or claim.
Rule applicable in criminal as well as in civil cases

The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of the truth of
the allegation uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal as well as in civil cases.

RULE 130

SECTION 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.

1. Source. Reproduction of Section 29, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court

2. Confession defined. Confession is an acknowledgement by the accused that he is
guilty of the crime charged.
3. Confession distinguished from admission. A confession is a declaration made at any
time by a person voluntarily, stating or acknowledging that he has committed or
participated in the commission of a crime. The term admission, on the other hand, is
usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not
directly involve an acknowledgement of guilt of the accused or of criminal intent to
commit the offense with which he is charged.
4. Confession classified. 2 kinds of confession:
a. Judicial confession those made in conformity to law before a committing
magistrate or in court in the course of legal proceedings
b. Extrajudicial confession those which are made by a party elsewhere than before a
magistrate or in court.
5. Form of confession. A confession is not required to be in any particular form. It may
be oral or written, formal or informal in character.
6. Rights of a person under investigation. Under the Constitution, any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided
with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
7. Miranda requirements. In order to combat the pressures and to permit a full
opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be
adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be
fully honored. (Please read Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1996)
8. Warning of silence. If a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must
first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.
For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make them aware
of it.
 The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that
anything said can and will be used against the individual court.
9. Warning of right to counsel. An individual held for interrogation must be clearly
informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him
during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege.
10. Waiver of rights. If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney
and a statement is taken, a heavy burden on the government to demonstrate that the
defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and
his right to retain or appointed counsel.
A valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after
warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually
obtained.
11. United States court decision since Miranda. Please read Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S.
436, 86 S. Ct. 1602)
(a) CUSTODY REQUIREMENT - The Miranda Court limited its holding to situations in
which a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom
of action in any significant way.
(b) INTERROGATION An accused may not yet be entitled to the Miranda wanings, due
to the fact that no interrogation as questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers. A statement freely and voluntarily made without compelling influence is
admissible into evidence.
(c) WARNINGS It is the point when the accused is in custody and the police wish to
interrogate him that Miranda requires the warnings to be given. The warnings need
not be given word for word to the accused, though substantial compliance is
required.
(d) WAIVER After warnings are given, Miranda presents the accused with three
options. He can waive his right to remain silent and to an attorney and talk to the
police, prevent police questioning by asserting his right to remain silent, or prevent
questioning by asking for an attorney.
(e) TERMINATION OF AND BREAKS IN THE INTERROGATION After Miranda, the
accused may terminate the interrogation by request.
(f) PRESENCE OF COUNSEL The presence of counsel is the adequate protective
device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conforms to the
dictates of the privilege.
(g) FURTHER DEFINING THE SCOPE OF MIRANDA The Miranda decision did not limit its
holding only to certain kinds of offenses, though some lower courts have held that
warnings are inapplicable to misdemeanors or traffic violations.
 (h) IMPACT OF MIRANDA ON OTHER STANDARDS The Miranda holding impinged upon
several court and legislatively created rules.
(i) CONCLUSIONS The law of confessions has moved from the case-by-case, totality of
the circumstances analysis that existed under the due process voluntariness
approach to the application of the definite standards announced in the Miranda
opinion.
As the law of confessions stands now, after Miranda:
(1) Uncensored admissions are admissible if made before an individual is in custody
or if they are spontaneous in the sense that an interrogation by the police has
not yet begun.
(2) However, admissions that occur during a custodial interrogation are not
admissible to establish guilt unless the accused is given the Miranda warnings.
(3) Waiver of the Miranda right must be voluntary and intelligent.
(4) The accused has the right to stop an interrogation at any time, which can be
accomplished merely by refusing to answer questions or by asking to see an
attorney.
(5) As a general rule, confessions that were voluntarily made under a totality of the
circumstances test.
12. Constitutional provision (Miranda doctrine) has no retroactive effect. A confession
obtained before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, even if accused had not been
informed of his right to counsel, is admissible in evidence.
13. Basic test for validity of confession. The basic test for the validity of a confession is
was it voluntarily and freely made.
14. No presumption of voluntariness. The prosecution must prove that an extrajudicial
confession was voluntarily given, instead of relying on a presumption and requiring the
accused to offset it.

15. Threats, violence, torture or fear. Confessions obtained by putting the accused in fear
by means of threats of violence to the person of the accused made to obtain his
confession are generally inadmissible in evidence since they are involuntary in
character. Threats, violence, torture or fear

- Any confession or admission by the accused obtained through torture, force,

violence, threat, intimidations, any other means which vitiates the free will shall be
inadmissible as evidence against him.
(a) Confession secured by third-degree methods
Examples:
1. Confession secured from an accused after he had been subjected to almost
continuous examination by police officers.
 2. One secured by a protracted searching examination by public officials
accompanied by threats, invective and false statements and profanity.
3. One secured by questioning a suspect throughout a night and hitting him
with clubs.

-Confessions extracted through these means is inadmissible in evidence.

(b) Promise of benefit or reward

- A confession induced or influenced by promises made to the accused which hold out
a hope of benefit or a reward or a promise of immunity is not a voluntary confession
and is not admissible in evidence
(c) What constitutes benefit
- The term benefit, when used in connection with the procurement of a confession,
means a temporal or worldly benefit. To make the confession involuntary, the
benefit which influences a confession must not only be temporal, but have reference
to the persons escape from punishment for the crime with which he is charged or
his partial escape.
(d) Offer of reward or pardon
- A confession influenced by the promise of a pardon is involuntary and inadmissible
in evidence against the person making it.
(e) Promise of immunity or not to prosecute or to compromise
- A promise not to prosecute the accused or to compromise the matter, made by the
person personally injured by the commission of the offense, might well be deemed
to create such a hope of benefit as would render the statement of the accused of
doubtful credibility.
(f) Deception or promise of secrecy
- The employment of any artifice, deception, or fraud to obtain a confession does not
render it inadmissible, if the means employed are not calculated to procure an
untrue statement.
(g) Advice and exhortation to confess or tell the truth
- A confession is not rendered involuntary by telling the accused that it would be
better for him to speak or tell the truth nor a sufficient inducement to render
objectionable a confession thereby obtained, unless threats or promises are applied.
(h) Effect of refusal to keep the agreement to turn states witness
- If a confession is obtained on the assurance that the accused will be used as a states
witness and he afterwards repudiates the agreement, such confession may be used
against him as a voluntary confession.
(i) Threats to prosecute
 - A common form of threat which renders a confession involuntary is that the accused
will be prosecuted if he does not confess. But it is clear that an unconditional threat
to prosecute does not render a resulting confession of involuntary.
(j) Force or violence need not be inflicted upon the confessor
- If within his hearing and almost in his immediate presence, physical violence is
inflicted upon his co-defendant, his confession made thereafter should be rejected
for lack of that free and voluntary character which would otherwise give it value as
evidence.
(k) Age, mental condition, or intelligence of confessor
- Upon the question whether a confession is voluntary, the age, the character and
situation of the accused at the time the confession was made is an important
consideration.
(l) Insanity
- While the mere fact that the accused is not in the full possession of his faculties at
the time of a confession does not necessarily render it inadmissible or involuntary,
evidence of insanity or mental weakness which would be sufficient to render the
defendant incompetent to testify is sufficient to render his confession incompetent
(m) Mental incapacity
- A confession may be involuntary because of ignorance or mental incapacity of the
accused at the time of making the confession sought to be introduce in evidence.
(n) Intoxication
- The intoxicated condition of the accused at the time of making a confession does
not, unless such intoxication goes to the extent of mania, affect the admissibility in
evidence of such confession if it was otherwise a voluntary one, although the fact of
intoxication may affect its weight and credibility with the court.
(o) Confession made while asleep
- Words uttered by the accused while sleeping are involuntary and cannot be
admitted in evidence against him as a confession.

16. Admonition to judges, fiscals and other officers

- Judges, fiscals and other officers to whom persons accused of a crime are brought
for swearing the truth of their statements to adopt the practice of having the
confessants physically and thoroughly examined by independent and qualified
doctors before administering the oath, even if it is not requested by the accused.
Purpose: Shorten and speed up criminal trials ( where the accused persons almost
invariably repudiate their confessions) by precluding future controversies on
whether the statements were obtained through torture or not.
17. Proving confession
 - An oral admission on the part of an accused indicating guilty complicity in the
commission of the crime with which he is charged is admissible in evidence, though
not reduced to writing, or if reduced into writing, though not signed by him.

18. Burden of proof

- The heavy burden is on the prosecution because the State is responsible for
establishing the isolated circumstance under which the interrogation takes place and
has the only means of making available corroborated evidence of warnings given
during communicado interrogation.

19. The exclusionary rule

- The constitution provides that any confession or admission obtained in violation of

this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

20. Confession of third persons

- A confession on the part of a third person that he committed the crime which the
defendant is charged with having committed, even though it is made in expectation
of imminent death or by a person jointly indicted with the accused, is not admissible
as substantive evidence tending to exculpate the accused where the confession does
not constitute a part of res gestae.

21. Several confessions

- The rule is that if one confession is obtained by such methods as to make it

involuntary, all subsequent confessions made while the accused is under operation
of the same influence are also involuntary. However, a confession otherwise
voluntary is not affected by the fact that a previous one was obtained by improper
influences if it is shown that these influences are not operating when the later
confession is made.

22. Partial or unfinished confession

- A partial or unfinished confession which was interrupted while the defendants was
rendering it is not admissible in evidence.
23. Confession learned through an interpreter

- A confession cannot be received in evidence by the testimony of a witness who,

although present when it was made, learned its purport through an interpreter.
Such testimony is hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible.

24. Confession subsequent to an involuntary confession

- Where a confession has been obtained from the accused by improper inducement,
any statement made by him while under that influence is inadmissible.

25. Confession of other crimes

- A confession of an offense different from that with which the accused is charged is
not admissible on his trial for the offense charged unless such other offense is a part
of the same scheme or so connected with the one charged as not to be severed from
it.

26. Identification and introduction of confession as evidence

- Before a confession will be admitted into evidence, the prosecution must prove the
making thereof if accused objects that the confession was not in fact made by him.
In laying a predicate for the admission of a confession, it is proper for the
prosecution, as a preliminary question, to inquire whether a confession was made
at the time and place of the making of the confession and the persons present.

27. Confession must be introduced in evidence in its entirety

- The whole confession must be put in evidence by the prosecuting officer. To allow
the introduction of fragments of a confession admitting those indicative of the
prisoners criminality and suppressing others which, by limiting or modifying the
former, may establish his innocence, is utterly inconsistent with all principles of
justice and humanity.

28. Confessions admissible against confessor alone

- While the confession of one of several co-accused may be introduced in evidence

against him, it is not competent evidence against his co-accused.

29. When confession of an accused is admissible against his co-accused

 - The general rule that the confession of an accused may be given in evidence against
him but that it is not competent evidence against his co-accused, recognizes various
exceptions:

(1) When several accused are tried together, the confession made by one of them
during the trial implicating the others is evidence against the latter.
(2) When one of the defendant is charged from the information and testifies as a
witness for the prosecution, the confession made in the course of his testimony
is admissible against his co-defendants, if corroborated by indisputable proof.
(3) If a defendant, after having been apprised of the confessions of his co-
defendant, ratifies or confirms said confession, the same is admissible against
him.
(4) Where several extrajudicial confessions have been made by several persons
charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference
to said several confessions, the facts that the statements therein are in all
material respects, identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the co-
defendant and is admissible against co-defendants. This is commonly known as
Interlocking confession.
(5) A statement made by one defendant after his arrest, in the presence of his co-
defendant, confessing his guilt and implicating his co-defendant who failed to
contradict or deny it, is admissible against his co-defendant.
(6) When the confession is of a conspirator and made after conspiracy and in
furtherance of its object, the same is admissible against his co-conspirator.
(7) The confession of one conspirator made after the termination of a conspiracy, is
admissible against his co-conspirator if made in his presence and assented to by
him, or admitted its truth or failed to contradict or deny it.

30. Waiver of objection as to admissibility

- A confession offered in evidence and not objected to by the defendant is regarded

as prima facie voluntary and therefore, admissible in evidence.

31. Determination of admissibility of confession

- The test of a confessions admissibility is not the weight of the testimony or the
credibility of the witness, but the testimonial unworthiness of the confession.

32. Weight and sufficiency of judicial confession

- The essence of the plea of guilty in a criminal trial is that the accused, on
arraignment, admits his guilt freely, voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the
 consequences and meaning of his act, and with a clear understanding of the precise
nature of the crime or crimes charged in the complaint or information.
- Such a plea of guilty, when formally entered on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a
conviction of any offense charged in the information.

33. Weight and sufficiency of extrajudicial confessions

- An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for

conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

Section 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 a 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.

1. Source

This provision is a reproduction of Section 48, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court with the
following differences:

a. The title of the section Evidence of similar acts has been changed to Similar acts as
evidence in the present.

b. The words omitted to in the Rules of Court have been deleted in the present
provision;

c. The words did not have been added in the present provision.

2. In general

The general rule is that the law will not consider evidence that a person has done a
certain act at a particular time as probative of a contention that he has done a similar act at
another time.

However, there is no rule of law which prevents the trial of collateral issues, since the
objection thereto is purely a practical one, and the general rule is that the admission of
evidence of similar acts or occurrences as proof that a particular act was done or that a certain
occurrence happened, rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, provided the conditions
are substantially the same.
3. Reasons for the rule

It is improper for the court to assume that the motive of the previous crimes is
continuing and is the basis of the present crime.
If evidence of previous crimes is to be used, the accused shall face charges which he has
no information and confuses him in his defense.
Evidence of collateral matters must not be received as substantive evidence of the
offenses in the present trial.

4. Rule must be strictly enforced

The general rule is that evidence is not admissible which shows that the accused in a
criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense of the present
trial.
A man may have committed many crimes, and still be innocent of the crime presently
charged.
One who commits one crime may be more likely to commit another; yet, logically, one
crime does not prove another, nor tend to prove another, unless there is such a relation
between them that proof of one tends to prove the other.

5. Exceptions to the general rule

Evidence of other crimes is always admissible when such evidence:

a. tends directly to establish the particular crime;
b. it is usually competent to prove the
motive and intent;
the absence of mistake or accident;
a common scheme or plan embracing two or more crime so related to each
other; or,
the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial.
When the fact of a former crime is an element in the offense charged.

6. Prior acts showing intent

Intent is of course entirely distinct from intention (design, plan). The latter is almost
always an evidential fact only, but the former is a fact-in-issue, being usually an element
of the offense or of the evil act done.
Intent is a specific state of mind at the very time of the act charged.
Examples:
a. In a shooting, the nature of the offense depends on the state of mind as to aiming at
a person, or just cleaning the gun, etc.;
 b. In the delivery of money, the intent at that time determines whether it is a payment,
or a loan or a deposit.
The persons conduct is naturally the chief circumstantial evidence of this intent as it is
also of a plan.

7. Prior acts showing guilty knowledge

Evidence which tends to show scienter or such knowledge on the part of the accused as
is necessary to constitute his act a crime is admissible.

Examples:
a. On a charge against X, a clerk, of stealing from his employers sage, the safe having
been opened by manipulating the combination lock, X denied having knowledge of
such combination. Here the fact that X had been seen on a previous instance of
surreptitiously opening the safe would be admissible to show his knowledge.

b. On a charge against Z of uttering counterfeit money, to wit, a 100-peso bill, the fact
that Z had tried on other previous occasions, but unsuccessfully, to pay out similar
bills to A, B, and C is admissible to evidence his knowledge of the bill in issue being
counterfeit.

8. Identification of accused by proof of other crimes

General Rule: Evidence of separate and independent crimes is inadmissible to prove the guilt
of a person upon trial for a criminal offense.

Exceptions:

When evidence tends to aid in identifying the accused as the person who committed the
particular crime under investigation.
There is a logical connection between the crimes that proof on one will naturally tend to
show that the accused is the person who committed the other.

9. Prior acts showing plan, design, or scheme

Evidence of other crimes is competent in a criminal trial to prove the specific crime
charged when it tends to establish a common scheme, plan, or system embracing the
commission of two or more crimes so related to each other than proof of one tends to establish
the others, notwithstanding the general rule excluding evidence which shows, or tends to show
that the accused has committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on
trial.

10. Prior acts showing habit or customs

Evidence of a course of conduct or dealing may be admitted where pertinent to an issue

in the case when it fits as deemed by the court.

Customs may, like any other facts or circumstances be shown when their existence will
increase or diminish the probability of an act having been done or not done, which act is the
subject of contest.

11. Prior acts showing negligence

Upon a criminal prosecution for injuries caused by negligence, evidence of other acts,
disconnected though similar, is irrelevant. However, when a party is charged with the negligent
use of a dangerous agency, and the case against him is that he did not use care proportionate
to the danger, then the question becomes material whether he knew, or ought to have known,
the extent of danger.

12. Proof of subsequent offenses

According to one of the authorities, evidence of offenses committed subsequent to the

act charged is never admissible in evidence. Other authorities favor the admissibility of such
proof in certain instances, as in the case of offenses arising out of sexual intercourse, upon the
theory that subsequent acts disclose the disposition of the parties.

13. Rule the same in civil cases as well as in criminal prosecution

In civil cases the rule as to proof of commission of an act by showing the commission of
similar acts by the same person at other times and under other circumstances is the same as in
a criminal prosecution.
Section 35. Unaccepted offer. 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.

1. Source

This provision is a reproduction of Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court with the
only difference that the phrase without valid cause has been added in the present provision.

2. Civil Code provision

If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to
accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or
sum due.

According to the above provision, tender of payment must precede consignation, and
only when such tender is refused without just cause will the consignation of the thing or sum
due release the debtor from his obligation.

Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. 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

1. Source

The word own in the Rules of Court has been deleted in the present provision and the
word personal has been added.

2. Generally

The witness can testify only to those facts which he knows from his personal knowledge,
that is, which are derived from his own perception.

3. Hearsay evidence

Hearsay evidence has been defined as evidence which derives its value, not solely from
the credit to be given to the witness upon the stand, but in part from the veracity and
competency of some other persons.
Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony. A writing may be hearsay.
Evidence is hearsay when its probative value depends in whole or in part, on the
competency and credibility of some persons other that the witness.
Hearsay evidence is the evidence not of what the witnesses knows himself but of what he
has heard from others.
4. Reason for excluding hearsay evidence

One reason is the fact that hearsay testimony is not subject to the tests which can
ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment of the truth of testimony, since the
declarant is not present and available for cross-examination.
The court is without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by
observing the demeanor of the person who made them.

5. Independently relevant statements

The hearsay rule does not apply where, regardless of the truth or the falsity of a
statement, the fact that it has been made is relevant, the hearsay rule does not apply,
but the statement may be shown.

Groups

a. Those statements which are the very facts in issue; and,

b. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.

6. Statements which are the very facts in issue

Where the statements, or utterances of specific words, are the facts in issue, the
testimony of witnesses thereto is not hearsay.
In other words, if the fact sought to be established is, that certain words were spoken,
without reference to the truth or falsity of the words, the testimony of any person who
heard the statement is original evidence and not hearsay.

7. Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue

The statements from which the facts in issue may be inferred, may be testified to by
witnesses without violating the hearsay rule. Of this kind are:
a. Statements of a person showing his state of mind, that is his mental condition,
knowledge, belief, intention and other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as illness and the like;
c. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of
mind of another, that is, knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the
latter;
d. Those which may identify the date, place, and person in question; and,
e. Those showing the lack of credibility of a witness.
8. Statements showing the speakers state of mind

A mans state of mind or feeling can only be manifested to others by countenance,

attitude or gesture, or by sounds or words, spoken or written.

9. Statements showing the speakers physical condition

Statements of a person which may fairly show his bodily condition at the time he made
the statements are admissible as circumstantial evidence of such condition.
When the bodily or mental feelings of an individual are material to be proved, the usual
expression of such feelings are original and competent evidence.

10. Statements of a person from which the state of mind of another may be inferred

Pertains to knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter may be
testified to by a witness without violating the hearsay rule.

11. Statements identifying the time, date, place, or person in question

May be validly testified to by the witness.

12. Statements of a witness impeaching his credibility

Statements made out of court are admitted for the purpose of contradicting or
impeaching a witness.
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called . . . by evidence
that he had made at other times statements, inconsistent with present testimony . . .

13. Evidence of acting upon a statement, not hearsay

If the statement is introduced for the purpose of establishing the fact that a party relied
and acted thereon, it is not objectionable on the ground of hearsay.

14. Statements made through interpreter, not hearsay

Reason: Both the original witness and the interpreter are under oath and subject to cross-
examination.

Exceptions:

a. The interpreter had been selected by common consent of the parties endeavoring to
converse; or,
b. By the party against whom the statements of the interpreter were offered in evidence.
15. Presumption that testimony is not hearsay

In the absence of any showing to the contrary, a witness is presumed to be testifying of

his own knowledge.

16. Objection to hearsay cannot be raised for the first time on appeal

The failure of a party to object to the admission of hearsay evidence constitutes a

waiver of his right to make such objection, and, consequently, the evidence offered may be
admitted. Objection to its admission made for the first time on appeal is too late.

17. Weight of hearsay evidence admitted without objection

The Supreme Court held that although the question of admissibility of evidence cannot raised
for the first time on appeal, yet if the evidence is hearsay, it has no probative value and
should be disregarded whether objected or not.

18. Multiple hearsay

There is no good reason why a hearsay declaration, which within itself contains a
hearsay statement, should not be admissible to prove the truth of the included statement, if
both the statement and the included statement meet the tests of an exception to the hearsay
rule.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

Section 37. Dying declaration. The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.

1. Dying declaration defined

A dying declaration is a statement made by the victim of homicide, referring to the

material facts which concern the cause and circumstances of the killing and which is uttered
under a belief of an impending death.

2. Reasons for admissibility

a. Necessity because the declarants death renders impossible his taking the witness
stand; and it happens often that there is o other equally satisfactory proof of the crime.

b. Trustworthiness since the declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at

the point of death and every hope of this world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is
silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth.
3. Admission of dying declarations not unconstitutional

It does not violate the constitutional right of the accused to confront and cross-examine
the witness against him, because the person who testifies to the dying declarations is the
witness against the accused and the witness with whom the accused is entitled to be
confronted.

4. Scope

Only in homicide cases for the killing of the declarant and now its extended to civil
cases.

5. Conditions of admission of dying declarations

The conditions are as follows:

a. That death be imminent and that declarant be conscious of that fact;

b. That the preliminary facts which bring the declaration within its scope be made to
appear;
c. That the declaration relate to the facts or circumstances pertaining to the fatal injury
or death; and,
d. That declarant would have been competent to testify had he survived.

6. Form of dying declarations

No particular form is required.

A dying declaration may be a communication by means of signs, an oral statement or
ejaculation, a mere formal statement, or answers to questions put by the person to
whom the declaration is made, a writing signed by the declarant, or an affidavit.

7. Introduction of dying declaration in evidence by the prosecution

A proper predicate must be laid for the introduction of dying declaration. The proper
predicate is the proof that the declarant has made his declaration under a consciousness
of impending death.
It is generally a sufficient predicate to show, by the repeated assertions of the declarant,
that he was about to die; it may be laid by showing that the surrounding circumstances
were of such a character as to satisfy the court that the declarant believed that he
would die.

8. Introduction of dying declarations in evidence by the accused

 It is settled by a long line of decisions that dying declarations, when they tend to
exculpate or exonerate the defendant, may be introduced by him.
If such declarations are competent evidence to prove facts, it does not matter if such
proof tends to acquit the defendant, rather than convict him.

9. When declaration of a dying man may be admissible not as a dying declaration but as part
of res gestae

Where a man after having been seriously wounded was taken to a municipal building
and there he told a person in authority that he had been wounded by the accused that
statement, although not admissible as dying declaration because it was not made in the belief
that the declarant was about to die, yet it is admissible as part of the res gestae.

10. Impeachment of dying declarations

Dying declarations, when admitted, are subject to impeachment in the same manner
and for the same causes that the testimony of a witness given on the witness stand may be
impeached.

11. Weight of dying declarations

Dying declarations are given great weight since it is made at the point of death.
Courts, however, must not be unmindful of the fact that men on the very threshold of
death had sometimes been swayed by a spirit of vindictive revenge or heated passion or
by a desire to shield themselves or others even in making ante-mortem statements.

Section 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 declarants 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.

1. Source
 This is a reproduction of Section 33, Rule 130 of the Rules with the difference that the
phrase or outside the Philippines and the words pecuniary or moral have been deleted in
the present provision.

2. Reasons for the rule

The necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such evidence advisable and,
further that the reliability of such declarations asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary
or moral interest.

3. Declaration against interest distinguished from admission

a. The admission is not necessarily against the interest of the person who made the
admission, while the present exception must be a declaration against interest;

b. An admission may be used although the admitter is still alive, while the present
exception refers to a declaration against interest of a deceased person; and,

c. An admission may be used only against the admitter and those identified with him in
legal interest while a declaration against interest admissible against third persons.

4. Declaration against interest distinguished from self-serving declaration

A self-serving declaration is a statement favorable to that interest of the declarant and

not admissible while a declaration against the interest is admissible in evidence,
notwithstanding its hearsay character, only if the declarant has died, become insane, or for
some other reason is not available as a witness.

5. Scope

It is safe to assume that the declaration against interest under the present provision has
been expanded to include all kinds, i.e., pecuniary, proprietary, moral or penal interests.

6. Requisites for the admissibility of declarations against interest

a. Declarant must not be available to testify.

As in the case when he is dead, mentally incapacitated, physically incompetent,

of advanced age, or other irremediable cause.

b. The declaration must concern a fact cognizable by declarant

 It is essential to relevancy in the declaration that the declarant should have
adequate knowledge with respect to the subject covered by his statement.

c. The circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed.

To be admissible, there should be a circumstantial guaranty of the

trustworthiness of the declaration.

7. Declarations against pecuniary interest

Pertains to those which may bar in whole or in part the declarants money claim, or
which may give rise to a monetary claim against him, as for instance, where he acknowledges
that his credit is already paid or that he is indebted to some person.

8. Declarations against proprietary interest

Those which are at variance with the declarants property rights, as for instance, where
he, being in possession of a chattel or a piece of land, declares that he is not the owner thereof,
or that he is holding it as a mere trustee, or that he has already sold it, and the like.

9. Declarations against moral interest

Moral interest should not be confused with moral obligation, which is a duty which one
owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfill. For instance,
where a man owes a debt barred by the statute of limitations, this cannot be recovered by law,
though it subsists in morality and conscience.

10. Declarations against penal interest

This cannot be justified on grounds of policy. The only plausible reason of policy that has
ever been advanced for such a limitation is the possibility of procuring fabricated
testimony to such an admission if oral.
The inclusion of declarations against penal interest in the exception for declarations
against interest has raised a host of intertwined constitutional and evidentiary problems
in the United States.
See People v. Toledo (51 Phils. 825).

11. Contrary to interest

3 Methods in Handling Declaration containing both self-serving and disserving facts:

 1. Admit the entire declaration because part is disserving and hence by a kind of
contagion of truthfulness, all will be trustworthy.
2. Compare the strength of the self-serving interest and the disserving interest in
making the statement as a whole, and admit it all if the self-serving interest is
greater.
3. Admit the disserving parts of the declaration, and exclude the self-serving facts.

The third solution seems the most realistic method.

12. Form of declaration against interest

May be oral or written.

Form is immaterial provided all the essential requisites for its admissibility are present.

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.

Pedigree defined.
- It is the history of the family descent which is transmitted from one generation to another
by both oral and written declarations and by traditions.
- May includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and
places where these facts occurred, the names of the relatives, and the facts of family history
intimately connected.
- Includes also paternity and legitimacy.

Reason of Admissibility
To avoid a failure of justice, as greater evils are apprehended from the rejection of such proof
than from its admission and that individuals are generally supposed to know and to be
interested in those facts of family history about which they converse, and that they are
generally under little temptation to state untruths in respect to such matter.
Requisites for Admissibility
a) Declarant is dead or unable to testify
- Declarations will not be received when better evidence is available, in case his alive and
able his direct testimony is considered a better evidence.
- The fact that there are living members of the family who could be examined on the
same point does not exclude the declaration.
- Declarations are admissible when the declarant is dead, outside of the Philippines, or
when his testimony is unobtainable, like when he becomes insane, declarations made
before his insanity are admissible.

b) Necessity that pedigree be in issue

- Generally, declarations as to pedigree can be received only where pedigree itself is
directly in issue.
- However, in many cases the fact that pedigree is relevant to the issue is sufficient to
admit in evidence and as to matters of genealogy or facts incidentally or inferentially
connected therewith, such as the dates of genealogical importance, such as births,
deaths, and marriage, took places, names, number, residence of a branch of the family,
or their ownership of property, regardless of whether pedigree is separately in issue.

c) Declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question

- Generally, declarations as to pedigree to be admissible, it must have been made by
someone related to the family concerned, it is enough if some relationship is shown,
although the declarations of very remote relatives entitled to very little weight.
- Relationship of declarant to the family may be by birth or by affinity. Hence, the
declaration of the husband regarding the pedigree of his wife and his wifes relatives
and vice versa, is admissible. But declarations of the husbands relatives regarding the
pedigree of the wifes relatives, or vice versa, are not admissible.
- If it appears that the evidence offered does not emanate from someone related to the
family concerned, the presumption of the reliability of the source of information is
rebutted and the evidence becomes inadmissible.
- Courts will not receive declarations as to pedigree made by intimate friends or
neighbors, or even by persons living in the family or by servants, however trustworthy
or long he has been employed by the family.
d) Declarant must be made before the controversy occurred
- Generally, declarations to be received in proof of pedigree requires that the
declarations must have been made ante litem motam (before suit brought), before the
 controversy, and under such circumstances that the person making them could have no
motive to misrepresent the facts. It is necessary that the declarant should have been
disinterested to the extent of having no motive which can fairly be assumed to be such
as would induce him to state the facts otherwise than as he understood it.
- Declarations made after a controversy has originated, are excluded, on the ground that
the bias under which they were uttered suffices to render them untrustworthy.
- Controversy as used in this provision is not meant mere idle rumors, or doubts of
curious scandalmongers whose discussions of the family matters of their neighbors are
made without reverence for sanctity, morality, privacy or religion.

e) The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must
be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration
- Generally, the relationship of declarant to the family concerned must be established by
evidence other than the statement of declarant himself.
- Exception, where the subject of the declaration is the declarants own relationship to
another person it seems absurd to require, as a foundation for the admission of the
declaration, proof of the very facts which the declaration is offered to establish.
- Evidence to prove relationship may either direct or circumstantial, such as declarants
bearing the family name or a name identical with that of the subject of declaration,
recognition of declarant by the family, or mention of him in family conveyance and
other dispositions of property.

Proof concerning Pedigree

a) oral declaration of declarant
- May be proved by the testimony of any person who is a competent witness and who
has heard such declarations of the declarant.
b) written acts or declarations of the declarant
- May be proved by the statement in writing relating to pedigree made or recognized by
the declarant, or made under his direction.
- Exception, where the writing is in the form of an entry in a family Bible or testament
which is produced from the proper custody, in which event the assent of the family is
presumed.
c) Acts or conduct of a person deceased or outside of the country or unable to testify
- May consist of proof of acts or conduct of relatives and the mode of treatment in the
family of one whose parentage or decent is in question.
Relationship must be legitimate
- In order to render a declaration as to pedigree admissible it is necessary that the
relationship of declarant to the family should be of a legitimate character.
- A bastards declarations as to the pedigree of his putative family, or conversely, and vice
versa, are not admissible, but in some cases the courts have shown a tendency to relax the
rule.
Subject matter of declaration of pedigree
- The facts regarded as those of genealogy or pedigree, take a wide range, and embrace any
notable fact in the life of a member of the family or in the family history, or his own
relationship to the family.
Age
- Naturally, the testimony of a witness concerning his own age is based upon hearsay, but
according to the general rule, this circumstances does not render such testimony
inadmissible.
- It is based on statements of his parents, records recognized as family records, reputations in
the family, and, according to some authorities, general reputation in the community.
- Testimony of a priest concerning the age of a person, whom he had baptized at the time of
baptism based upon statement made at the time by a parent of such person is not
admissible where it appears that the parent is available.

Paternity and Legitimacy

- Declarations of deceased members of a family that he was the father or mother of a child
are admissible on the question of paternity or parentage of the child, with or without
accompanying proof of marriage.
- Declaration of deceased relatives other than the parents are admissible as proof of
paternity if made ante litem motam (before the controversy).
- There is authority which permits declarations of persons not related by blood may, under
some circumstances, be admissible to establish the parentage of an illegitimate.
Marriage
- Declarations and general repute are admissible as proof of a marriage, whether or not
members of the family.
- Reason: The public interest is taken in question of the existence of a marital relation.
- Where a formal marriage is proved, repute is not admissible to establish that there was no
marriage.
Death
 - The fact of death is a matter of pedigree within the rule which permits the admission of
hearsay evidence, such as reputation in proof of matters of pedigree.
- Slight proof of relationship of the declarant is sufficient to warrant admission of the
declaration.
- A newspaper announcement of the death of an individual is not admissible to prove the fact
of such persons death.
-
Form of Declaration
- Declaration may be in any form capable of conveying thought, provided the authenticity of
the vehicle conveying the statement is established to the satisfaction of the court by
evidence as by recognition in the family or production from proper custody.
- Must be a statement of fact, and not opinion.
- May be oral or in writing; the oral statement is as competent as written evidence on the
same point.

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.
Reputation or Tradition in matters of pedigree
- meant such declaration and statements as have come down from generation to generation
from deceased relatives in such a way even though it cannot be said or determined which
of the deceased relatives originally made them, or was personally cognizant of the facts
therein stated.
- It appears that such declarations and statement were made as family history, ante litem
motam (before the controversy), by a deceased person connected by blood or marriage
with the person whose pedigree is to be established.
Reason for Admissibility
- Family affairs are constantly talked over in the family, and the members who know what
happened tell what they know, with spontaneous sincerity, to those who did not know.
- Declaration as to pedigree made by deceased although based upon hearsay within the
family, and that, having been made before any controversy had arisen, there is no motive to
speak other than the truth.
Requisites for Admissibility
 a) There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any members of a family
- Reputation in the family gives rise to an inference to the existence of such facts as
birth, descent, failure of issue, heirship, identity, marriage, celibacy, parentage, or
relationship; or facts incidentally connected with genealogy, such as residence or the
dates of events of family history; and evidence of such reputations will be received on
an issue of pedigree concerning any member of any branch of the family
- Tradition in the family, being a form of family history or reputation is admissible to
prove facts of genealogy

Age
- Members of the family of the person in question, or others having an intimate
acquaintance with the family, may testify as to age, although their testimony is based
on family tradition or reputation
Death
- Evidence of reputation in the family or in the community or family tradition, has been
held admissible to establish the fact of death, provided there has been a considerable
lapse of time.
- Hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove the manner or cause of death.
b) The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person, concerned existed previous to
the controversy
- Common reputation or tradition arising after the controversy is supposed to be tainted
with bias and therefore unreliable.
c) The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person
concerned must be a member of the family of said person, either by consanguinity or
affinity.
- Relationship between the witness and the family need not be proved by independent
evidence; it may be shown by the witness own testimony.

Form of Declaration Relating to Pedigree

- Any form capable of conveying thought, provided the authenticity of the vehicle conveying
the statement is established to the satisfaction of the court by evidence as by recognition in
the family or production from proper custody.
 Sec. 41
Common reputation
Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or
general interest more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or moral character,
may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received
as evidence of common reputation.

Matters of public interest vs. matters of general interest

- Matters of public interest are common to all the citizens of the state or to the entire
people,
- matters of general interest are common only to a single community or to a considerable
number of persons forming part of the community.
Matters which may be established by common reputation
a) Facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old;
b) Marriage and related facts; and
c) Individual moral character.
Common Reputation Respecting Facts of Public or General Interest more than Thirty Years Old
- Reputation must have been formed among a class of people of persons who were in a
position to have sound sources of information and to contribute intelligently to the
formation of the opinion.
Common Reputation vs. Rumor
- Rumor is a story current without known authority for its truth, and, therefore, by its nature,
does not yet represent the prevailing belief in the community
- Common Reputation presupposes the existence of a general or undivided belief already
formed on which the general opinion is founded.
Common Reputation Respecting Marriage
a) The common reputation must have been formed previous to the controversy.
b) The common reputation must have been formed in the community or among the class of
persons who are in a position to have sources of information and to contribute intelligently
to the formation of the opinion.

Sec. 42
Part of res gestae
Statements made by a person while a starting 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.

Res Gestae Defined

- Comprehends a situation which presents a startling or unusual occurrence sufficient to
produce a spontaneous and instinctive reaction, during which interval, certain statements
are made under such circumstance as to show lack of forethought or deliberate design in
the formulation of their contents.
Res Gestae vs. Dying Declaration
- In dying declaration there is a sense of impending death which takes the place of an oath
and the law regards the declarant as testifying .
- While in res gestae it is the event itself which speaks, the actual facts expressing themselves
through the mouth of a witness, which may precede, or accompany, or follow, as events
occurring as a part of the principal act.
Reason of Admissibility
- It is a well-founded belief that statements made instinctively at the time of a specific
transaction or events, without opportunity for formulation of statements favorable to ones
own cause, are likely to cast important light upon the matter in issue; as to such statements,
the law creates a presumption of their truthfulness.
Test of Admissibility
- Whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with
the principal factor event which it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony.
Statements and Acts Constituting Part of Res Gestae
a) Statement made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately
prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof.
b) Acts and circumstances which are incidents of a particular litigated act and which are
illustrative of such act;
c) Statement accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, and are called by writers as verbal facts or verbal acts
Examples:
- Declaration of the parties made with regard to matters of business, if contemporaneous
with the acts they tend to explain and qualify, are admissible
- Declarations by a party relating to ownership of property made by a person in possession
thereof, may be admitted when uttered under such circumstances as satisfy the
 requirements applicable to other statements sought to be admitted under this exception to
hearsay rule.
- Declaration made at the time of a transaction which are pertinent to the question of fraud
are generally viewed as admissible.
- Statements made by an injured person relating to present pain and suffering or at the time
of an accident or so shortly thereafter as to form part of one event or transaction are
viewed in some decisions as part of the res gestae.

Spontaneous Statement Defined

- A statement or exclamation made immediately after some exciting occasion by a participant
or spectator and asserting the circumstances of that occasion as it is observed by him.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Trustworthiness the statements are made instinctively, while the declarants
mental powers for deliberation in concocting matters are controlled and stilled by the
shocking influence of a startling occurrence, they are but pure emanation of the
occurrence itself.
b) Necessity said natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing than the
testimony of the same person on the stand.
Elements of the statement or declaration to be admissible as part of res gestae Corpus Juris
Secumdum
a) must relate to the main event and must explain, elucidate, or in some manner characterize
that event
b) must be a natural declaration or statement growing out of the event, and not a mere
narrative of a past, completed affair
c) must be a statement of fact, and not the mere expression of an opinion
d) must be a spontaneous or instinctive utterance of thought, dominated or evoked by the
transaction or occurrence itself, and not the product of premeditation, reflection, or design
e) the declaration or statement need not be coincident or contemporaneous with the
occurrence of the event, it must be made at such time and under such circumstances as
will exclude the presumption that it is the result of deliberation
f) must appear that the declaration or statement was made by one who either participated in
the transaction or witnessed the act or fact concerning which the declaration or statement
was made.
Startling Occurrence Necessary
- it is essential that the spontaneous exclamation should have been caused by something
startling enough to produce nervous excitement and to keep the will dormant so far as
any deliberation in concocting matters for speech or selecting words is concerned.
Statement must relate to the circumstances of the startling occurrence
- the range of events must be kept in view for it is largely the explanatory and illustrative
character of the declaration as applied to the principal transaction that admits them as
evidence.
Interval of time between the startling occurrence and the spontaneous statement
- Since startling occurrence may extend its exciting influence over a subsequent period of
time which may be long or short, the rule is that the statements, to be admissible, should
have been made before there had been time or opportunity to devise or contrive anything
contrary to the real facts that occurred.
- What the law altogether distrusts is not the afterspeech but the afterthought.

When expression of opinion admissible as part of the res gestae

- When a spontaneous exclamation of an injured person that it involves the expression of an
opinion as to the legal or physical effects of his injury, and it has also been held that the
opinions or conclusions of competent physicians, stated while examining a patient, may be
admissible as part of the res gestae.
Place Where the Statement was made
- It is not unreasonable to suppose that a statement made, or an act done, at a place some
distance from the place where the principal transaction occurred will not ordinarily possess
such spontaneity as would render it admissible.
Condition of the Declarant at the Time he made the Declaration
- A statement will ordinarily be deemed spontaneous if, at the time when it was made, the
condition of declarant was such as to raise an inference that the effect of the occurrence on
his mind still continued, as where he had just received a serious injury, was suffering severe
pain, or was just under intense excitement.
Province of the Court to Determine Whether or not Statement is Spontaneous
- It is for the trial court to decide the preliminary question as to whether or not the
declarations were made without deliberation and reflection or were the spontaneous
utterance of the declarant
- Trial courts decision of above mention question will not be disturbed on appeal unless it
appears that his conclusion was arbitrary or unreasonable
Declarations of Bystanders and Third Persons
- If the act of a third party is relevant and is in evidence, his statement accompanying and
explanatory of it, which is the natural concomitant of the act, and is prompted by the
identical motive should be admitted.
 - But if the declarations of a third persons are merely narrative and unconnected with the
relevant act, so that by no proper extension of the rule can they be included among the res
gestae.
Acts and Circumstances which are Incidents of a Particular Litigated Act
- Statements, acts or conduct accompanying or so nearly connected with the main
transaction as to form a part of it, and which illustrate, elucidate, qualify, or characterize
the act, are admissible as part of res gestae.
- Writings may become part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence where they are
incidents of a transaction and a part thereof.
Verbal Acts Defined
- Are utterances which accompany some acts has intrinsically no definite legal significance, or
only an ambiguous one, its legal purport or tenor may be ascertained by considering the
words accompanying it, and these utterances thus enter merely as a verbal part of the act.
Reason for Admissibility
- The motive, character, and object of an act are frequently indicated by what was said
by the person engaged in the act, such statement are in the nature of verbal acts and
are admissible in evidence with the remainder of the transaction which they illustrate.
Requisites for Admissibility
a) The act characterized by the verbal acts must be equivocal or ambiguous in tenor;
b) That the verbal acts must characterize or explain the equivocal or ambiguous act;
c) That the equivocal or ambiguous act must be material to the issue; and
d) That the verbal act must be contemporaneous with and accompany the equivocal or
ambiguous act
Verbal Acts vs. Spontaneous Statements
- In spontaneous exclamations, the res gestae is the startling occurrence; while in verbal acts,
the res gestae is the equivocal act.
- The verbal act must be contemporaneous with or must accompany the equivocal act to be
admissible; whereas a spontaneous exclamation may be prior to, simultaneous with, or
subsequent to the startling.
Act or Occurrence Characterized must be Equivocal
- It is only when the thing done is equivocal that it is competent to prove declarations
accompanying it as falling within the class of res gestae.
Verbal Acts must Characterize or Explain the Equivocal Act
- The statement that are admissible are only those necessary to understand the meaning of
the equivocal act, other statements not necessary for that purpose are not admissible.
Equivocal Act Must be Relevant to the Issue
 - The general rule is that a declaration sought to be proved under the res gestae must have
been contemporaneous with the event established as the principal act; it must spring at a
time so near it as to preclude the idea of deliberate design, they may be regarded as
contemporaneous and are admissible in evidence.
Equivocal Act may Cover a Long Period of Time
- The equivocal act may extend over a long period of time, and during that period, those
statements that are necessary for an understanding of the meaning of said equivocal act,
are admissible as verbal acts.

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.
General Rule
- Books of account of a party or entries therein, are admissible in his favor to show the
recorded transactions when a proper foundation is laid and the requisites to admissibility
have been met.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Necessity is given as a ground for admitting entries in that they are the best available
evidence
b) Trustworthiness
Requisites for Admissibility
a) Entries must have been made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer
- It is sufficient if they are made within a reasonable time thereafter, in the ordinary
course of the business of the party making them
b) Entrant must have been in a position to know the facts stated in the entries
- If the entry is based on reports, oral or written, numerous persons cooperating, who
had personal knowledge of their own items but did not themselves make the entries,
the entries may be received, either by calling the entrant alone to the stand or by the
testimony of one who can verify the method of compiling them.
c) Entries must have been made by entrant in his professional capacity or in the performance
of his duty
- To constitute a profession, the employment or vocation must be such as exacts the
use or application of special learning or attainment of some kind.
 - Where the entry was made in the a professional capacity and in the course of
professional conduct, or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular
course of business or duty, there are three guarantees of their trustworthiness.
i. Habit and system of making record with regularity result in accuracy;
ii. Errors may easily be detected because the entries are made in the regular course
of professional conduct, performance of duty, or the ordinary and regular duties
of the person making the entries; and
iii. If the entries are made in pursuance of his duty, legal or to a superior, the
additional risk of censure and disgrace to the entrant makes them presumably
correct.
d) Entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty
- Hence, such entries made constitute only one of a variety of circumstances,
sanctioned by judiciary practice, acceptable as presumptive evidence of the accuracy
and truthfulness of the entry and as a practical substitute for the conventional test of
cross-examination.
e) Entrant must be deceased or unable to testify
- In order to qualify an entry, there must be a necessity for its admission as evidence
and this is satisfied by proof of the death of the entrant.
- When declarant is alive, entries may be used as memorandum to refresh his memory
as witness.
Mode of Proving Entries
- It is required that the entries be properly identified or authenticated, and generally, their
completeness, and correctness, regularly, and fairly as well as the method of making them,
must be established

Sec. 44
Entries in official records
Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the
Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
General Rule
- The division of documentary evidence embracing public or official records and reports
includes acts of the legislature, judicial records, and records and reports of administrative
officers.
- Any such record or document or a properly authenticated copy or transcript thereof is
admissible in the trial of an action, subject to the same requirements of relevancy and
materiality as apply to private writings.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Necessity consists in the practical impossibility of requiring the officials attendance as a
witness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his duty and
requiring to be evidence.
b) Trustworthiness
i. in the sense of official duty which has led to the making of the statement;
ii. in the penalty which usually is affixed to a breach of that duty;
iii. in the routine and disinterested origin of most of such statements; and
iv. I the publicity of record, which makes more likely the prior exposure of such errors as
might have occurred
Requisites for Admissibility
a) That the written statement was made by public officer or by another person specially
enjoined by law to do so;
b) That it was made by the public officer in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by
law; and
c) That the public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him
state, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information
Public Officer
- It is not necessary that the record, should be kept by the chief public officer himself, it is
sufficient if the entries are made under his direction by person authorized by him.
Performance of Duty by Public Officer
- It is essential that the official statement should have been made by a public officer in the
performance of his duty, or by another person in the performance of his duty, specially
enjoined by law.
Unavailability of Entrant Need not be Shown
- His absence is being excused from appearing in court in order that public business be not
deranged.
Proof of Official Entries
- Entries may be proved by the production of the books or records themselves or by a copy
certified by the legal keeper thereof.
Authentication
- The extraordinary degree of confidence reposed in documents of a public nature is founded
principally upon the circumstance that they have been made by authorized and accredited
agents appointed for the purpose.
Probative value
 - Entries in public records made by a public officer in the performance of the duty specially
enjoined by law are only prima facie evidence of the fact therein stated, and their probative
value may be either substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence.
SECTION 45, RULE 130

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.

Reason for Admissibility

The admissibility of commercial lists and the like as evidence even though the authors,
compilers or publishers thereof cannot be cross-examined as witness is based on necessity and
trustworthiness; necessary to because of the inaccessibility of the authors, computers, or
publisher in other jurisdiction but also because the great practical inconvenience in summoning
each individual whose personal knowledge has gone to make up the final result.

Market reports or quotations, trade journals, trade circulars, price lists and the like

Admissible as evidence; Such reports, being based upon a general survey of the whole market
and constantly received and acted upon by dealers, are far more satisfactory and reliable than
individual entries or individual sales or inquiries.

Authentication

As a prerequisite to the introduction in evidence of a newspaper, trade journal, trade circular,

or price list, giving the quotations of the market value of a commodity, that a preliminary
foundation be laid for such evidence, as by showing that such publications have been regularly
prepared by a person in touch with the market, and that they are generally regarded as
trustworthy and relied upon.

SECTION 46, RULE 130

Learned treaties.-- A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law,

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

Learned treaties are admissible in evidence to prove the truth of a matter stated therein, (a) if
the court takes judicial notice that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical, or
pamphlet, is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject, (b) o 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.
Reason for admissibility

Necessity and Trustworthiness. Necessity because of the unavailability of the expert witness to
testify on the matter or if available, because of the tremendous expense in hiring them.
Trustworthiness because the learned witness in writing his work or article has no motive to
misrepresent . Another reason is that the writer of a learned treatise is more careful of what he
writes because he knows that every statement he makes will be subject to criticism and open to
refutation. Still another reason is that writers of learned treatise with no view to litigation and
not for a free as expert witness.

Historical Works

Historical facts of general and public notoriety may be proved by reputation; and that
reputation may be established by historical works of known character and accuracy. But
evidence of this sort is confined in a measure to ancient facts, the assumption being that better
evidence is not in existence.

Scientific Treatise

Much of the scientific knowledge of experts in medicine, surgery, mechanics, chemistry, and
other fields of specialized learning is derived from scientific books and treatises; their
knowledge would, in general, be small had they got availed themselves of the fruits of the
research and experience of their predecessors as taught in books. This opinion of expert
witnesses must be founded in some degree upon such books; in fact, they may, as a general
rule, in support of their professional opinions, read in evidence from standard scientific works
which are recognized as such by the profession in which they are engaged.

General exception: When they contain statements of ascertained facts rather than of opinions,
or which, by long use in the practical affairs of life, have come to be accepted as standard and
unvarying authority in determining the action of those who use them.

Law

When the law involved in a controversy is a domestic law, the court is bound to take judicial
notice thereof, and no proof is necessary whatever. Foreign law, a distinction as to proof is laid
down between written and unwritten law. Written law may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested to by the officer having legal custody of the record, or
by his deputy, and must be accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the custody. In
Unwritten law, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed and
published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the country concerned if proved to be
commonly admitted in such courts.

Under our rules of private international law, foreign law is considered as any other matter of
fact, which must be properly pleaded and proved. If not properly proved, the presumption
arises that foreign law is the same as domestic law.
 Philippine Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign law. Failure to prove foreign law
whether unwritten under rule 130, sec. 46 or written under rule 132, sec. 24, raises the
presumption that the law is the same as ours. (Yao kee v. Sy Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736)

SECTION 47, RULE 130

Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.-- 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.

Generally, the mere fact that testimony has been given in the course of a former proceeding
between the parties to a case on trial is no ground for its admission in evidence. The law
recognizes, however, that it is sometimes impossible to produce a witness who has testified at
a former trial, as where he dies or become insane before the later trial. In such cases, where the
second action is between the same parties or their privies and involves the same issues, the
testimony of the witness as taken at the former hearing or trial is, according to practically all
decisions, admissible in later one as one of the exceptions to the rule excluding hearsay
testimony.

Unable to testify refers to an inability proceeding from a grave cause almost

amounting to death as when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech (Tan v. CA,
1967)

Reason for admissibility

Necessity for the testimony and its Trustworthiness. Inasmuch as the former witness could no
longer testify, his former testimony having been given in a former action under the solemnity of
an oath is admissible to prevent failure of justice.

Requisites

a. The witness whose testimony is offered in evidence is dead or unable to testify

1. Insanity or mental incapacity, or the former witness loss of memory through old age
or disease;
2. Physical disability by reason of sickness or advanced age;
3. The fact that the witness has been kept away by contrivance of the opposite party;
and
4. The fact that after diligent search the former witness cannot be found.
b. Identity of parties
c. Identity of issues
d. Opportunity of cross-examination of witness

Proof of former testimony

If testimony at a former trial is reduced to writing, such writing is the primary evidence thereof
and should be used. E.g. stenographic note
SECTION 48, RULE 140

General rule.The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following
sections.

Opinion defined

An inference or conclusion drawn by a witness from facts, some of which are known to him and
others assumed, or drawn from facts, which although leading probability to the inference, do
not evolve it by a process of absolutely necessary reasoning.

Rule of exclusion

Under ordinary circumstances a witness in testifying is to be restricted to the facts within his
knowledge, and his opinion or conclusion with respect to the matters in issue or relevant to the
issue may not be received in evidence. However, when the conclusion to be drawn from the
facts stated depends on scientific knowledge or skill, not within the range of ordinary training
or intelligence, the conclusion may be stated by qualified expert.

There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which skill or experience shall have
been acquired. Scientific study and training are not always essential to the competency of
witness as an expert. Knowledge acquired by doing is no less valuable than that acquired by
study. (Dilag Co. v. Merced, 1949)

Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the sense that they must be accepted as
true on the subjrct of their testimony, but are generally regarded as purely advisory; the courts
may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimony and may reject it, if they find that
it is inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable.

Testimony of handwriting expert is not indispensible to COMELEC. Handwriting experts,

while probably useful, are not indispensible in examining or comparing handwriting; this can be
done by the COMELEC itself. It was ruled by the SC that evidence aliunde is not allowed to prove
that a ballot is marked, an inspection of the ballot itself being sufficient. (Punzalan v. COMELEC,
et al., G.R. No. 126669)

Sec. 49, Rule 130

I. IN GENERAL

* Opinion evidence defined. Opinion evidence, as the term is used in law, means the
testimony of a witness, given in the trial of an action, that the witness is of the opinion that
some facts pertinent to the case exist or does not exist, offered as proof of the existence or
non-existence of that fact.
* Expert evidence defined. Expert evidence is the testimony of persons who are particularly
skilled, or experienced in a particular art, science, trade, business, profession, or vocation, a
thorough knowledge of which is not possessed by man in general, in regard to matters
connected therewith.

* Expert defined. An expert may be defined as a person who is so qualified, either by actual
experience or by careful study, as to enable him to form a definite opinion of his own
respecting any decision of science, branch of art, or department of trade about which persons
having no particular training or special study are incapable of forming accurate opinions or of
deducing correct conclusions.

* Expert witness distinguished from skilled witness. -- Ordinarily, a witness is said to testify as
an expert when a state of facts, observed by someone else, is hypothetically submitted to the
witness, and he is asked in view of those facts, to state what his opinion is, whereas a man
skilled in a particular business, who makes his own observations, and testifies to what he has
observed and his conclusions therefrom, is regarded as a skilled witness.

* Classes of cases in which opinion evidence is admissible. -- There are two distinct classes of
cases in which expert testimony is admissible.

1) In one class are those cases in which conclusions to be drawn by the judge depend on
the existence of facts which are not common knowledge and which are peculiarly within
the knowledge of men whose experience or study enables them to speak with authority
upon the subjects in question.

2) In the other class are those cases, in which the conclusions to be drawn from the facts
stated, as well as knowledge of the facts themselves, depend on professional or
scientific knowledge not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence.

* Qualifications of experts. A witness, to qualify as an expert, must have acquired such

special knowledge of the subject-matter about which he is to testify, either by study of the
recognized authorities on the subject, or by practical experience, that he can give the court
assistance and guidance in solving a problem to which its equipment of good judgment and
average knowledge is inadequate.

* Determination of qualification of expert to testify. The question of the qualification of an

expert witness rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, and the test of qualification is
necessarily a relative one, depending upon the subject under investigation and the fitness of
the particular witness.
* Requisites for the admissibility of expert testimony. -- Three things must concur to justify the
admission of the testimony of an expert witness.

First, the subject under examination must be one that requires that the court has the
aid of knowledge or experience such as men not especially skilled do not have, and such
therefore as cannot be obtained from the ordinary witnesses.

Second, the witness called as an expert must possess the knowledge, skill, or experience
needed to inform the court in the particular case under consideration.

Third, like other evidence, expert testimony is not admissible as to a matter not in issue.

II. EXAMINATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES

* Generally. Before an expert witness may be required to give an opinion, the party
presenting him must first establish that he is an expert on the subject upon which he is called to
testify.

* Direct examination.

(a) Opinion based on facts known personally by the expert. - Where the expert witness
is required to give an opinion based upon facts upon which he knows personally, he
must first state those facts before giving an opinion thereon.

(b) Opinion based on facts of which he has no personal knowledge. If the expert has
no personal knowledge of the facts on which his opinion is based, they should be given
to him hypothetically, that is, they must assume the state of facts upon which his
opinion is desired.

* Hypothetical question. Hypothetical questions must include only facts that are supported
by evidence and should embody substantially all facts relating to the particular matter upon
which an expert opinion is sought to be elicited, but they need not include all facts pertinent to
the ultimate issue.

* Form of hypothetical question. Generally speaking a hypothetical question should state all
the facts relevant to the formation of an opinion, and then, assuming the facts stated to be
true, ask the witness whether he is able to form an opinion therefrom, and, if so, to state such
opinion.

Hypothetical question involves two distinct elements, namely, premise and inference or
conclusion based on premise.
* When abstract questions permissible. Purely abstract questions, assuming facts or theories
for which there is no foundation in the evidence, are not admissible as a matter of right,
although such questions may be permitted on cross-examination for the purpose of testing the
knowledge of the witness as to the subject on which he has testified.

* Opinion of expert based on hearsay inadmissible. The rule is well established that hearsay
in the form of information gained from the statements of others outside the courtroom may
not be the basis of an expert opinion.

* Opinion of expert cannot be based on other opinions. It is not proper in asking

hypothetical questions to incorporate in them the opinions of other expert witnesses. An
opinion of an expert witness cannot be based upon opinions expressed by other experts.

* Opinion based on conjecture inadmissible. Expert testimony should not be allowed to

extend to the field of baseless conjecture concerning matters not susceptible of reasonable
accurate conclusions.

* Opinion involving questions of law inadmissible. It may be laid down as a general rule that
a witness is never permitted to give his opinion on a question of domestic law or upon matters,
which involve questions of law.

* Opinion on the ultimate fact in issue inadmissible. While an expert may be permitted to
express his opinion, or even his belief, he cannot give his opinion upon the precise or ultimate
fact in issue before the court, which must be determined by it.

* Impeachment of expert witness. The weight to be given the judgment of a skilled witness
may be impaired by the various methods employed in the case of other testimony. He may be
contradicted by others in his own class or by any competent witness or by use of exhibits; or
the weight of his testimony may be impaired by showing that he is interested or biased; that
others have at a prior time refused to accept the opinion expressed; that he made inconsistent
statements at another time, provided a proper foundation is laid therefore; that he formed a
different opinion at another time; that he did not express the opinion testified to at a time
when such an expression might reasonably have been expected, or that he changed sides in the
case.

* Courts not bound by testimony of expert. Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in
the sense that they must be accepted as true on the subject of their testimony, but are
generally regarded as purely advisory in character; the courts may place whatever weight they
choose upon such testimony and may reject it, if they find that it is consistent with the facts in
the case or otherwise unreasonable.
2009 JURISPRUDENCE

G.R. No. 150897. April 11, 2005

TURADIO C. DOMINGO, Petitioners,
vs.
JOSE C. DOMINGO, LEONORA DOMINGO-CASTRO and her spouse JUANITO CASTRO, NUNCIA
DOMINGO-BALABIS, ABELLA DOMINGO VALENCERINA and the REGISTER OF DEEDS, QUEZON
CITY, Respondents.
FACTS:

F (father) sold his property to his children A, B, C, and D (excluding E, the eldest) due to
failing health. Indeed, a deed of absolute sale was signed by the former conveying the said
property and was witnessed by two persons and notarized by a notary public.
E learned of such sale when an ejectment suit was filed against him. Upon the advice of
his counsel, he had the documents examined by the PNP. As a result, the PNP came up with the
conclusion that the signatures were written by two different people.

Hence, E assailed the contract for being a forgery.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the court is bound to give evidentiary value of the opinion of the
PNP.

RULING:

Under the Rules of Court, the following may prove the genuineness of handwriting:

(1) A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument;
(2) A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion
being an exception to the opinion rule;
(3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimen
thereof; and
(4) Expert evidence. (Sec. 49 Rule 130) - The law makes no preference, much less distinction
among and between the different means stated above in proving the handwriting of a person.
It is likewise clear from the foregoing that courts are not bound to give probative value or
evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not
mandatory.
* Weight of expert testimony. Under the usual circumstances expert opinion evidence is to
be considered or weighed by the court like other testimony, in the light of their own general
knowledge and experience in the subject of inquiry; the court cannot arbitrarily disregard the
testimony of experts or skilled witnesses, and make an unsupported finding contrary to the
opinion.

III. SUBJECTS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY

* Generally. The most common subjects of expert testimony are handwriting, including
typewritten documents, ballistic, mental condition, cause of death or injury and value of real
property including market value.

A. HANDWRITING

* Handwriting expert. There is no test by which one can determine with precision how much
experience or knowledge of handwriting a witness must have in order to qualify as an expert
for comparison.

It is not essential to qualify one as an expert to testify to comparisons of handwritings

that he has professional knowledge or that he has made such work a specialty. It is enough that
he has been engaged in some business which called for frequent comparisons of handwritings
and that he has in fact been in the habit for a length of time of making such comparisons.

*Function of handwriting expert. No handwriting expert should wish for his testimony to be
received as unquestionable authority, the idea being rather that it is the function of the expert
to place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion.

An expert on handwriting may give not only an opinion upon the authenticity of writing,
but also, in his examination in chief, the reasons for his opinion.

* Court may order examination of questioned document by National Bureau of Investigation.

When a party is too poor to pay the fees of a handwriting expert, the court, upon its own
initiative, may, for the sake of justice, require the National Bureau of Investigation to make an
examination of the signature in a questioned document.

* Two problems in handwriting identification. There are two main problems in handwriting
identification.

1) To determine whether a signature, a line of writing, or a page or more of writing was

written by the one who is alleged to have written it.

2) Determining whether a certain writer wrote an anonymous or other writing.

Both of these handwriting problems must be solved by a study of the inherent qualities in the
writings themselves and by a comparison of their elements, qualities, and characteristics with
other writing.

* General appearance or pictorial effect. The first test applied to a disputed writing by nearly
every examiner is the test of general appearance or pictorial effect as compared with the
genuine standard of writing.

* Method of testing genuineness of disputed handwriting by comparison. One of the first

steps in the investigation of a suspected or disputed writing should be the seeking out of
suitable genuine handwriting with which it is to be compared.

The qualities and characteristics of any handwriting as determined and classified in a thorough
examination are;

1) Permanent and fixed

2) Usual or common
3) Occasional and,
4) Exceptional or accidental

It therefore follows that handwriting has a certain field of possible and expected variation and
without a sufficient quantity of standard writing significant habits cannot be determined, and
the value and force of characteristics cannot be definitely known.

* Proof of genuineness of standard handwriting. Generally, where writings are admitted to

serve as a basis for comparison, the genuineness thereof must be proved to the satisfaction of
the judge as a preliminary question. His decision on such preliminary question is conclusive,
unless it appears to have been based on some erroneous view of law, or was clearly not
justified by state of the evidence at that time.

* Use of writings other than those in issue. There is a direct conflict of authority on the
question of whether an expert handwriting witness may be tested as to the accuracy of his
knowledge by the use of writings others than those in issue. The majority rule is that
submitting to him may not test such a witness, and eliciting his opinion as to the genuineness of
other writings not admitted or proved to be genuine. But in at least two jurisdictions it has
been held that writings neither admitted nor proved to be genuine, and even though otherwise
irrelevant, may be used to test an expert handwriting witness.

* Characteristics of handwriting; general principles.

No set of infallible rules can be formulated but some general principles can be stated that apply
in most cases.

1) Identifying or differentiating characteristics. One of the principles by which the

force and significance of characteristics are measured is that those identifying or differentiating
characteristics are of the most force which are most divergent from the regular system or
national features of a particular handwriting under examination.

2) Inconspicuous characteristics. Repeated characteristics which are inconspicuous

should first be sought and should be given the most weight, for these are likely to be so
unconscious that they would not intentionally be omitted when an attempt is made to disguise,
and would not be successfully copied from the writing of another when simulation is
attempted.

3) General characteristics or national features and elements are not alone sufficient on
which to have a judgment of identity of two writings, although these characteristics necessarily
have as evidence of identity, as stated above, if present in sufficient number and in
combination with individual qualities and characteristics.

* Exact coincidence between two signatures. It is a first principle in writing that exact
coincidence between two signatures is absolute proof that one or the other is a forgery. There
must be some difference before authentically can be admitted; and the general rule is that
authenticity reposes upon a general characteristics resemblance, coupled with specific
differences, such as naturally result from the infinite variety of conditions controlling the
muscles of the writer at each separate effort in forming his signature.

* Test for determining identity or non-identity. In order to reach the conclusion that two
writings are by the same hand there must not only be present general characteristics but also
individual characteristics or dents and scratches, in sufficient quantity to exclude the theory of
accidental coincidence; to reach the conclusion that writings are by different hands we may find
numerous likenesses in general characteristics but divergence in individual characteristics, or
we may find divergences in both, but the divergence must be something more than mere
superficial differences.

* A favorite defense of forgery. One of the favorite defenses of forgery is the argument that
the numerous damaging divergences in a disputed signature, which in combination are highly
significant as evidence that it is not genuine, can each be found separately in one signature out
of a great number of signatures, and that this proves that the disputed signature is genuine.
Even if they could be found, this would not be proof of genuineness. The incompetent or the
insincere witness, or the advocate, who is defending forgery, will often laboriously seek out
these separated and only partially exemplified qualities, and then argue that the disputed
signature and the genuine writing are just alike.

* Circumstances that may induce expert to give erroneous opinion. Identity is proved when
two handwritings both contain a sufficient number of significant characteristics; qualities and
elements so that it is unreasonable to say that they would all accidentally coincide in two
different handwritings.

* Errors are due to:

(1) Basing opinion on inadequate amount of disputed writings

(2) Inadequate amount of standard writing
(3) Basing conclusion on common qualities alone
(4) Basing conclusion on system or national characteristics
(5) Basing conclusion partly on outside facts or statements of interested party
(6) Ignoring difference in the writings
(7) Interpreting all differences as disguises
(8) Allowing prejudice, sympathy or antipathy to affect a conclusion
(9) Haste or superficial examination
(10) Inability to weigh and interpret characteristics or qualities
(11) Basing opinion on undeveloped writing from school teachers or pupils or young
writers
(12) The attempt to identify the actual writer of a forged signature that is a simulated or
traced writing

* Osborns suggestion in presenting expert testimony. There are certain preliminary details
in connection with the presentation of testimony of a technical character that deserve some
attention. Before an expert or opinion witness is allowed to testify the law requires that he be
qualified in a legal way to give expert testimony. This qualifying process consists in showing
that the witness has had such preparation and experience as to legally qualify him to give an
opinion in court on the subject in dispute.

B. TYPEWRITTEN DOCUMENTS

* Identification of typewritten documents. The principles applicable to handwriting apply

equally to typewritten documents.

Expert testimony identifying typewriting, printing and other mechanical impressions as

prepared on a particular machine is now considered an integral part of the science of
questioned documents. Two types of experts appear in this field, the examiner of documents
and the typewriter mechanic or engineer. Qualifications are the same for both, that is anyone
may testify, as an expert whose training and experience have developed knowledge above that
of the average person in the features of a typewriter or printing press, subject to the sound
discretion of the court.

* Typewriting questions. Typewriting questions are presented in a great variety of ways. In

the first place, if often is desirable simply to ascertain the date of a typewritten document. It
may also be a matter of great importance to learn whether a document was all written
continuously or written at different times on the same machine or at different times on
different machines.

* Skilled typist. Skilled typist may be permitted to state inference that two pages of minute
book of corporation were written by different typists using different machines.

* Identification of operator. The question of identification of the typewriter operator is

primarily predicated upon the physical arrangement, the manner of punctuation, the length of
line, the depth of indentation, and the method of spelling, although some authorities discuss
the question from the point of view that operators of typewriters have different touches.

* Habits of operator. Different habits of touch, spacing, speed, arrangement, punctuation, or

incorrect use of any letters, figures, or other characters may also show that a document was
not all written by one operator, or may show that a collection of documents was produced by
several different operators.

* Typewriting characteristics.

The first fact to be considered in investigating the date of a typewriting is to find when a
certain kind of machine, the work of which is in question, first came into use, and then it is
important to learn, and to be able to prove, when any changes in the machine were made that
affected the written record.

* The most important typewriting inquiry. Perhaps the most important typewriting inquiry is
the determination whether a typewritten document is the work of a particular individual
machine. There usually are two steps in an inquiry of this kind;

1) The first being the determination of the fact that the document was written on a
certain particular kind of machine,

2) And the second that it was written on a certain individual machine of that particular
kind

* Comparison of typewriting or printing. The authorities dealing with the question whether
typewritten instruments can be identified as to genuineness by the peculiarity of the writing in
much the same manner as handwriting has been identified appear to agree that typewriting
possesses such individuality that it can be identified in much the same manner as handwriting,
by comparison with other typewriting and by expert testimony. The theory underlying this rule
is that where an impression is made on paper y an instrument, which possesses a defect or
peculiarity, the identity of the instrument may be proved by the similarity of the defects, which
it impresses on different papers.

C. FINGERPRINTS

* Fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, tracks. Authenticated fingerprints, palm prints or

footprints or photographs thereof of any person may be introduced in evidence and compared
with other fingerprints, palm prints or footprints found at or near the scene of the crime. This
comparison is usually made by experts who may be permitted to use projectoscopes and
photographic enlargements for the purpose of displaying such photographic impression to the
court.

* Fingerprint experts. He must have knowledge of fingerprint from study, training, or

experience as to make him a specialist in the subject.

* Admissibility of fingerprints expert testimony. Expert testimony as to the identity of

thumbmarks or fingerprints is admissible. However, the court is justified in refusing to accept
opinions of alleged experts where thumb impressions are blurred and many of the
characteristic marks far from clear, thus rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated
by experts as showing the identity or lack of identity of the impressions. The court may
substitute the opinion of experts by its own opinion that a distinct similarity in some respects
between the admittedly genuine thumbmark and the questioned thumbmarks is evident.

* Weight of fingerprint. The weight to be given evidence of correspondence of fingerprints,

where offered to prove identity of the accused as the person committing the crime, is for the
determination of the court in the light of all surrounding facts and circumstances. To warrant a
conviction, however, the fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused must have been
found in the place where the crime was committed, under such circumstances that they could
only have been impressed at the time when the crime was committed. When it appears that
there were fingerprints other than those identified as the defendants who are neither
identified nor explained, the proof of the defendants prints is not sufficient to support a
conviction.

D. BALLISTICS

* Ballistics expert. He is one who is qualified to give expert opinion on firearms and
ammunition. No witness should be permitted to testify regarding the identification of firearms
and bullets by the use of this science unless he has clearly shown that he is qualified to give
such testimony. In a trial, it is necessary that the instrument, such as a weapon involved in a
crime, be tested and demonstrated.

* The problem of determining whether or not a given bullet was fired from a suspected
firearm. This problem can be solved only if it is possible to establish: (a) that the signature on
the given bullet was engraved by a firearm with the same class characteristics as those if the
suspected firearm; (b) that the same combination of identifying elements exists in the signature
on all bullets (except those undersize) fired from the suspected firearms at the time, and all
variations found in these signatures can be reconciled; (c) that the same combination of
identifying elements exists in the signature on the given bullet; (d) that all variations existing in
the signature on the given bullet and the signatures of the suspected firearm can be reconciled;
and (e) that the identifying elements determined from a combination the coexistence of which
is highly improbable in the signatures of other firearms with the same class characteristics.

* The problem of determining whether or not a fired cartridge case was fired in a suspected
firearm. The first step in the solution of this problem is to compare the signature on the given
cartridge case with the signature on a test cartridge case to determine whether or not the given
cartridge case was fired in a firearm with the same class characteristics as those of the
suspected firearm. If the requisite agreement in class characteristics is found to exist and the
reference point is established on the given cartridge case, the next step is to compare the
signature on two or more test cartridge cases to determine the identities and to reconcile the
diversities.

* Admissibility of ballistics expert testimony. A witness skilled in ballistics may be permitted

to testify to the effect that he identified the pistol from which a bullet found at the scene of the
homicide was fired, as a result of comparison of marking on that bullet and on shells also found
at the scene of the homicide, with those found on bullets and shells fired by the witness
through the pistol, the test upon which he passed his observations and formed his opinion
being minutely described to the court.

* Weight of ballistics experts opinion. A ballistics expert conclusion that bullets were fired
from a particular gun does not invade the province of the court. Testimony that he was
convinced, as a result of the test made by him, that a bullet found at the scene of the homicide
was fired through the pistol in evidence, which admittedly belonging to defendant, is an
expression of an opinion based on his observations, and not objectionable as stating a fact, and
thus invading the province of the court.
E. PARAFFIN OR NITRATE TEST

* Method to determine whether a person has recently fired a gun. It is usual in criminal
investigations of cased of murder or homicide to apply nitrate test commonly known as paraffin
test on the hands of the suspected person to determine whether or not such person has
recently fired a gun. (People vs. Timbol, G.R. Nos. 47471, 47472 and 47473).

F. CAUSE OF DEATH NATURE AND CAUSE OF WOUNDS

* Cause of death. Where a body had been found but the cause of death is unknown, opinions
of experts are generally indispensable to assist the court in determining whether the death was
caused by accident, disease or violence. The cause of death of a person is considered so within
the range of scientific knowledge that medical expert testimony is admissible as to such cause;
or as to the different ways in which the death might have been caused, that death did or did
not result from a given wound or injury, which of several bullet wounds was the most fatal
where a person died after being shot several times or how long a person had been dead. Such
testimony is not proper to contradict eyewitnesses.

* Manner and cause of death. In all cases where cause of death is not one common
observation or knowledge, physicians and surgeons medical experts may give opinion
testimony, derived from their own observations of the body of the deceased or from scientific
deductions from given facts, as to the probable causes of death, provided there are sufficient
facts in evidence upon which to base the conclusion.

* Character of weapon inflicting wound. A competent expert may testify from the nature of a
wound as to the character of the weapon which caused it, and even non-expert testimony is
sometimes accepted in this connection.

* Whether wound or other injuries were self-inflicted. The general rule seems to be that
opinions as to whether wounds and injuries were or were not self inflicted and not admissible
where the facts are fully presentable to the court and are such that special knowledge or skill is
not an essential to the formation of an intelligent opinion upon the question; but where such
knowledge or skill is necessary or where the facts cannot be fully represented, the opinions of
witnesses having such knowledge or skill are admissible as an aid to the court.

* Basis of opinion. To be admissible, it must be based on facts observed by the physician in

the course of his attendance upon, or examination of, the subject. Facts proved in the case by
direct testimony overheard by the witness, or facts hypothetically stated, mere guesses or
speculative opinions are inadmissible.
G. SANITY OR INSANITY

* General rule. Mental incapacity is a field in which the opinions of experts are frequently to
for the purpose of aiding the court in drawing inferences from facts, which have been detailed
to it. Medical experts and experts with relation to mental diseases may give an opinion upon
the mental condition of the witness, based upon facts and circumstances within their own
observations; upon hypothetical questions based upon facts and circumstances in evidence;
and upon facts detailed by the witnesses.

* Expert witness. He should have a general knowledge as a medical man or with scientific
training upon the subject. Those who have had the care of insane persons are generally
received as competent including physicians in general practice and trained nurses who are
accustomed to attend upon the sick.

H. VALUE OF PERSONAL OR REAL PROPERTY

* Opinion evidence on the value of personal and real property. Opinion evidence is usually
admitted from persons, who are not strictly experts, but who from residing and doing business
in the vicinity have familiarized themselves with land values and are more able to form and
opinion on the subject at issue.

* Expert evidence on the value of land taken by eminent domain. A person engaged in a
business of holding a public office, which required the knowledge of real estate values is a
competent witness as to the value of land with which he is familiar. The opinions of experts as
to value, however, are not to be passively received and blindly followed, but are to be weighed
by the court and judged in view of all testimony in the case and the judge own personal
knowledge of affairs.

* Market value. The price fixed by the buyer and the seller in the open market in the usual
and ordinary course of legal trade and competition; the price and value established or shown
by sale, public or private, in the ordinary course of business; the fair value of the property as
between one who desires to sell and one who desires to purchase; and the general or ordinary
price at which property may be bought and sold in a given locality.

* Assessed value. Assessed value may be admitted as evidence but it is of little value ina
judicial investigation to determine the market value of the property.

H. OTHER SUBJECTS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY

* Subjects that may be proved by experts. This includes the following:

1. Age
2. Bloodstains
3. Hair
4. X-ray, pictures
5. Characters in certain writings which needs to be deciphered
6. Language in certain writings not understood by the court
7. Unwritten law
8. Proof of unwritten foreign laws

* Qualification of witness. The witness must be shown to the satisfaction of the court to
possess sufficient knowledge to render his evidence of value.

* Opinions of courts of foreign states and nations. Judicial opinions offered as proof of the
unwritten law of a foreign state or nation have been held admissible in evidence, even in the
absence of a statutory provision authorizing the admission thereof in evidence. However, the
fact that a purported decision does not appear in the original reports has been held sufficient
ground for disregarding it, although it does appear in an unofficial publication.

Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. The 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)

1. Source. This provision is a reproduction of Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

2. In general. Well-settled is the rule that a witness can testify to those facts only which he
knows of his own knowledge; he should not be allowed to state conclusions or inferences
which are for the court to make.

3. Proper basis or predicate for witness opinion. Before an ordinary witness may be
allowed to give his opinion on the identity, handwriting, the mental sanity of a person, or to
give his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person, the
proper basis or predicate upon which he bases his opinion must first be laid.

4. Opinion of ordinary witness as to identity of a person. An ordinary witness may give his
opinion regarding the identity of a person when he has adequate knowledge of his identity.
Because of the difficulty of describing the circumstances which established identity in terms
 conveying the idea of identification, witnesses who are shown to be qualified by their
opportunities for observation are permitted to testify as to the identity of persons or things.
The rule applies to criminal prosecutions as well as to civil actions. There are, however,
instances in which opinions have been excluded usually, it seems, because of the facts of
the particular case.

Under the present rule, the statements of the witness as to identity are not to be rejected
because he is unable to describe the features of the person in question, or the latters
clothing or other particulars on which the witness conclusion depends. Identification may
be based upon voice alone; and it is obviously impossible for a witness to describe tones of
voice in such a manner that from the description alone the court can arrive at any
satisfactory conclusion.

5. Physical condition A witness need not be an expert in medical matters in order to be

competent to express an opinion as to the physical condition of another. And it is clear that
in describing such a condition the witness is not required to state all the evidentiary facts on
which his opinion is based; his statement may partake largely of the nature of a summary
of, or conclusion from, such facts. A witness may testify that in his judgment the defendant
was about the size of one of the robbers.

6. Opinion of ordinary witness as to the handwriting of a person. An ordinary witness may

give his opinion regarding the handwriting of a person, with which he has sufficient
familiarity. This subject is well covered by Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, which
provides that The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to
be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen
writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has
thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the
handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered,
or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

The evidence frequently offered on a question of the authenticity of a disputed writing or

signature is that of persons who are familiar with the handwriting of the alleged writer; the
opinion of such a person is universally recognized to be admissible, even though he is in no
sense a handwriting expert.

Non-expert witnesses may not express an opinion on the genuineness of a writing solely
from comparison, but they may express an opinion based on the knowledge received from
the handwriting of the party whom they saw write.

The testimony of the notary public, who was not only an instrumental witness himself but
also an officer of the court, and whose act of notarization impressed upon the disputed
Deed of Absolute Sale, the full faith and credit which attaches to a public instrument,
explicitly identifying the signatures of the parties to the instrument and expressly and
 forthrightly stating that both had appeared before him and affixed their signatures to the
said document, must be held to control and prevail over the opinion or conclusion of
petitioners expert witness. Alcos, et. al vs. Intermediate Appeallate Court.

7. Opinion of ordinary witness as to the mental sanity or insanity of a person. An ordinary

witness may give his opinion regarding the mental sanity of the person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted.

An ordinary witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of an individual, if such
opinion is drawn from the conduct of the latter, since there can be no doubt that persons of
common sense, conversant with mankind, and having a practical knowledge of the world, if
brought into the presence of a lunatic would, in a short time, be enabled to form an
accurate and reliable opinion, not, perhaps, of the specific and precise character of the
insanity as referable to a particular class of the insane malady, but certainly, in a general
way, of his mental unsoundness.

8. Reason for the rule. Reasons for this rule are found in the considerations that the facts
showing insanity, in their entirety, frequently elude accurate, complete and detailed
statement and consequently render it difficult to afford a satisfactory basis for the
judgment of an expert; that many witnesses can make a correct inference more readily than
they can make a detailed statement; that as commonly presented to observation, insanity is
really detected, if carried beyond a certain point; that an unskilled observer may be quite as
able as an expert to make a clear mental comparison between the acts and conduct of a
sane person and those of one who is laboring under mental disability; and that to reject the
inference of an observer with suitable opportunities and faculty for observation is to refuse
to consider evidence which is frequently of the highest possible value.

9. Opinion of a subscribing witness to a writing as to the mental sanity or insanity of a

signer. In will cases, a special qualification to testify exists on the part of the attesting
witnesses to the will. It is commonly held that they may testify to their opinion of the
testators soundness of mind without proof of their having had the opportunity of observing
him except at the time of executing the will. Moreover, the rule supported by the
overwhelming weight of authority is that no foundation need be laid for receiving the
opinion of a subscribing witness to a will as to the soundness of the testators mind at the
time of executing the will, other than to show his status as a subscribing witness. Many
courts have reached such conclusion on the theory that it may be presumed that the
attesting witness performed his duty to observe the mental condition of the testators mind
at the time of executing the will.

10. Negativing testamentary capacity. The testimony of an attesting witness to a will tending
to show that the testator was of unsound mind or lacked testamentary capacity is
admissible. Such is held to be the rule, notwithstanding the view is taken that a person
 requested to witness a will should observe the testator and be satisfied of his mental
capacity before signing as a witness. Although a person who attaches his name as a witness
to a testamentary instrument impliedly certifies that the testator is of sound mind and
competent to make a will, he will be permitted to contradict the attestation clause and
testify as to the actual facts. That the witness may deserve censure for having attested a
will of a person whom he is ready to declare of unsound mind when the validity of the
instrument is later brought into question is not a sufficient reason for refusing to hear such
testimony.

11. Impressions as to emotion, behavior, condition or appearance. A witness may testify on

his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.

It is usually competent for a witness to state his impression of anothers manner or

appearance, such as that the latter was nervous or excited, that he was mad. But a
witness cannot testify to uncommunicated motive or intention of a party, such as he
thought the deceased intended to kill someone or be killed, that two people were
antagonistic, that defendant laughed because she cut deceased, whether defendant was
joking in what he said, that the accused looked pretty vigorous or that one was
jealous, as an opinion or impression is a mere guess or speculation and inadmissible.

12. Opinion limited to expressions of his own impressions. While one may testify in opinion
form as to impression made upon his own senses, he cannot go further and testify as to the
impression such facts would have had upon others. In a case decided by the Supreme Court
of Washington, the trial court refused to permit a witness shown to be acquainted with the
locale, to give his opinion as to whether a stranger driving over a certain street at night
would reasonably believe he was on a through street.

13. Hypothetical question not permissible. A non-expert witness cannot give an opinion as to
the sanity or insanity of the accused based in whole or in part upon an abstract hypothetical
question, but must base his opinion solely upon his own personal knowledge, observation,
acquaintance, etc., with the accused.

14. Witness must give reason for his opinion. In giving his opinion, the non-expert must state
facts upon which his opinion was based. It is indisputable that it should appear somewhere
in the testimony of the witness that he had the testimonial qualification of previous
observation of the person whose sanity he undertakes to give evidence. It must appear, as
a preliminary to the expression of his opinion that he has had the means of observation. He
must give the facts of his knowledge and acquaintanceship with the person concerning
whose sanity he is called to testify. After giving these facts, he may express his opinion.
The weight of the opinion, or its value, is then developed further by evidence of the
particular facts coming under his observation, and on which he bases his opinion.

15. Examination of non-expert witnesses. The general rules as to the examination of

witnesses, with such modification as the character of the testimony renders necessary,
 apply to the examination of witnesses giving evidence. A witness who has stated that he
has no opinion should not be pressed to give an opinion. A question which is misleading or
indefinite should not be permitted, and a question as to whether accuseds demeanor on
the witness stand was different from that when the witness met him at a certain time has
been excluded as unfair.

16. Cross-examination of non-expert witnesses. A witness testifying as to his opinion may be

cross-examined as to the facts and grounds upon which his opinion is based, and generally
cross-examination legitimately tending to test the accuracy and truthfulness of the witness
and the value of his testimony should be permitted. The cross-examination must be
confined to the scope of the examination in chief, and a question based on an assumption
not warranted by the evidence is inadmissible. It has been held that on cross-examination
of a witness who has testified to sanity or insanity of testator, he may be asked as to
testators capacity to make a will in order to test the witness, but not to establish the fact;
but on the other hand, it has been considered that testimony of attesting witnesses, that
testatrix at the time of the execution of the will was of disposing memory, received without
objection, gave contestant no right to ask, on cross-examination of a non-expert for
proponent, for his opinion whether testatrix was of a disposing mind.

17. Latest Jurisprudence.

People of the Philippines, vs. Efren Castillo, GR No. 186533, August 9, 2010

The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence
regarding the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.

Appellant anchors his argument for acquittal on the alleged failure of the prosecution to
establish AAAs mental retardation to make him guilty of rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(b),
of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant concludes that his guilt has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court rejected the said argument.

Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence explicitly provides that the opinion of
a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding the mental
sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.

Accordingly, it is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or
mental condition of a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to
observe the speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in question. Commonly, it is
required that the witness details the factors and reasons upon which he bases his opinion
before he can testify as to what it is.

In the case at bench, BBB testified that AAA has been suffering from epilepsy since she was
nine years old, which is one of the reasons why AAA was not able to finish her Grade I level.
AAA also had to stop schooling because she had difficulties understanding her lessons in
 school, she cannot write well, she had poor memory and she had difficulty answering even
the simplest question asked of her. BBB further stated that AAA is the eldest of her four
children; however, compared to her younger siblings, AAA had a hard time comprehending
the instructions given to her at home and in school.

It bears stressing that the deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be
complete; mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient. Thus, it is clear from the foregoing
that AAAs impaired learning capacity, lack of personal hygiene and difficulty in answering
simple questions, as testified to by her mother and the Guidance Psychologist who had an
opportunity to observe her appearance, manner, habits and behavior, are indicative that
she is truly suffering from some degree of mental retardation.
Section 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 charged.
(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)

1. Source. This provision is a reproduction of Sections 46 and 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.

A. IN GENERAL

2. Character defined. Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain

qualities of mind or morals, distinguishing him from others. The opinion generally
entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are acquainted
with him; his reputation.

3. Character distinguished from reputation. Character strictly speaking, means that which
a person or thing really is, while reputation means what a person is estimated, said,
supposed, or thought, to be by others. Character is internal, reputation is external; one is
the substance, the other is the shadow.

4. Good moral character defined. Good moral character means a character that measures
up as good among the people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to
 the standard of the average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior
and upright conduct.

5. Ways of proving good or bad character of a party. The rule is that testimony to prove the
good or bad character of a party to a civil action or of the defendant in a criminal
prosecution must relate and be confined to the general reputation which such person
sustains in the community or neighborhood in which he lives or has lived.

B. CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL CASES

6. Accused may prove his good moral character. Proof of the good moral character of the
accused strengthens the presumption of his innocence; and by establishing good character
a presumption is created that the accused did not commit the crime. This view proceeds
upon the theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not likely to have
committed the act charged against him.

7. When accused may introduce evidence of his good moral character. It is always relevant
for the defendant to offer affirmative evidence of good moral character, when the same is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

8. Time and place of accused character. Evidence of the defendants character should be
confined to a time not very remote from the date of the commission of the crime. It should
relate to the time of the act in question and before. Generally speaking, it is the reputation
up to the time of the commission of the offense only which is admissible.

9. Accused cannot prove the good moral character of his co-accused; exception. Though
the accused may prove his own character, he will not be permitted to prove that others
conspiring with him and jointly indicted, or who are suspected of complicity in the crime,
are men of good character. This evidence is not in the last relevant to show his innocence,
as the fact that the friends or acquaintances of the accused are men of unimpeachable
character, in no way proves that he is a person of good character.

10. Negative evidence of good character or reputation. It is well settled that the testimony of
a witness to the effect that he has never heard anything against the character or reputation
of a person is admissible to prove the good character of such person, provided the witness
is shown to have been in such position that he would have heard anything that was said
concerning the persons character or reputation. Negative evidence is viewed as the most
cogent evidence of a persons good character and reputation, because in the absence of any
discussion about character, it may reasonably be presumed that the persons reputation is
good.
11. No presumption may be inferred where defendant offers no evidence of his good
character. If the defendant offers no evidence of his good character, no legal presumption
can be drawn from such omission prejudicial to the defendant, or that, his character is bad.
However, if he desires to put his character in issue, he has the right to the benefit of his
previous good character or reputation, so far as it is at variance with the crime charged.

12. Right of state to introduce evidence of bad moral character. It is generally recognized
that the state cannot, in a criminal prosecution, introduce evidence attacking the character
of the accused, unless the accused first puts his good character in issue by introducing
evidence to sustain his good character or reputation or has become a witness in his own
behalf.

13. Evidence of specific acts not admissible to prove bad character. Evidence of specific acts
or conduct of a person upon particular occasions bearing upon his character, is usually held
to be admissible. The admission of such evidence would raise collateral issues and divert
the mind of the judge from the matter at hand. Thus, the state in rebutting the evidence of
the defendants good character is confined to evidence showing his general reputation as to
having a bad character, and not to specific acts derogatory to his good character. One
accused of a crime cannot testify in defense that he has never before been accused of, or
arrested for, crime.

14. When evidence of specific acts admissible. The reasons of practical policy affecting the
rule excluding proof of specific conduct of a party do not apply with the same force where
the character of third persons is involved.

15. When character is in issue in criminal cases. Character may itself be a fact-in-issue. In
numerous offenses against social morality, as defined by the criminal law, the character of a
person may be an element in the offense.

Whether it is actual character or reputed character depends upon the policy and the words
of the local statute, as interpreted by the courts.

16. Moral character of the offended party. 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. This rule is applied with frequency in cases of
homicide and sex offenses.

17. Character of offended party in rape and seduction cases. In any prosecution involving the
unchaste act by a man against a woman, where the willingness of the woman is material,
such as rape and acts of lasciviousness, the womans character as to chastity is admissible to
show whether or not she consented to the mans act. Thus, in the prosecution for rape, or
for enticement to prostitution, or in an action or prosecution for indecent assault (acts of
lasciviousness), the womans character as to chastity is admissible; but not in a prosecution
for rape under the age of consent.
18. Character of offended party in homicide cases. On prosecution for homicide, evidence of
the bad character of the deceased is irrelevant, for as frequently said, the law protects
everyone from unlawful violence, regardless of character, and the service done the
community in ridding it of a violent and dangerous man is, in the eyes of the law, no
justification of the act.

19. Character of offended party in murder cases. While the good or bad moral character of
the victim may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the
commission of an offense, such is not necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is
committed with treachery or premeditation.

C. CHARACTER IN CIVIL CASES

20. Character evidence in civil cases. Of character evidence in ordinary civil actions, even
those wherein fraud is imputed, it has been well observed that if such evidence is proper,
then a person may screen himself from the punishment due to fraudulent conduct till his
character becomes bad. Every man must be answerable for every improper act, and the
character of every transaction must be ascertained by its own circumstances, and not by
the character of the parties.

21. Distinction between the rule on character evidence in criminal and civil cases. In criminal
cases, evidence of the good character of the accused is most properly and with good reason
admissible in evidence, because there is a fair and just presumption that a person of good
character would not commit a crime; but in civil cases, such evidence is with equal good
reason not admitted, because no presumption would fairly arise, in the very great
proportion of such cases, from the good character of the defendant, that he did not commit
the breach of contract or of civil duty alleged against him.

22. Where evidence of moral character admissible in civil cases. As a general rule, the
character of a party to a civil action is not a proper subject of inquiry, for, while it is
recognized that ground for an inference of some logically probative force as to whether or
not a person did a certain act may be furnished by the fact that his character is such as
might reasonably be expected to predispose him toward or against such an act, this
consideration is outweighed by the practical objections to opening the door to this class of
evidence.

23. Putting character in issue or character involved in the issue construed. Putting
character in issue or character involved in the issue is a technical expression, which does
not mean simply that the character may be affected by the result, but that it is of particular
importance in the suit itself, as the character of the plaintiff in an action of slander, or that
of a woman in an action on the case for seduction.
24. Evidence of moral character of a third person. An issue in a civil case sometimes involves
a third persons act having a moral quality. On such an issue, the third persons moral trait
would have probative value, and there is no practical policy against it. Court sometimes
admit it, and sometimes exclude it.

25. Character in mitigation of damages or in excuse or defense to the action. In some civil
actions, the measure of compensation may be affected by the plaintiffs character.

D. CHARACTER OF WITNESS

26. Evidence of good character of witness. Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been impeached. The character or reputation of a
witness must be attacked or impeached before testimony sustaining his character or
reputation can be admitted, but it is not necessary that character witnesses for
impeachment purposes should first be introduced if the veracity or character of the witness
been substantially impeached in other ways, especially if he is a stranger in the county
where the trial is being conducted. Evidence in rebuttal to sustain a witness character or
reputation has been assailed in order to discredit him, or when the opposite party brings
out matters, which, if true, tend to diminish the credibility of the witness by disparaging his
character.

27. Latest jurisprudence.

Civil Service Commission vs. Allyson Belagan, GR No. 132164, October 19, 2004

Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this
provision. Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense
charged. This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and
characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.

Generally, the character of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a

controversy. One statutory exception is that relied upon by respondent, i.e., Section 51 (a)
3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which we quote here:

"SEC. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions.

(a) In Criminal Cases:

xxx xxx
 (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."

It will be readily observed that the above provision pertains only to criminal cases, not to
administrative offenses. And even assuming that this technical rule of evidence can be
applied here, still, we cannot sustain respondents posture.

Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this
provision. Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense
charged. This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and
characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.

In the present administrative case for sexual harassment, respondent did not offer evidence
that has a bearing on Magdalenas chastity. What he presented are charges for grave oral
defamation, grave threats, unjust vexation, physical injuries, malicious mischief, etc. filed
against her. Certainly, these pieces of evidence are inadmissible under the above provision
because they do not establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.

Obviously, in invoking the above provision, what respondent was trying to establish is
Magdalenas lack of credibility and not the probability or the improbability of the charge. In
this regard, a different provision applies.