Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
General Rule: The rules of evidence do not apply in the following cases/proceedings: (Section
4, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
(i) Election cases
(ii) Land registration
(iii) Cadastral proceedings
(iv) Naturalization proceedings
(v) Insolvency proceedings
Exception: By analogy or in a suppletory character whenever practicable and convenient
(Section 4, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Evidence is the medium, means, or tool by which a fact is proved or disproved; while Proof is
the effect or result of evidence, the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a
consideration of evidence.
Example:
In an action for collection of a sum of money filed by A against B, the factum probandum is the
existence of the debt while the factum probans is the promissory note signed by B in favor of A.
D. Classification of Evidence
Prepared by:
C. Kinds of Admissibility
(1) Multiple Admissibility
See cases of: Uniwide Sales vs Ikeda
People vs Yatco
(2) Conditional Admissibility
(3) Curative Admissibility
Curative Admissibility or “fighting fire with fire” applies only if the party against whom
the incompetent evidence is erroneously admitted objected to its admission
D. Competency of Evidence
Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the rules, law or the Constitution
Various Rules of Exclusion:
(A) Exclusionary Rules under the Constitution (Article III, 1987 Constitution)
(1) Right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Section 2)
People vs Marti
Right against unreasonable searches may be invoked only against the State.
The property illegally seized may be used in evidence against the officer
responsible for the illegal seizure.
Exceptions to the requirement of search warrant:
(i) Plain View Doctrine
Limitations:
(a) Prior Justification for Intrusion - such as warrant for
another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, and
some other legitimate reason for being present and connected
to a search directed against the accused
(b) Inadvertent Discovery of Evidence – applies when the police
officer is not searching for evidence against the accused but
inadvertently comes across the incriminating object
People vs Musa
Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed,
the plain view doctrine cannot provide any basis for further
search
(c) Illegality must be Immediately Apparent to the police
that the items that they observed may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure
People vs Musa
There must be a nexus between the item to be seized and the
criminal behavior of the accused
Prepared by:
People vs Salanquit
The container must clearly betray its contents, whether by its
destructive configuration, its transparency, or otherwise its
contents are obvious to an observer.
People vs Bollado
Object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight. Where
the object was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in
plain view and therefore, cannot be seized without a warrant.
However, if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or its contents are
obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view.
Plain view includes plain feel but the illegality must
immediately be apparent
(ii) Waiver or Consented Search
Case Principle:
People vs Damaso
(iii) Stop and Frisk or Terry Search
(iv) Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
(v) Search of Moving Vehicles
(vi) Customs Search
(2) Right to privacy and inviolability of communication (Section 3)
See cases of: Zulueta vs CA
Waterous Drug vs NLRC
(3) Right of person under investigation for an offense or Miranda Rights doctrine (Sec 12)
Rights available:
(i) Right to remain silent
(ii) Right to competent and independent counsel
(iii) Right to be informed of such rights
General Rule: rights cannot be waived
Exception: waiver in writing, signed by the accused, in the presence of counsel
Exception to the exception: right to be informed of such rights cannot be
waived
People vs Baloloy
Right is available only during custodial investigation
RA 7438, People vs del Rosario
Police invitation constitutes custodial investigation
Police line-up not part of custodial investigation as it has not shifted from
investigatory to accusatory stage thus Miranda rights not applicable
People vs Guillermo
Spontaneous statements or those not elicited through questioning by law
enforcement officers but given in ordinary manner are not covered by the
Miranda doctrine
People vs Paynor
Rights refer only to testimonial compulsion
People vs de Guzman, People vs Lamsing
Miranda doctrine do not cover paraffin tests, photographing
(4) Right against self-incrimination (Section 17)
People vs Malimit
The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion but testimonial
compulsion. It does not apply when the evidence sought to be excluded is not
an incriminating statement but an object evidence
Right against self-incrimination does not cover the following:
(i) substance emitted from the body of the
accused such as examination for gonorrhea (US vs Tanting)
(ii) hair samples (Pp vs Rondero)
(iii) DNA samples (Pp vs Vallero, Pp vs Yatar)
(iv) fingerprinting, photographing and paraffin testing (Pp vs Gallarde)
Prepared by:
Exception to Anti-Wire
Tapping Law - R.A. No.9372
(The Human Security Act)
Section 7 – The provisions of R.A. No.4200 (Anti-Wire
Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police of law enforcement
official and the members of his team may, upon 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.
Exception:
Provided, that surveillance,
interception and recording shall not be allowed if the communications
are between:
(i) lawyers and clients
(ii) doctors and patients
Prepared by:
Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry is the content of the writing/document (the
question is what the document says), the original of the writing/document must be presented. What is
stated in the document cannot be proven by photocopy or oral recollection of a witness.
Republic vs. Imee Marcos-Manotok, et. al., G.R. No.171701, 8 February 2012
This case involves a civil action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth against the heirs of the late Ferdinant
Marcos. To prove that the respondents had interests in various corporations and how they used
dummies in acquiring and operating the businesses, the Republic prensented mere photocopies f
documents, consisting of letters, TSN of proceedings before the PCGG, and affidavit of witnesses. The
Republic did not deny that what should be proved are the contents of these documents themselves. It
is thus imperative to submit the originals that could prove the Republic’s allegations, without which the
Republic could not prove that the respondents collaborated with former President Marcos and Imelda
Marcos and partcipated in the latter’s alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.
Prepared by:
E. Instances when best evidence rule does not apply and the original writing need not be
produced:
(1) if the purpose is not to prove the contents of the writing but only to show that the document exists,
or has been executed or delivered, in such a case, the oral testimony or other secondary evidence is
enough to prove the existence, issuance or delivery of the writing
People vs Tandoy
A photocopy of the marked peso bill is admissible since what is sought to be proved is the
existence of the marked money and not the contents thereof
Pacifico Arceo vs People
A photocopy of the check is admissible in a criminal prosecution for violation of BP 22 because
the gravamen of the offense is the act of issuance of a bum check, thus the subejct of inquiry is
the execution or the existence of the check and not its contents
(2) if the writing or document is merely collateral or is connected in some way to the fact in issue,
otherwise known as “Collateral Fact Rule”
(3) if the purpose is to prove a fact that has an existence that is independent of any writing, even
though that fact has been reduced to or evidenced by a writing,
Mayers vs US
A testimony of a witness given in a committee hearing may be proven by the oral testimony of
someone who heard it although the testimony was recorded, thus the presentation of the
transcript of the witness’ testimony is not indispensable
(4) when the terms or contents of the document are not disputed
Consolidated Bank and Trust Company vs Del Monte Motorworks
When the terms/contents of a document are not disputed or are admitted by the parties
(5) waiver
Dela Cruz vs Court of Appeals
Despite non-compliance with the requisites for introduction of secondary evidence, a
secondary evidence, if not objected to, becomes admissible and is as credible as the original
(6) if the subject of inquiry is not the contents of the document, but another matter independent from
the contents of the document.
Atienza vs. Board of Medicine and Sioson, G.R. No.177407, 9 February 2011
The subject of inquiry in this case is whether respondent doctors are liable for gross negligence
in removing the right functioning kidney of Editha instead of the left non-functioning kidney,
not the proper anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys. Thus, it is not necessary to present the
originals of the X-Ray Request Form. Besides, the fact sought to be established by the
admission of these exhibits (x-ray request forms) that her “kidneys wree both in their proper
anatomical locations at the time of the operation, need not be proved as it is covered by
mandatory judicial notice.
Tegimenta Chemical vs. Mary Anne Oco, G.R. No.175369, 27 February 2013
The subject of inquiry is not the payroll sheet of Tegeminta rather, the thrust of this
case is the abundance of evidence present to prove the allegation that Oco abandoned her job
by being on AWOL. Consequently, an employer cannot be legally stumped by a payroll sheet,
but must be able to submit testimonial and other pieces of documentary evidence like leave
forms, office memos, warning letters and notices, to be able to prove that the employee
abandoned her work.
Prepared by:
The notice to the adverse party may be in the form of (a) a motion for the prduction of
the original (Rule 27); or (b) made in open court in the presence of the adverse party’; or (c) via
subpoena duces tecum, provided the adverse party is given sufficient time to produce the
original.
(3) original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or recorded in a public office which
may be evidenced by a certified true copy thereof
(4) original consists of numerous accounts or voluminous documents
Compania Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers
The voluminous records must be made available/accessible to the adverse party so that the
correctness of the summary of the voluminous records may be tested on cross-examination.
Under the foregoing exceptions, where the original writing is not available for one reason or
another,the next best evidence to prove its contents will be the following secondary evidence in this
order:
(1) copy of the writing
(2) another document reciting its contents
(3) testimony of a witness who has read or knows about it
The term “parol” means something “oral”, but for purposes of the rule, it means extraneous evidence or
evidence aliunde, either oral or written, which is outside of the written contract between the parties.
Parol evidence rule becomes opeative when the issues in the litigation are the terms of the written
agreement.
Parol evidence rule presupposes the existence of a written agreement which is sought to be modified,
altered or varied by extraneous evidence, that is, evidence other than the written agreement itself. The
introduction of evidence which tends to vary the terms of the written agreement is barred, because
whatever is not found in the written agreement is considered waived and abandoned.(Yu Tek vs.
Gonzales)
relation established thereby. A beneficiary of a stipulation pour autrui obviously bases his claim on
the contract. He therefore cannot claim to be a stranger to the contract and resist the application of
the parol evidence rule(Heirs of Mario Pacres vs. Heirs of Cecilia Ygona, G.R. No.174719, 5 May
2010)
(3) when the prior or contemporaneous agreement is independent from or not inconsistent with the
terms of a written agreement (Robles vs. Lizarraga Hermanos).
(4) where any of the exception to the parol evidence rule applies, in which case a party may present parol
evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement, if he puts in issue in his
pleadings the following:
(i) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement (Palanca vs.
Wilson & Co.,);
(ii) the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the
parties.(Enriquez vs. Ramos; Land Settlement Development Corporation vs.
Garcia);
(iii) the validity of the written agreement, i.e., contracts without consideration or where
consent is vitiated by duress, force and intimidation;
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 the 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(Heirs of Ureta vs. Heirs of Ureta, G.R. No.165748, 14 September
2011)
(iv) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest
after the execution of the written agreement as when , as when the parties
subsequently modified the terms of their original agreement (Canuto vs. Mariano).
Where the adverse party fails to object on time, parol evidence may be admitted by the court to vary,
alter or modify the terms of a written agreement (Willex Plastic Industries Corp. vs. Court of
Appeals)
V. EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS, CONFESSIONS, COMPROMISES AND RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
Kinds of Admissions:
(a) Judicial Admission (Section 4, Rule 129)
(b) Extra-judicial admission (Section 26, Rule 130)
Prepared by:
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to any relevant fact maybe given
in evidence against him ( Section 26, Rule 130)
Reason for the Rule is its inherent reliability, for no one would make an adverse admission
against himself if such is not true.
- Refers to an extra-judicial admission and the admission is against the interest of the admitter.
Thus, self-serving admission is not admissible.
- The rule on extra-judicial admission under Section 26, Rule 130 contemplates of a situation
where the declarant is not in court, but someone who had heard/seen the admission testifies in
court as to the admission made by the declarant. In otherwords, the declarant himself is not
the witness, because the moment the declarant comes forward and testifies and reiterates in
court his extra-judicial admission, then such admission becomes a judicial admission.
- Since the witness is not the declarant himself, the testimony of such witness, insofar as the
admission made by the declarant is concerned, is necessarilly hearsay, considering that the
witness has no personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the admission and the declarant
who is not in the witness stand cannot be cross-examined by the party against whom the
admission is offered in evidence.
- But while an extra-judicial admission is necessarilly hearsay, under Section 26, Rule 130, the
same is admissible against the declarant. The reason why an admission - even if hearsay- is
admissible is that, the declarant is not expected to cross-examine himself. In otherwords, if
what makes an extra-judicial admission hearsay is the absence of oppurtunity of the party
against whom the admission is offered to cross-examine the person who made the extra-
judicial admission, then obviously such reason does not exist in case of an extra-judicial
admission since the person who made the adamission is the same person against whom the
admission is offered in evidence.(Estrada vs. Desierto)
- While the extra-judicial admission under Section 26, Rule 130 is not among those exceptions
to the hearsay rule enumerated under Sections 37 to 47 of Rule 130, the Supreme Court
categorically ruled in Estrada vs. Desierto that admission under Section 26, Rule 130 is an
exception to the hearsay evidence rule.
- While admission under Section 26, Rule 130 and Declaration Against Interest under Section
38, Rule 130 are both exceptions to hearsay evidence rule, they are distinct from each other.
- The “res inter alios acta rule” presupposes an extra-judicial admission, because the
declarant is not the one testifying in court, and therefore he cannot be cross-examined
by the party against whom the declaration is offered in evidence. It contemplates of a
situation where another person (witness) testifies in court as to the act, declaration or
omission made by a party outside of court. The witness is a person who claims to have
heard or known of the extra-judicial admission made by a party (declarant). If the
declarant himself takes the witness stand and reiterates in court his extra-judicial
admission that he made outside of court, his otherwise extra-judicial admission
becomes a judicial admission and, as such, it is admissible against another party. The
reason is obvious – that other party against whom the admission is offered in evidence
has the oppurtunity to cross-examine the declarant and, therefore, due process is
complied with.
Prepared by:
(b) Similar Acts or Previous Conduct Rule (Res Inter Alios Acta Rule of the Second Branch)
Statement of the rule - Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or
similar thing at another time.(Section 34, Rule 130)
Reason for the rule: Evidence of similar act s or occurences compels
the defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in the complaint, confuses
him in his defense, raises a variety of relevant issues, and diverts the attention of the
court from the issues immediately before it. Hence, the evidentiary rule guards against
practical inconvenience of trying collateral issues and protracting the trial and prevent
surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants. (Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No.126713, 27 July 1998).
While evidence of similar acts or previous conduct is inadmissible to prove that the
person did or did not do the same or similar conduct at another time, it is, however,
admissible to prove:
(i) specific intent;
(ii) knowledge;
(iii) identity;
(iv) plan;
(v) system;
(vi) scheme;
(vii) habit;
(viii) custom;
(ix) usage; and the like (Section 34, Rule 130)
General Rule: A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge,
that is, which are derived from his own perception (Section 36, Rule 130)
The determination of whether an evidence is hearsay or not depends on the purpose for which the
evidence is offered:
a) Hearsay rule applies if evidence is for the purpose of proving the truth of the
assertion/declaration/statement or otherwise offered for hearsay purposes;
b) If the evidence is offered for non-hearsay purposes, regardless of the truth or falsity of the
assertion/declaration/statement, it is not hearsay and therefore admissible
Prepared by:
Hence, in order to encourage the witness to do his best with respect to each of these factors, and to
expose inaccuracies which may enter in, the witness shall ideally be required to testify:
a) under oath;
b) in the personal presence of the trier of fact (demeanor evidence); and
c) under cross-examination.
The rule against the hearsay is designed to insure compliance with these ideal condtions and when one
of them is absent, the hearsay objection becomes pertinent.
The rule against hearsay evidence is to preserve the right of the parties to cross-examine the original
persons who have knowledge of the transaction or event.
EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY:
A) DYING DECLARATION (Section 38, Rule 130)
Reasons for admissibility (Pp vs Cerilla, G.R. No. 177147, 28 November 2007):
a) necessity – the declarant’s death renders it impossible his taking the witness stand and
it often happens that there is no other equally satisfactory proof of the crime. Allowing
admission of a dying declaration, therefore, prevents a failure of justice.
b) trustworthiness – no person aware of his impending death would make a careless and
false accusation. Point of death is so solemn and awful equal to an oath.
Requisites:
(Pp vs Cerilla, G.R. No. 177147, 28 November 2007; People vs. Salafranca, G.R. No.173476,
22 February 2012; People vs. Dejillo, G.R. No.185005, 10 December 2012):
1) The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
death (not other person’s death), which refers not only to the facts of the assault itself, but also
to matters both before and after the assault having a direct causal connection with it. Thus,
statements indicating deliberation and willfulness in the attack, indicating the reason or
motive for the killing, justifying the killing, or indicating the absence of cause for the act are
admissible
2) At the time the declaration was made, the declarant must be under the consciousness of an
impending death.
The rule is that, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must be entertained by the
declarant. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in point
of fact that renders the dying declaration admissible. The test is whether the declarant has
abandoned all hopes of survival and looked at death as certainly impending. But take note
of the ratification doctrine, which states that “a statement made under circumstances
which would not render it admissible as a dying declaration becomes admissible as such if
approved or repeated by the declarant after he had abandoned all hope of recovery.” In Pp
vs Babiera (52 Phil 97), although the statement in itself is inadmissible as an ante mortem
declaration, in as much as there is nothing to show that at the time he made it, Severino
Haro knew or firmly believed that he was at the point of death, nevertheless, after having
ratified its contents a week later when he was near death as a result of his wounds, said
Prepared by:
Pedigree refers to relationship, family genealogoy, birth, marriage, death the date when and
place where these facts occured and names of relatives
Requisites:
1) The declarant must be dead or unable to testify
2) The pedigree is in issue or is relevant thereto
3) The person whose pedigree is in question must be related to the declarant by birth or
marriage
4) The declaration must be made before the controversy, i.e. ante litem motam, not only before
commencement of suit, but before any controversy has arisen thereon
5) The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must be
shown by evidence other than such declaration.
Prepared by:
This contemplates of a situation where the party claiming (claimant) seeks recovery
against a relative common to both claimant and declarant, the relationship of the declarant
to the common relative may not be proved by the declaration itself.
This applies where the subject of the declaration is the relationship (pedigree) of a relative
vis-a-vis another relative
Requisites:
(People vs. Alegrado)
(i) there must be a controversy in respect to pedigree of any of family members;
(ii) there must be a reputation or a tradition regarding the pedigree of such family
member which existed prior to the controversy;
(iii)the witness testifying as such reputation or tradition must be a member of the same family
as the person whose pedigree is in question.
(i) matters of public or general interest more than thirty (30) years old; and
(ii) marriage or moral character.
Unlike pedigree (Sections 39 and 40), general reputation of marriage or non-marriage
may proceed from persons who are not members of the family, in view of the public
interest that is taken in the questions involving marital relations (In Re: Mallari).
IN RE: Atty. Florencio Mallari
The Filipino citizenship of a lawyer (Atty. Florencio Mallari), whose license was revoked
upon finding that he is not a Filipino as his parents were allegedly both chinese
nationals, was established by the witnesses who belonged to the same community all of
whom testified that Ana, the mother of Esteban (Florencio’s father) was unmarried
and a Tagalog and, therefore, a Filipino.
It refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants, the
victim or spectator to a crime immediately before, during and after the commission of
the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by excitement of the occassion and there
was no oppurtunity for the declarant to deliberate and fabricate a false
statement(People vs. Esoy, G.R. No.185894, 7 April 2010)
The spontaneous statement was made during the startling occurence, or immediately
prior or subsequent thereto. If the statement was not spontaneous, it is not admissible
as res gestae(Talidano vs. Falcon Maritime & Allied Services)
For this exception to apply, the declarant must himself be competent to testify had he
been presented in court, so that if the declarant made a statement not on his own
personal knowledge but based on what he heard from another, the testimony of the
witness who heard the statement uttered by the declarant is not admissible as part of
res gestae. (BAR 2011)
Prepared by:
Statement of the rule: Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which
they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in the position to know the facts
therein stated, maybe 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(Section 43, Rule 130).
Reasons for the Exception:
(i) trustworthiness - as the entries were made in the ordinary course of
business, then they are presumed to be accurate.
(ii) Necessity - as the entries were made in the ordinary course of business by person
in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty, such entries are deemed by
law as the best evidence available and since the entrant is dead or unable to testify,
allowing the admission of such entries as evidence prevents a failure of justice.
Requisites:
(i) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify;
Canque vs. Court of Appeals
To prove the fact of delivery of certain construction materials, SOCOR adduced in
evidence its Book of Collectible Accounts as testified to by its book keeper. The
Supreme Court ruled that the Book of Collectible Accounts is not admissible as entries
in the course of business because:
(a) the entrant, who is the book keeper herself, is not dead or unable to testify,
as she in fact had testified; and
(b) the witness-entrant-book keeper admitted to having no knowledge of the
entries, which were based on the billings furnished her by the project engineer;
Northwest Airlines vs. Chiong
While there is no necessity to bring into court all the employees who individually made
the entries in the Passenger Manifest and Passenger Name Record, it is sufficient that
the person who supervised them while they are making the entries testify that the
entries were prepared under his supervision and that the entries were regularly
entered in the course of business.
(ii) the entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer;
(ii) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
(iii) the entries were made in his professional capacity or in a performance of a duty;
(iv) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
Failure to prove the existence of all the foregoing evidence renders the evidence inadmissible
under hearsay evidence rule (Patula vs. People, G.R. No.164457, 11 April 2012)
which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information, i.e., it must
come from one under a legal duty to submit the same.
Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. vs. BIR
To prove service of the required Notice of Assessment, BIR presented a BIR Record Book,
containing lists of taxpayers’ names, nature and amount of tax, the registry number and date of
mailing of the Notice of Assessment, as testified to by the records custodian. It was ruled that
the BIR Record Book is not admissible as entries in official records because:
(a) the entries made were not based on the personal knowledge of the records custodian; and
(b) the records custodian did not attest to the fact that she acquired the reports from persons
under a legal duty to submit the same.
People vs. San Gabriel
A stabbing incident occurred and an eyewitness reported to the police station where the police
on duty recorded the incident in the police blotter (advance information sheet). The accused
argued that he should be acquitted, since he is not the one named in the police blotter but
another person. It was ruled that the police blotter is not admissible as entries in official
business, considering that:
(a) the police officer who recorded the incident in the police blotter had no personal knowledge
of the facts therein stated; and
(b) the facts stated in the police blotter were not obtained by the police officer through “official
information”, since the eyewitness who reported the incident is not a person especially
enjoined by law to make such report.
Malayan Insurance Company vs. Alberto and Reyes, G.R. No.194320, 1 February 2012.
The police report is not admissible under entries in official records, as the on-spot investigator
does not appear to have sufficient personal knowledge of the facts stated in the report.
Requisites:
(i) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation;
(ii) such statement is contained in the list, register, periodical or other published compilation;
(iii)such compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that occupation; and
(iv) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation.
J. LEARNED TREATIES
Statement of the rule: a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law,
science or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of the matter stated therein.( Section
Prepared by:
Published treatise, periodicals or pamphlets on the subject of history, law, science or art are
admissible if:
(i) the court takes judicial notice of them; or
(ii) a witness expert on 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.
Requisites:
(i) the witness/deponent is dead;
Tan vs. Court of Appeals
The Supreme Court ruled that subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the present
case or hostility since testifying at the first trial does not amount to inability to testify,
but such inability proceeding from a grave cause, almost amounting to death, as when
the witness is old and has lost the power of speech. Here, the witness in question were
available. Only, they refused to testify. No other person that prevented them is
cited.Certainly, they do not come within the purview of those “unable to testify”.
(ii) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests;
Manliclic vs. Calaunan
The TSNs of the testimonies of the witnesses in the criminal case (who are now
unavailable to testify in the civil case) are not admissible , considering that the
employer was not a party to the criminal case and had no opportunity to cross-examine
these witnesses.
(iii) the former case involved the same subject matter as that in the present case, although on a
different cause of action;
(iv) the former case involved the same issue involved in the present case;
(v) the adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness/deponent.
While not one of those enumerated under the Rules of Court as exceptions to hearsay evidence
rule, admission against interest under Section 26, Rule 130 was declared by the Supreme Court
as an exception to hearsay in the case of Estrada vs. Desierto.
Statement of the rule - A statement made by a child witness describing any act or attempted act
of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, maybe admitted in evidence in
any criminal or non-criminal proceeding, subject to the following rules:
(a) before such hearsay statement maybe admitted, its proponent shall make
known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its
particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object.
(b) if the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party,
require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay
evidence/statement for cross-examination.
(c) if the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the
proponent. But his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by
other admissible evidence.
The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:
(i) is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be
exposed to severe psychological injury; or
(ii) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to
procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means.
General rule: the testimony of a witness must be given orally (Section 1, Rule 132).
Exceptions:(Section 1, Rule 132)
(i) when witness is incapacitated to speak;
Prepared by:
QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS:
(i) can perceive (observation acquired from personal knowledge)
(ii) and in perceiving, he can make known his perception to others (memory and
communication)
(iii) he must take an oath or affirmation
(iv) must not possess any of the disqualifications imposed by law or the rules.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS:
(A) Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or insanity(Section 21, Rule 130)
A person incapable of making known his perception to others is disqualified as a witness,
provided the incapacity or insanity must exist at the time of his production for examination.
Incapacity/insanity at the time of observation of the event that the witness is asked to testify
does not disqualify the witness from testifying so long as he is competent at the time of his
production as a witness, but it affects his credibility.
But under the Rules on the Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No.00-07-SC), every child is
presumed competent. Thus, the party who alleges the contrary must prove that the child
witness is disqualified by reason of his mental immaturity.
Requisites:
(i) must be legally married;
Alvarez vs. Ramirez
Even if the spouses are still legally married but their relationship is already strained,
the marital disqualification rule or spousal immunity does not apply, and therefore,
the wife may testify against his husband. The reason for this rule is that, when the
spouses are already estranged, there is no more domestic peace to preserve.
(ii) the witness-spouse could either be a party to the case or not, but the other spouse must
Prepared by:
be a party;
(iii)the testimony may be for or against the party-spouse; and
(iv)the testimony is offered during the marriage, not before and not after its dissolution.
The marital disqualification rule or spousal immunity ceases upon dissolution of the
marriage either by death or other grounds.
(D) Disqualification by Reason of Death or Insanity, otherwise known as the “Dead Man
Statute” or “Survivorship Disqualification Rule” (Section 23, Rule 130)
Purpose of the rule:
(i) to avoid perjury, since the other party is already dead, the temptation on the party of the
surviving party to resort to falsehood is high;
(ii) to level playing field, as the dead party is no longer around to tell his own tale and refute
that of the surviving party.
Requisites:
(i) the defendant in the case is the executor, administrator or a representative of the deceased or
person of unsound mind;
Guererro vs. St. Claire Realty, et al.
The Dead Man Statute does not apply and, therefore, a witness may testify on a fact
which took place prior to the death of the deceased, considering that the defendants
in the case were sued in their personal and individual capacity as buyers of the lot in
question, and not as representatives of the deceased from whom they purchased the
subject lot.
(ii) the suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of the deceased person or of
unsound mind.
Conversely, if the estate of the deceased person or the person of unsound mind is the
claimant or counter-claimant, the rule does not apply.
Tongco vs. Vianzon
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification Rule does not apply, since the
plaintiff or claimant is the estate of the deceased husband as represented by the
executor and the case for recovery of property is filed against the widow.
Razon vs. IAC
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification Rule does not apply, since the
plaintiff or claimant in the case is the estate of the deceased person and the case is
filed against the defendant to recover the shares of stocks belonging to the deceased
now being represented by his estate.
Goni vs. Court of Appeals
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification Rule does not apply, because the
witness testified to substantiate the counterclaim of the estate of the deceased
against the plaintiff in the case. Thus, insofar as the counterclaim is concerned, the
estate of the deceased person is deemed to be the claimant, although it is the
defending party insofar as the complaint of the plaintiff is concerned.
(iii) the witness is the plaintiff or the assignor of that party-plaintiff, or a person in whose behalf
the case is prosecuted. If the witness is somebody else, the rule does not apply.
Guerrero vs. Saint Claire Realty
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification rule does not apply, since the
Prepared by:
witness is an ordinary witness, not the plaintiff nor the assignor of the plaintiff nor
the person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted.
Lichauco vs. Atlantic Gulf
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification Rule does not apply, since the
plaintiff is a Corporation and the witness, although officer of the Corporation, is not
the plaintiff itself.
Privileged Communication:
(A) Marital Privilege Communication
Requisites:
(a) spouses must be legally married.
(b) the case involves communication, oral or written, made during the marriage.
(c) the communication was made confidentially.
Pp vs. Carlos
The letter of the wife addressed to the husband which was seized by the police was
held to be admissible in evidence, because a confidential information which fell to the
hands of a stranger, whether legally or illegally, ceases to be confidential.
Exceptions to the Marital Privilege Communication Rule:
(i) civil case by one against the other;
Prepared by:
Prepared by:
Either under Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court or under Article 215 of the
Family Code, testimonial privilege is not a “disqualification” rule but only a privilege
not to be compelled to testify as a witness. Thus, if the holder of the privilege wishes
to testify, the party against whom his testimony is offered in evidence cannot object.
(a) the opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given may be received in evidence
regarding –
(1) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
(2) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(3) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
(b) the witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person.
Generally, evidence of a person’s character is not admissible (Section 51, Rule 130). Reason - cases
should be decided based on the acts or omissions complained of, and not on the character or
personalities of the parties involved.
Correlate this with the “Rape Shield Rule” under R.A. No.8505 otherwise known as “Rape
Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998”, which provides that “In prosecution for rape,
evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall
not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds that such evidence is
material and relevant to the case”
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of party in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) Evidence of good character of a witness:
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been
impeached (Section 14, Rule 132).
Reason – the good character of a witness is presumed.
X. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE:
(A) Order in the examination of an individual witness (Section 4, Rule 132):
(i) direct examination by the proponent;
(ii) cross-examination by the opponent;
(iii) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(iv) Re-cross examination by the proponent.
(B) Recalling a witness – after the examination of a witness by both sides
has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court.
The court will grant or withhold leave as the interest of justice may require
(Section 9, Rule 132).
(C) Objectionable questions:
(i) Leading question – a question which suggests to the
witness the answer which the examiner desires is not allowed
(Section10, Rule 132).
Exceptions: A leading question maybe allowed-
(1) On cross-examination;
(2) On preliminary matters;
(3) when there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible
answer from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is feeble
mind, or deaf-mute;
Prepared by:
A witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful act, except that the
witness may be proved to have been convicted of an offense by:
(i) by the examination of the witness regarding the fact of prior conviction; or
(ii) by the record of the court decision convicting him of an offense.
(E) Requisites for impeaching the witness of the adverse party by evidence of inconsistent
statement:
(i) the statement must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places
and the persons present;
(ii) the witness must be asked whether he made such statements;
(iii) and if admits that he did so, then he must be allowed to explain the inconsistency
between his prior statement and his present testimony(Section 13, Rule 132).
(F) A party may not impeach his own witness (Section 12, Rule 132).
Reason: by calling the witness to the stand, the proponent vouches to the credibility and
honesty of his witness.
Exceptions: (Section 12, Rule 132)
(i) if the witness is hostile or unwilling; or
(ii) if the witness is the adverse party or the officer, director, managing agent of a c
orporation or partnership or association which is an adverse party.
Exception:
As long as the evidence has been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and incorporated in
the records of the case, the evidence may still be considered by the court even if not formally offered
(Pp vs. Libnao).
Time to make a formal offer of evidence (Section 35, Rule 132) – the time to make a formal offer
depends on the kind of evidence being formally offered:
(1) If evidence consists of oral testimony of witnesses – the offer must be made at the time the witness is
called to testify.
Query: What is the effect if the witness was allowed to testify without the
proponent making a formal offer of the proposed testimony but the adverse
party did not also object thereto before the witness was able to testify and
complete his testimony?
Answer: The testimony is admissible as the adverse party was deemed to have waived
his right to the objection.
Prepared by:
Time to make objection (Section 36, Rule 132) – It depends on the kind of evidence being
objected to:
(1) If oral testimony:
(i) objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made
(Catuira vs. CA)
(ii)objection to question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall
be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonably manifest.
(2) If object/documentary evidence:
(i) objection to object/documentary evidence offered orally shall be made immediately after
the offer is made;
(ii) objection to object/documentary evidence offered in writing shall be made three (3) days
after notice of the offer, unless a different period is allowed by the court.
Prepared by:
Query: May the court suspend the ruling by simply stating that the “objection
is noted” or that the objection “will be considered when the court resolves the case on
the merits”?
Answer: No, the reservation or holding in abeyance of a ruling on an objection
is disadvantageous and prejudicial to the party interposing the objection. Without
the definite ruling, the party objecting would be left in the dark as to what proper
course of action to take under the circumstances.
A Private Document is one not falling under any of the foregoing enumerations of public documents.
duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein;
(ii) all other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact
which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
Prepared by:
Query: What is the rule if a document offered in evidence is written in an unofficial language
(neither in English nor in Filipino)?
Answer: The document is inadmissible in evidence, unless accompanied by a translation into
Filipino or English ( Section 33, Rule 132).
Query: Is it required that all elements of the crime charged must be established by
independent evidence apart from the extrajudicial confession?
Answer: Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court does not mean that every element of the
crime charged must be clearly established by independent evidence apart from the
confession. It means merely that there should be some evidence tending to show the
commission of the crime apart from the confession. Otherwise, the utility of the
confession as a species of proof would vanish if it were necessary, in addition to the
Prepared by:
Prepared by:
Prepared by: