Evidence Notes (Chan & Mitch)

Christian and Mitch notes
EVIDENCE
Padayon lang. :D
Documentary Evidence
Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. (n)
NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSION:
 DOCUMENT- is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth.
 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – furnished by written instruments, inscriptions and documents of all kinds.
 It applies to anything that containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols and other mode of written expression offered as
proof of its contents.
 If you present a document to prove its execution, condition or existence, it is not documentary evidence but object evidence.
 Republic v Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation:

- Deed of sale and tax declaration/clearances does not constitute the well- nigh incontrovertible evidence. Settled is the rule
that the burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the applicant who must show by clear, positive and convincing
evidence that his alleged possession and occupation of the land is of the nature and duration required by
law. Unfortunately, as petitioner contends, the pieces of evidence presented by respondent do not constitute the well-nigh
incontrovertible proof necessary in cases of this nature. It is settled that a document or writing admitted as part of the
testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts stated therein.
- The government official who issued the Certification was not presented before the RTC so that he could have testified
regarding its contents. Hence, the RTC should not have accepted the contents of the Certification as proof of the facts
stated therein. The contents of the Certification are hearsay, because Hanovers President and General Manager was
incompetent to testify on the truth of the contents of such Certification.
 Philippine Hawk Corporation v Lee Re: Tan v OMC Carriers Inc.

- As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By
way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence
when: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case,
judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased’s line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the
deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.
- Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable
degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount
of damages. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss, credence
can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.
 IBM v NLRC
- Computer generated documents or emails are not admissible for the absence of proper authentication. All the copies of
computer-generated email printouts were never signed by the purported sender, the superior of the employee. Neither are
these signed by the supposed recipient, the employee. So for the absence of signature, proper authentication has not been
complied with.
- There was no sufficient evidence for that matter that these documents were free from the possibility of tampering, especially
so since after the employee was terminated he ceased to have access to company’s computer system.
- the liberality of procedure in administrative actions is subject to limitations imposed by basic requirements of due process; this
procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidenciary rules. The evidence
presented before us must be at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. The computer
print-outs, which constitute only evidence of petitioners, afford no assurance of their authenticity since they are unsigned.
- The liberal view in the conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies, have nonetheless consistently required
some PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY ORRELIABILITY as condition for the admission of documents. DUE PROCESS MUST NEVER BE
SUBORDINATED TO EXPEDIENCY OR DISPATCH”
 Guadines v Sandigang Bayan

- Well- entrenched is the rule that the actual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court except where: 1)
the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; 2) the inference made is manifestly
mistaken; 3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and findings of fact of
the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and contradicted of the evidence on record.
Best Evidence Rule

Best Evidence Rule
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
Padayon lang. :D
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and
the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. (2a)
NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE (BER)- applies to documentary evidence, operates as a rule of exclusion, that is, secondary evidence cannot
be introduced as original writing itself must be produces in court, except those mentioned in SECTION 3, RULE 130.
 PURPOSE: to ensure that the exact contents of a writing are brought before the court.
 The non-production of the original document unless justified under the exceptions mentioned in Section 3 (e) of Rule 131, gives rise
to presumption of suppression of evidence.
 BER applies ONLY when the contents of such document is subject of the inquiry.
o Instances where BER does not apply: (NOT ADMISSIBLE)
 Issue is on whether the document is executed, or exist, or on circumstances relevant to surrounding its
execution, considered as object evidence.
 Purpose is to prove collateral or concomitant fact that took place like conversations while the document was
prepared- it is the conversation and not the contents of the document is on issue. (Collateral Fact Rule)
 Transaction made in writing but the contents are not subject of the inquiry
 Affidavits and depositions are not considered as Best evidence, it is not admissible (governed by hearsay rule,
Sec. 26, Rule 130)
 The dispute involves an actionable document and the adverse party expressly or impliedly admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the actionable document
 If the purpose of presenting the evidence is to prove external matters (matters outside the content) like its
existence, its issuance or delivery.
 If the objection to the admission of an otherwise inadmissible evidence is waived
 BER does not apply if the matter falls under any of the exceptions specifically mentioned in Section 3 of Rule
130.
 If the issue is the existence and/or contents of said documents, then they are considered primary evidence, any other recitation
of facts are considered as secondary evidence.
 The best evidence rule requires the presentation of the original instead of the secondary evidence.
1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MUST BE PRODUCED, EXCEPT: Section 5, 6, 7 and when the records are voluminous.(Please see below)
 MCMP Construction Corporation v Monark Equipment Corporation (Lease covered by Rental Equipment Contract)
- The Best Evidence Rule, a basic postulate requiring the production of the original document whenever its contents are
the subject of inquiry. Except those exceptions as provided under Section 3 of Rule of the Rules of Court. 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.
- Both the CA and the RTC gave credence to the testimony of Peregrino that the original Contract in the possession of
Monark has been lost and that diligent efforts were exerted to find the same but to no avail. As has been repeatedly
held by this Court, "findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial
court.Hence, the Court will respect the evaluation of the trial court on the credibility of Peregrino.
- MCMP’s failure to present the contract they entered into with Monark and even explain its failure, not only justifies the
presentation by Monark of secondary evidence in accordance with Section 6 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, but it also
gives rise to the disputable presumption adverse to MCMP under Section 3 (e) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that
"evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
 Edsa Shangri-La Hotel and Resort v BF Corporation (photocopies of the Billing Progress)
b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
- ”The original of a writing must, as a general proposition, be produced and secondary evidence of its contents is not
admissible except where the original cannot be had.”“When such party has the original of the writing and does not
voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted.”
- Secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument or document refers to evidence other than the original
instrument or documents itself. A party may present secondary evidence of the contents of a writing not only when the
original is lost or destroyed, but also when it is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party. In either instance,
however, certain explanations must be given before a party can resort to secondary evidence.
- Clearly, the circumstances obtaining in this case fall under the exception under Sec. 3(b) of Rule 130. In other words, the
conditions sine qua non for the presentation and reception of the photocopies of the original document as secondary
evidence has been met. These are: (1) there is proof of the original document's execution or existence; (2) there is proof
of the cause of the original document's unavailability; and (3) the offeror is in good faith.
Padayon lang. :D
- “To warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original of a writing is in the custody or control of the
adverse party, Section 6 of Rule 130 provides that the adverse party must be given reasonable notice, that he fails or
refuses to produce the same in court and that the offeror offers satisfactory proof of its existence.”
- The notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made in open court in the presence of
the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time
to produce the same.
 Air France v Carrascoso

- The notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made in open court in the presence of
the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time
to produce the same.
- The Supreme Court said the best evidence rule applies only if the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document. In
here, while the doc was mentioned by the witness, its existence is merely collateral to the fact in issue. The issue is about
the bumping off and the altercation which resulted in the unlawful removal of the plaintiff from his accommodation. The
mention of the notebook was merely a collateral fact. The issue here is about the incident between the plaintiff and the
crew member. The testimony of the witness was offered to prove the fact of the bumping off and the altercation and
was never offered to prove the contents of the notebook. The best evidence rule does not apply.
- Where the purpose is to prove a collateral or concomitant fact that took place while a document was being prepared,
such as a conversation in relation thereto, the BER does not apply and such fact may be proved testimonially since the
issue is the conversation and not the contents of the document.
 Nissan North EDSA v United Phil Scout Agency
- The best evidence rule is the rule which requires the highest grade of evidence to prove a disputed fact. However,
the same applies only when the contents of a document are the subject of the inquiry.
- In this case, the contents of the service contract between Nissan and United have not been put in issue. Neither
United nor Nissan disputes the contents of the service contract; as in fact, both parties quoted and relied on the
same provision of the contract (paragraph 17) to support their respective claims and defenses. Thus, the best
evidence rule finds no application here.
 People v Tandoy
- Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its
existence and not its contents, other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is therefore admissible
without the need of accounting for the original.
- The failure to produce the marked money itself would not constitute a fatal omission.
2. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
Section 4. Original of document. —
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are
equally regarded as originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the
transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. (3a)
NOTES BASED ON BOOKS AND DISCUSSIONS
 The documents prepared in several copies through the use of carbon sheets, SC held that each carbon copy is considered an
original provided that the writing of the contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party sought to be
charged thereby, such signature reproduced by the same stroke of pen made in the surface.
 Even if signature on each copy was written through separate acts, or even separate occasions, the said carbon copies are
regarded as originals if each copy is regarded as a repository of the same legal act of the party thereto.
 IMPERFECT carbon copies like those the signatures of the parties are incomplete or which leave something else to be done in
order that a document could evidence a binding obligation are merely secondary evidence.
 In telegrams and cables, the dispatch sent or dispatch received is best evidence, if the issue is the contents of the telegrams as
received by addressee, the original dispatch received is the best evidence. If the telegram sent by the sender, the original is the
message delivered for transmissions. If the issue is the inaccuracy of transmission, both telegrams as sent and received are
originals.
 In libel case, it was held that on the issue as to the contents of the articles sent by the accused for publication, the manuscript was
the best evidence. If the issue is what was actually published, a copy of the newspaper publication was the best evidence.
 Marquez v Espejo
- The Best Evidence Rule states that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, the best evidence is
the original document itself and no other evidence (such as a reproduction, photocopy or oral evidence) is
Padayon lang. :D
admissible as a general rule. The original is preferred because it reduces the chance of undetected tampering with
the document.
- In the instant case, there is no room for the application of the Best Evidence Rule because there is no dispute
regarding the contents of the documents. It is admitted by the parties that the respondents Deed of Sale referred to
TCT No. T-62096 as its subject; while the petitioners Deeds of Voluntary Land Transfer referred to TCT No. T-62836 as its
subject, which is further described as located in Barangay Murong.
 Arceo Jr v People
- The BER applies only where the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is the
execution or existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule
does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
- In this case, the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or execution of the check, not its content. Here, the due
execution and existence of the check were sufficiently established. Thus, petitioner himself admitted that he issued
the check. He never denied that the check was presented for payment to the drawee bank and was dishonored
for having been drawn against insufficient funds.
 People of the Philippines v Neil B. Colorado (rape)

- Settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of a witness deserve great weight, given the
clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence. We have repeatedly recognized that
the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, because of its unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling
examination.
- a medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape, as even a medical examination of the
victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not
essential to conviction. An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private
complainant and laceration of the hymen, even if considered the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of
sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape.
 Surgar Regulatory Administration v Encarnacion B. Torman (COA Decisio; Receipt)

- Well settled also is the rule that a receipt of payment is the best evidence of the fact of payment.
- Private respondents, however, could not present any receipt since they alleged that their payments were made
through salary deductions and the payrolls which supposedly contained such deductions were in petitioner's
possession which had not been produced. In order to prove their allegations of refund, private respondents
submitted the affidavits of Messrs.
- The general rule is that administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules of evidence. It can accept
documents which cannot be admitted in a judicial proceeding where the Rules of Court are strictly observed. It can
choose to give weight or disregard such evidence, depending on its trustworthiness.
- Thus, the factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are afforded great
weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous
estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental
structure, should not be disturbed.
- COA we find no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the COA in
rendering its assailed decision. There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is
not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism,26 which is wanting in this case.
 Estrada v Desierto cited in CITIBANK, N.A and Investor’s Finance Corporation v Modesta R. Sabeniano
- In Estrada v. Desierto, this Court had occasion to rule that — It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but
only copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on February 4-6, 2001. Thus, P\the
production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court's discretion, whenever in the case in hand the
opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by
requiring production.
- In the case of Citibank vs Sabeniano, the best evidence rule requires that the highest available degree of proof
must be produced. Accordingly, for documentary evidence, the contents of a document are best proved by the
production of the document itself, to the exclusion of any secondary or substitutionary evidence. In general, the
best evidence rule requires that the highest available degree of proof must be produced. Accordingly, for
documentary evidence, the contents of a document are best proved by the production of the document itself, to
the exclusion of any secondary or substitutionary evidence.
- Thus, when a document is presented to prove its existence or condition it is offered not as documentary, but as real,
evidence. Parol evidence of the fact of execution of the documents is allowed (Hernaez, et al. vs. McGrath, etc.,
et al., 91 Phil 565)
Padayon lang. :D
- The fire destroyed relevant documents, absence of proof that it is intentionally made, the foregoing would have
been sufficient to allow the presentation of photocopies or microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters by the
petitioners as secondary evidence to establish the existence of respondent's loans, as an exception to the best
evidence rule.
- This Court did not violate the best evidence rule when it considered and weighed in evidence the photocopies and
microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters submitted by the petitioners to establish the existence of respondent's
loans. The terms or contents of these documents were never the point of contention in the Petition at bar.
 Gaw v Chua
- The BEST EVIDENCE RULE as encapsulated in Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court applies only when the content
of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually
executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
- Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for the original Moreover,
production of the original may be dispensed with in the trial court's discretion, whenever the opponent does not
bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.
- Accordingly, we find that the best evidence rule is not applicable to the instant case. Here, there was no dispute as
to the terms of either deed; hence, the RTC correctly admitted in evidence mere copies of the two deeds. The
petitioner never even denied their due execution and admitted that she signed the Deed of Partition.
 Republic v Marcos-Manotoc
- Rule 130, Section 3 of the ROC provides that evidence must ne the original document. However, evidence is
admissible when the public document is in public record when it is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in
a public office. Its contents may be proved by certified copy issued by the public officer in custody.
- It is basic rule that, while affidavits may be considered as public document, if they are acknowledged before a
notary public these affidavits are still considered as hearsay evidence. The reason for this rule is that they are not
generally prepared by the affiant but by one who uses his language in writing down the affiant’s statements, parts
of which may be omitted or misunderstood by one writing them. Also, the party is deprived of the opportunity to
cross-examine the affiants. Thus, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, UNLESS the affiants themselves
are placed on witness stand to testify.
 Gulf Air v NLRC

- A mere photocopy of the manual presented does not make said evidence any less significant. Labor proceedings
are non-litigious in nature; hence, the technicalities of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law do
not strictly apply. Rather, the hearing officer is given much leeway to ascertain for himself the facts of the case.
- Without question, respondent did not comply with this requirement when he ordered the acceptance of the Astro
Airlines ticket of Queroz. However, there is no evidence that respondent violated any company policy when he
issued a MATO to Queroz.
- Thus, the CA and the NLRC correctly observed that the worst that respondent committed was an inadvertent
infraction. For that, the extreme penalty of dismissal imposed on him by petitioners was grossly disproportionate.
Secondary Evidence
Secondary Evidence
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (4a)
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of
adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to
produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a)
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When the original of document is in the custody of public
officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a)
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same
is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)
NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS: EXCEPTIONS
In written document, original document must be presented according to BER.
Padayon lang. :D
o Example: in cases of falsification, copyright infringement, or libel, the original document must be presented as evidence.
1. WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNAVAILABLE - has been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court (without bad faith)
To present secondary evidence, there must be proof by satisfactory evidence of:
a. Due execution of the original;

b. Loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals; and
c. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce the original (not due to offeror’s bad
faith)
Thus, the following are the requisites before secondary evidence may be allowed if original document is lost, destroyed or cannot
be produced in court
a. The offeror must first establish the existence and due execution of the original document.
b. Prove the fact of loss.
c. Prove the contents of the original document
The due execution must be proved through the testimony of either:

a. the persons who executed it;
b. persons before whom execution was acknowledged; or
c. any person who was present and saw it executed.
 When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, as when it is a foreign country, secondary evidence is admissible.
 SECONDARY EVIDENCE may consist: (IN ORDER)

a. a copy of said document;
b. recital of its content in an authentic document; or
c. recollection of the witnesses
 Where the law specifically provides for the class and quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of the document,
or bars the presentation of secondary evidence, such requirement is controlling.
o Example: loss of notarial will - testimony of two credible witnesses, while in probate of holographic will – authentic
photographic or photostatic copies
2. WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN ADVERSE PARTY’S CUSTODY OR CONTROL
REQUISITES:
1. Prove the existence of the original

-To prove this, you may use the witnesses mentioned in the De Vera case who can prove the fact of existence and due
execution.
2. Prove that it is in the possession of the adverse party
3. Prove that you gave reasonable notice and that despite the reasonable notice, he is unable or failed to produce the
original.
 To prove reasonable notice:

o Avail Rule 27 (Modes of Discovery) by filing a motion for production of the original document believed to be in the
possession of the adverse party
o Ask the court to issue subpoena duces tecum
o Manifest your request in open court in the presence of the adverse party.
 No particular form of notice is required as long as it apprises the other party as to what papers are desired. The notice must be
given to the adverse party, or his attorneys, even if the document is in actual possession of the third person.
 It is held that where receipt of the original of a letter is acknowledged on a carbon copy thereof, there is no need for a notice to
the other party to produce the original letter.
 The justified refusal or failure of the adverse party to produce the document does not give rise to a presumption of suppression of
evidence. It only authorizes the introduction of secondary evidence.
 Where the documents are produced, it is not necessarily admissible unless requisites for admissibility are present.
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
RULE 130, Section 6 RULE 27 of the Rules of Court
Production of documents are procured by mere notice which is The production of such document is in nature of a mode of
a condition precedent for subsequent introduction of discovery and can sought only by proper motion in the trial
secondary evidence court
3. RECORDS ARE VOLUMINOUS

 For the exception to apply:
a. Voluminous character of the records must be established;
b. Such records must be made accessible to the parties so that their correctness may be tested on cross-examination.
Padayon lang. :D
 You may present summary of all records. The following are the requisites:
a. The proponent must first establish the numerous nature or voluminous nature of the documents. Case to case basis.
b. You should establish that individual original numerous accounts of records were made accessible to the adverse party to
give the latter opportunity to test accuracy during cross examination. How? Proponent simply has to notify the court that
you are presenting a summary instead of individual voluminous document. And notify the adverse party that such
originals are available at a certain place ready for examination by the adverse party. (Compania Maritima vs Allied Free
Workers Union Case)
4. EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS PUBLIC RECORD- contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by
the public officer in custody thereof.
 Example: Birth Certificate, Marriage Certificate, Death Certificate
EXCEPT: there is a court order directed to the custodian
 Standing rule: Legal custodians are prohibited from bringing out of their office the originals of the documents in their custody.
o Remedy: 1. Ask the court for issuance of subpoena duces tecum or ad testificandum addressed to the public officer;
2. ask for a certified true copy of the original for purpose of presenting evidence.
 In RULE 132 (PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE), such document may be evidenced by:

a. an official publication; or
b. a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record.
 In case of public record of a private writing, it may also be proved by a copy thereof attested by legal keeper of the record.
PARTY WHO CALLS FOR DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT – as evidence
 RP v Marcos II cited in RP v Ma. Imelda “Imee” R. Marcos-Monotoc (Stenographic notes)

- Under Sec. 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provide that when the original document is in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public
officer in custody thereof. Exhibit “Q” (a mere photocopy of the transcript of stenographic notes) was not a
certified copy and it was not even signed by the stenographer who supposedly took down the proceedings. Thus,
absent any convincing evidence to hold otherwise, petitioner fails to it follows that petitioner failed to prove that
the Marcos siblings and Gregorio Araneta III collaborated with former President Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos
and participated in the first couple’s alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth
 Citibank, N.A Mastercard v Teodoro citing De Vera v Aguilar

- In Citibank vs. Teodoro, The original copies of the sales invoices are the best evidence to prove the
alleged obligation. Photocopies thereof are mere secondary evidence.
- Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original sales
invoices, 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 nonproduction 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.
- Here, the loss of the originals and reasonable diligence in the search for them were conditions that were
not met, because the sales invoices might have been found by Equitable. Hernandez, testifying that he
had requested the originals from Equitable, failed to show that he had subsequently followed up the
request.
- 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. Triplicates were produced, although the cardholder
signed the sales invoice only once. During the trial, Hernandez explained that an original copy had gone
to respondent, another to the merchant, and still another to petitioner.
- Each of these three copies is regarded as an original in accordance with Section 4 (b) of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court. Petitioner failed to show that all three original copies were unavailable, and that due
diligence had been exercised in the search for them.
- In the case De Vera vs. Aguilar, the photocopy of the deed of sale under Exhibit “A” is inadmissible as
evidence for failure of De Vera to prove the loss or destruction of the original deed of sale and all of its
duplicate original copies.
- Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior
to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of the
instrument. The correct order of proof is as follows: Existence; execution; loss; contents – although this order
may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. The sufficiency of proof offered as a predicate
for the admission of an alleged lost deed lies within the judicial discretion of the trial court under all the
circumstances of the particular case.
- In the case at bar, the existence of an alleged sale of a parcel of land was proved by the presentation of
a xeroxed copy of the alleged deed of absolute sale.
Padayon lang. :D
- In establishing the execution of a document the same may be established by the person or persons who
executed it, by the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, or by any person who was
present and saw it executed or who, after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures; or by a
person to whom the parties to the instrument had previously confessed the execution thereof.
- After the due execution of the document has been established, it must next be proved that said
document has been lost or destroyed.
- In the case at bar, Atty. Emiliano Ibasco, Jr., notary public who notarized the document testified that the
alleged deed of sale has about four or five original copies. Hence, all originals must be accounted for
before secondary evidence can be given of any one. Records show that petitioners merely accounted for
three out of four or five original copies.
- Original copies of the document of sale still exists, since they were submitted to the Office of the Register
of Deeds of Malolos for registration. The appellees, therefore, should have asked the office to produce it in
court and if it could not be produced for one reason or another should have called the Register of Deeds
or his representative to explain why. That they failed to do. The loss or destruction of the original of the
document in question has not, therefore, been established. Hence, secondary evidence of it is
inadmissible.
 Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v Antonio Lagman
- Under the best evidence rule, the original document must be produced whenever its contents are the
subject of inquiry. A photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not admissible unless it is shown that
the original is unavailable.
- 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 and the fourth was in his possession. 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. Neither did Lagman explain why he failed to secure the original from any of the
three other custodians he mentioned in his testimony. Clearly, Lagman failed to exert diligent efforts to
produce the original.
 Baguio Trinity Developers INc v The Heirs of Jose Ramos

- Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence provides that when the original document has been lost and its
unavailability has been established, a party 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.
- Baguio Trinity failed to attach to its petition for annulment of judgment a certified copy of the judgment or
final order, which requirement is mandatory. Without it, the court would have no bases to form a decision. .
Here, however, the 1990 earthquake resulted in the loss or destruction of the RTC records of the case. The
administration of justice cannot stop to grind because of such loss and no one should suffer or benefit from
it. That the record custodian could no longer issue a certified copy should not of course prevent an
aggrieved party from pursuing his petition. Consequently, the CA had no valid reason denying its petition
for failure to attach a copy of the assailed reconstitution orders.
-
 Gabatan v CA (Photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale)
- Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall
be admissible other than the original document itself. Although the best evidence rule admits of
exceptions and there are instances where the presentation of secondary evidence would be allowed,
such as when the original is lost or the original is a public record, the basis for the presentation of
secondary evidence must still be established.
- Thus, in Department of Education Culture and Sports v. Del Rosario, we held that a party must first
satisfactorily explain the loss of the best or primary evidence before he can resort to secondary evidence.
A party must first present to the court proof of loss or other satisfactory explanation for non-production of
the original instrument.
- It is the notary public who is mandated by law to keep an original of the Deed of Absolute Sale in his
notarial register and to forward the same to the proper court. It is the notary public or the proper court that
has custody of his notarial register that could have produced the original or a certified true copy thereof.
Padayon lang. :D
 Republic v Mups
- Secondary evidence of the contents of writings is admitted on the theory that the original cannot be
produced by the party who offers the evidence within a reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable
diligence.
- In concrete terms, the source documents must be shown to be original, and not secondary. Furthermore,
the source documents must likewise be accessible to the opposing party so that the correctness of the
summary of the voluminous records may be tested on cross-examination and/or may be refuted in
pleadings. In ordinary trial-type proceedings, a proper foundation for the introduction of a summary may
be established through the “testimony of the person who is responsible for the summary's preparation, or
the person who supervised the preparation of the summary.”
- The primary reason for these procedural foundations is that the summary of numerous documents is, in
strict terms, hearsay evidence. The trial court should not haphazardly allow a party to present a summary
of numerous documents and immediately admit and give probative value to such summary without
sufficiently laying these foundations. If the source documents of the summary are non-original, the trial
court would commit a grave error in admitting and/or giving probative value to the summary of non-
original documents; the evidence admitted would be double hearsay.
- Furthermore, when a party invokes Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, he does not similarly invoke
Section 3 (a), (b), and/or (d), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. He does not likewise claim that the original
documents have been lost or destroyed. The party merely asserts that the numerous documents cannot
be examined in court without great loss of time and that the fact sought to be established from these
documents is only the general result of the whole.
- Whenever a party seeks an exemption under the best evidence rule pursuant to Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court, he asks permission from the trial court to produce a summary of numerous documents,
whose originals are available to the adverse party for inspection. He does not ask permission from the trial
court to present in evidence the numerous non-original documents. Otherwise, the very purpose of Section
3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court would be defeated. In that case, every exhibit of non-original
documents would be identified, authenticated, and cross-examined, leading to a tedious and protracted
litigation.
- Thus, if a party desires to present photocopies of the original documents, he must first establish that the
presentation of photocopies is justified under Section 3 (a), (b), and/or (d), Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court. He must establish the presence of all the elements under these provisions.
- In the case of lost or destroyed documents, the offeror of non-original documents must first prove the
following elements before secondary evidence is admitted before the court: (a) the existence or due
execution of the original; (b) the loss and destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-production in
court; and (c) the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the original
can be attributed. To conclude otherwise is to allow the party to circumvent the best evidence rule and
the requirements under Section 3 (a), (b), and (d), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court by merely invoking
Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
- In the present case, PIATCO attached to its Compliance dated December 14, 2010, the photocopies of
numerous documents, and the validation of PIATCO’s computation of attendant costs prepared by Reyes
Tacandong & Co., among others. PIATCO justifies the non-presentment of original documents pursuant
to Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
 Vda. De Avenido v Avenido (Declaration of nullity of marriage)
- The execution of a document may be proven by the parties themselves, by the swearing officer, by
witnesses who saw and recognized the signatures of the parties; or even by those to whom the parties
have previously narrated the execution thereof. The Court has also held that "[t]he loss may be shown by
any person who [knows] the fact of its loss, or by 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 character are
usually kept by the person in whose custody the document lost was, and has been unable to find it; or who
has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument [has] indeed
[been] lost.
- In the present case, due execution was established by the testimonies of Adela Pilapil, who was present
during the marriage ceremony, and of petitioner herself as a party to the event. The subsequent loss was
shown by the testimony and the affidavit of the officiating priest, Monsignor Yllana, as relevant, competent
and admissible evidence. Since the due execution and the loss of the marriage contract were clearly
shown by the evidence presented, secondary evidence–testimonial and documentary–may be admitted
to prove the fact of marriage.
- Hence, the petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is affirmed and the marriage between petitioner
Peregrina Macua Avenido and the deceased Eustaquio Avenido is hereby declared NULL and VOID.
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (A.M. NO 01-7-01-SC)
1. MEANING OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE; ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE

 ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE - refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means
 ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT- refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of
written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation is extinguished, or by which
Padayon lang. :D
a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically.
 EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION - refers to telephone conversations, text messages and other electronic forms of
communications, which cannot be retained or can be deleted. This must be proved by the testimony of the person who was a
party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof.
2. PROBATIVE VALUE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT; METHOD OF PROOF

 In any legal proceeding, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility of an electronic data
message or electronic document in evidence:
a. in the sole basis that is in electronic form;
b. it is not in standard written form, if it meets the requirements for recognition to its legal effect, shall be the BEST EVIDENCE
of the agreement or transaction contained therein. (RA 8792. Section 12)
 In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic document, the reliability of the manner in which ot
was generated, stored r communicated, the reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified, and other relevant
factors shall be given due regard.
3. AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE

 Electronic documents, electronic data messages and electronic signatures shall be authenticated by demonstrating,
substantiating and validating a claimed identity of the user, device, or another entity in an information or communication system
by:
a. the electronic signature shall be authenticated by proof that the letter, character, number or other symbol in electronic
form representing the person named in and attached to or logically associated with an electronic data message,
electronic document or that appropriate methodology is employed (digitally signed by the person signing the
document);
b. the electronic data message or electronic document shall be authenticated by proof than an appropriate security
procedure was employed in verifying the originator of an electronic data message or electronic document (appropriate
procedure provided by law/SC)
c. SC- adopt other procedure , usage of electronic notarization system as necessary and advisable, as well as certificate of
authentication on printed or hard copies of the electronic documents or electronic data messages. (additional
evidence to prove the authenticity of the electronic document to satisfy the court)
4. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND THE HEARSAY RULE

 An electronic document shall be functional equivalent of the written document under existing laws.
 Where the law requires a document to be in writing, that requirement is met by an electronic document if said electronic
document maintains integrity and reliability and be authenticated.
 For purposes of the Best Evidence rule, to consider a document as electronic document, ALL the PROCESSES must be
ELECTRONIC.
 The processes mentioned here must be free from any manual intervention. The moment manual intervention supervenes,
it cannot be considered as an electronic document. This is the ruling in the case of NPC vs Codilla.
5. AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE
 If presented as an object evidence, The purpose is not to prove its contents but you want that recording TO BE HEARD BY THE
COURT. Not as documentary, but object because it’s subjected to the senses of the court.
1. Someone who caused the recording
2. Someone who can testify as to the accuracy of the recording
 MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v Ssangyong Corporation (print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions)
- Electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule, as long as it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, showing to reflect the
data accurately. Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data message or to be considered as
the functional equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost
be an “electronic data message” or an “electronic document.
- The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 8792 defines the “Electronic Data Message” refers
to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means, but not limited
to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy.
- Moreover, when Congress formulated the term “electronic data message,” it intended the same meaning
as the term “electronic record” in the Canada law. This construction of the term “electronic data
message,” which excludes telexes or faxes, except computer-generated faxes, is in harmony with the
Electronic Commerce Law’s focus on “paperless” communications and the “functional equivalent
approach” that it espouses. Facsimile transmissions are not, in this sense, “paperless,” but verily are paper-
based.
- Thus, the Electronic data messages and electronic document as defined in the Electronic Commerce Act
of 2000 do not include facsimile. Facsimile cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It’s not the
functional equivalent of an original under the BER and is not admissible as electronic evidence. Facsimile
transmissions are not, in this sense “paperless”, but verily “paper based”.
 Ellery March G. Torres v Phil. Amusement and Gaming Corporation
Padayon lang. :D
 Rustan Ang Y. Pascua v CA and Irish Sagud (before)
- An electronic document should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided

under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC do not apply to the present
criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings,
and administrative proceedings.
- Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message constitutes an electronic
document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided under
Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC). The objection is too late since he
should have objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in
evidence. He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection.
NOTES FROM THE BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:
 Before, it is applicable to all civil actions, quasi and administrative proceedings except criminal proceedings where there is a
requirement for attachment of an electronic signature.
 Now, under the case of Enojas , it is also applicable in criminal cases, therefor it can be applied to all proceedings.
 In the case NPC vs. Codilla, the letter was electronically produced but the signature was not electronically affixed, it is not
considered as electronic document. The SC held that by its definition, the contents must be processed electronically. In this case,
the document in question appears to have been manually signed. By no stretch of the imagination can a person’s signature
affixed manually in the photocopies be considered as information ELECTRONICALLY received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced. The presence of the MANUAL signature as PART of the CONTENTS of these documents
disqualifies the document from being electronic. Not being electronic, it should be treated as an ordinary paper-based
document, and under the BER, a photocopy can only be allowed as secondary if the original is accounted for, which NPC failed
to do in this case.” If it is manually signed, cannot be considered electronic document.
 In People vs. Enojas, it involves a criminal case where a text message was used as evidence and presented by a police officer.
SC correctly ruled this time, pursuant to amendment in 2002, Rules on Electronic Evidence applies to criminal cases as well. This is a
murder case resulting to a death of a policeman.Here, it is admitted as evidence as:
a. the policeman identified and presented the text messages
b. he is the same person who acted on the incident and pretended to be the taxi driver as testified by him and has the
personal knowledge of the incident.
c. AM 01-07-01 is the expansion of the Rule on Electronic evidence which is now applicable to any kinds of proceedings.
 Requisites for electronic evidence to be admissible, it must be:
a. Relevant; and
b. Competent
 The following are the SPECIFIC EPHEMERAL COMMUNICATIONS MENTIONED IN THE RULES:
a. Telephone conversation;
b. Text messages;
- In People vs Enojas, a text message maybe authenticated by the party to the communication or anyone who is
aware of the communication. In this case, the witness who authenticated the exchange of text messages between
the policeman who posted as Mr. Enojas and the other party in the other line, was a party to the exchange of the
text messages. SC said, that witness was competent to authenticate the transcript of text messages between the
police and the other suspect.
c. Streaming video/streaming audio;
d. Chat sessions; and
e. Other similar electronic communications evidence of which is not retained or recorded
- As the term suggests, it is not permanently recorded. It is not retained in some form of saving device.
PAROL EVIDENCE
Parol Evidence Rule
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
Padayon lang. :D
(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.
NOTES BASED ON THE BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:
 PAROL EVIDENCE - any evidence aliunde (extrinsic), which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable
agreement embodied in a document.
 It can be made by oral or verbal testimony, applies only to written contacts or agreements.
 It is based on the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement into writing, all their previous
contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein.
 The Parol Evidence Rule (PER) did not apply to or to bar evidence of a collateral agreement between the same parties on the
same or related subject matter, in the following:
a. The collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the written contract;
b. The collateral agreement has not been integrated in and is independent of the written contract, as it were suppletory to
the original contract;
c. The collateral agreement is subsequent to novatory of the written contract; and
d. The collateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract may
become operative or effective, but this exception does not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in the
agreement.
ALSO, The concepts of PER and its workings can be best understood by understanding instances where this principle does not apply.
a. When the document does NOT constitute a contract or agreement, like a mere receipt, since the rule presupposes a written
agreement
b. If at least 1 of the parties to the suit is not a party to the written agreement, neither party can invoke PER, since the rule applies only
to suits between PARTIES to the written contract and their SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST
c. When the prior or contemporaneous agreement is independent from or not inconsistent with a written agreement otherwise known
as the “Collateral Agreement Rule”
d. 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:
1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement
2. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
 Exception to the Exception: If the true and intended agreement is covered under Statute of Fraud (Art. 1403
CC) - no oral testimony/evidence is allowed
 EXCEPTION to the exception to the exception: when it is partially or fully executed – oral testimony
may be allowed
3. The validity of the written agreement
4. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest after the execution of the written
agreement
e. 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
 The purpose of PER is to give certainty to written documents, preserve reliability and protect its integrity, also, to avoid the pitfalls
of human memory
 It cannot be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one party to the suit is not a party or privy to
the written instrument in question and does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the instrument of the relation
established thereby.
PAROL EVIDENCE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Presupposes that the original document is available in court Contemplates the situation wherein the original writing is not
available and/or there is a dispute as to whether said writing is the
original.
Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence I lieu of the
original document regardless of whether or not it varies the contents
of the original
Applies only to the documents which are contractual in nature Applies to all kinds of writings
“written agreements”
Invoked only when the controversy is between the parties to the Invoked by any party to an action regardless of whether or not such
written agreement, their privies, or any party directly affected party has participated in the writing
thereby like cestui que trust
 If you testify in courts, you cannot present additional oral evidence which is not included or contrary to the written agreement, or
those which could alter or modify the agreements.
 Prohibition applies to parties or successors-in-interest. But the outside parties can produce evidence. However, for such party to be
allowed to present evidence to modify, explain or add the terms of the agreement, he must put it in the pleadings.
Padayon lang. :D
o If the agreement was made prior to execution, as a general rule, no oral evidence is allowed.
o If the agreement was made during the execution, it may be allowed provided that it will not modify the agreements
o Id the agreement was made after the execution, it is allowed.
 Parol evidence does not apply to receipts.
 RULE ON EXCLUSION – Section 9 of Rule 130 provides that when the terms of an agreement are reduced into writing, there can be
as between the successors-in-interest no evidence of its terms other than the contents of the agreements.
1. EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS
 Lechugas v CA
- 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 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.
- PER does not apply in this case because it is Leoncia Lasangue who is one of the parties to the subject DOS and
because the defendants in the case were not parties to the DOS executed between Leoncia Lasangue and
Lechugas. SC said when at least one of the parties to the case is not a party to the written agreement sued
upon, PER may not be invoked. Because obviously these third parties, not parties to the agreement, are not
bound to the terms of the written agreement. They can always introduce extraneous evidence to vary the
terms of the written agreement without violating the PER because PER does not apply to them.
- PER applies only to the PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT OR THEIR SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST. This also includes persons
who may not be the parties but persons who based their claims under the written agreement or assert their
right originating in the written agreement. They are also deemed to be parties to the contract.
 Inciong v CA (promissory note)
- Parol evidence rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document. For the parol evidence
rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or be signed by both parties. 12 As a
general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted
by parol or extrinsic evidence.
- 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.
- What is required is that the agreement be in writing as the rule is in fact founded on "long experience that
written evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory only, that it
would be unsafe, when parties have expressed the terms of their contract in writing, to admit weaker evidence
to control and vary the stronger and to show that the parties intended a different contract from that expressed
in the writing signed by them.
- By alleging fraud in his answer, fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence, mere
preponderance of evidence, not even being adequate. However, he failed as it was evidenced only by his
own uncorroborated and, expectedly, self-serving testimony.
 Ortanez v CA (lost tiltle and in the custody of another)

- Parol evidence to establish the alleged oral conditions-precedent to a contract of sale are INADMISSIBLE when
the deeds of sale are silent on such conditions.
- Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a uniform language.
Under the general rule in Rule 130, Section 9, when the terms of an agreement were reduced to writing, it is
deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms can be admitted other than the
contents thereof.
- The parol evidence herein sought to be introduced would vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid
instrument, hence, contrary to the rule that “The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to x x x 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.”
- Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose of
incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions that are not mentioned at all in the
writing unless there has been fraud or mistake. No such fraud or mistake exists in this case.
- there are exceptions to the general rule of inadmissibility of parol evidence, one of which the alleged failure of
the agreement to express the true intent of the parties.
- Such exception obtains only where the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the
contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In such a
case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and
of 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.
- HOWEVER, in this case, there is no ambiguity, mistake or imperfection, much less obscurity or doubt in the terms
of the deeds of sale.
- The Inocentes merely alleged that the sale was subject to four conditions which they tried to prove during trial
by parol evidence. Record shows that the Inocentes did not expressly plead that the deeds of sale were
incomplete or that it did not reflect the intention of the parties. Such issue must be squarely presented; the
Padayon lang. :D
Inocentes did not plead any of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule. Their case is covered by the general
rule that the contents of the writing are the only repository of the terms of the agreement.
-
 Financial Building Corporation v Bloomfield Educational Foundation, Inc., et. AL

- Parol Evidence: Under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an
agreement were reduced in writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no
evidence of such terms can be admitted other than the contents thereof. Evidence of a prior or
contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of
a valid contract
- Under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement were
reduced in writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such
terms can be admitted other than the contents thereof. Rudlin argues that under Section 9, Rule 130, a party
may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if it is put in issue in the
pleading, "[t]he failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and the agreement of the parties
thereto."
- Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or
defeat the operation of a valid contract. Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
- However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading:
 (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.
- We hold that Rudlin failed to substantiate its claim that the contract price stated in the Construction Agreement
(₱6,933,268.00) was not the true contract price because it had an understanding with FBC’s Jaime B. Lo that
they would decrease said amount to a mutually acceptable amount.
 Modesto Leovera v Casimero Valdez
- “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.”
- SC:We rule that the respondent adequately proved his ownership of the disputed property by virtue of the (i)
Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Josefa in favor of the parties; (ii) the parties’ Affidavit of Adverse Claim; and
(iii) the parties Agreement, which cover the subject property.
- The petitioner does not dispute the due execution and the authenticity of these documents, particularly the
Agreement. However, he claims 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.
- 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.
 Sps. Agbaba v Inter-Urban Developers Inc

- Under Parole Evidence rule, no additional or contradictory terms to the written agreement can be admitted to
show that at or before the signing of the document, other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the
parties. So the prevailing terms of the agreement and not the oral or side agreement.
 Dulce Pamintuan v People of the Philippines

- Under the circumstances, the best evidence to ascertain the nature of the parties diamond ring transaction is
the Katibayan which is the written evidence of their agreement that should be deemed to contain all the terms
they agreed upon. Under the parol evidence rule, no additional or contradictory terms to this
written agreement can be admitted to show that, at or before the signing of the document, other or different
terms were orally agreed upon by the parties. Thus, the terms of the Katibayan should be the prevailing terms
of the transaction between the parties, not any oral or side agreement the petitioner alleged.
 Permanent Savings Corporation v Velarde (Promissory Note)
Padayon lang. :D
- The mere presentation of supposed documents regarding the loan, but absent the testimony of a competent
witness to the transaction and the documentary evidence, coupled with the denial of liability by the
defendant does not suffice to meet the requisite preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
- The documents, standing alone, unsupported by independent evidence of their existence, have no legal basis
to stand on. They are not competent evidence.
- Here, such failure leaves this Court without ample basis to sustain the plaintiff’s cause of action and other reliefs
prayed for. The loan document being challenged. Plaintiff did not exert additional effort to strengthen its case
by the required preponderance of evidence. On this score, the suit must be dismissed.
- Under Rule 132, Section 21 or ROC, this falls short of the requirement that before any private writing may be
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the
writing executed; (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; or (c) By a subscribing
witness.
 Pacres v Heirs of Ygona

- The Parol Evidence Rule applies to "the parties and their successors in interest." Conversely, it has no application
to a stranger to a contract. For purposes of the Parol Evidence Rule, a person who claims to be the beneficiary
of an alleged stipulation pour autrui in a contract (such as petitioners) may be considered a party to that
contract. It has been held that a third party who avails himself of a stipulation pour autrui under a contract
becomes a party to that contract. This is why under Article 1311, a beneficiary of a stipulation pour autrui is
required to communicate his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation.
- Moreover, to preclude the application of Parol Evidence Rule, it must be shown that "at least one of the parties
to the suit is not 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." 49 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.
- Thus, even assuming that the alleged oral undertakings invoked by petitioners may be deemed stipulations
pour autrui, still petitioners’ claim cannot prosper, because they are barred from proving them by oral evidence
under the Parol Evidence Rule.
2. EXCEPTION
a. Intrinsic Ambiguity, Mistake or Imperfection of the written agreement
b. Failure of Written agreement to express the true intention of the parties
c. Validity of written agreement
d. Existence of a written agreement entered into by parties or successors in interest SUBSEQUENT to the written agreement
 GR: No oral evidence may be presented which are not included in the pleadings.
1st Exception
 In order that parole evidence to be admissible, the MISTAKE or IMPERFECTION of the document or its FAILURE to express the true
intent of the parties, the validity of the agreement must be put in issue by the pleadings.
 The defenses not raised in the pleadings, but the parole evidence is not objected to, such objection is deemed waived. In any
event, such mistake or imperfection must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
 The intrinsic ambiguity in the written agreement is now required to be put in issue in the pleading in order that parole evidence
therein may be admitted.
 MISTAKE- mistake of fact where the innocent party was imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other
 IMPERFECTION- includes an inaccurate statement in the agreement or incompleteness in the writing, or the presence of
inconsistent provisions therein.
 When one party was mistaken and the other knew that the instrument did not state their real agreement but concealed that the
fact from the former, the instrument may be reformed. Parole evidence of such fact would be admissible if same is put on issue.
Kinds of ambiguity and effects:
 There is INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY when the writing in its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or
circumstances which make the meaning uncertain, or where the writing admits of two constructions both of which are in harmony
with the language used.
 EXTRINSIC AMBIGUITY – ambiguity which is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order
to ascertain the meaning of the word used. In such, parole evidence is not admissible; otherwise the court would not thereby
construing the contract but would create a contract between parties.
 INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITY – partake both intrinsic and extrinsic ambiguity, the words in writing, though seemingly clear and with
settled meaning, is actually equivocal and admits two interpretations. Parole evidence in this case is admissible to clarify the
ambiguity, it must be put in issue by the pleader. Example: Dollar- used in Hong Kong, US or Australia
2nd Exception
 The purpose is to determine the true intention of the parties or the true nature of the transaction between parties.
3rd Exception
 In effect authorizes an inquiry into the validity of the agreement, parole evidence may be admitted to show the true
consideration of a contract, or incapacity of the parties, or the fact that the contract was fictitious or absolutely simulated, or
there was fraud in the inducement.
4th Exception
Padayon lang. :D
 Not all collateral agreements are prohibited by the rule, only those prior or contemporaneous collateral agreement.
 STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ARTICLE 1403 CIVIL CODE)

Parol Evidence Rule is provided for under the Rules of Court, but there is another Parol Evidence Rule which is also found in the
Civil Code, Statute of Frauds (1403) is it the same with the Parol Evidence Rule in ROC?
Under Statute of frauds, there are certain contracts which cannot be proved by oral testimony for purposes of enforceability,
meaning it cannot be proved by oral testimony.
The SPECIFIC CONTRACTS are:
(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof;
(b) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another;
(c) An agreement made in consideration of marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry;
(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in action, at a price not less than five hundred pesos, unless the buyer
accept and receive part of such goods and chattels, or the evidences, or some of them, of such things in action or pay at the time
some part of the purchase money; but when a sale is made by auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales book, at
the time of the sale, of the amount and kind of property sold, terms of sale, price, names of the purchasers and person on whose
account the sale is made, it is a sufficient memorandum;
(e) An agreement of the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein;
(f) A representation as to the credit of a third person.
 Any of the contracts found under 1403 prohibits the introduction of oral evidence to prove its existence. The Parol Evidence
contemplated in 1403 refers only to oral because 1403 allows a written memorandum.
 Under the Parol Evidence Rule in the ROC, there are exceptions, provided that these issues are raised in the pleadings.
 The only exception under 1403 is when the contract is partially executed or fully executed. So the rule is when the contract is
alleged to have failed to express the true intention of the parties, parol evidence may be allowed except when the contract is
covered by the statute of frauds. This is the opinion of Justice Paras in his book citing a case.
 Sps. Lequin v Sps. Vizconde
- A contract, as defined in the Civil Code, is a meeting of minds, with respect to the other, to give something or
to render some service.12 For a contract to be valid, it must have three essential elements: (1) consent of the
contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the
obligation which is established.
- The requisites of consent are (1) it should be intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers;
(2) it should be free; and (3) it should be spontaneous. In De Jesus v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 13 it was
explained that intelligence in consent is vitiated by error, freedom by violence, intimidation or undue influence,
and spontaneity by fraud and when consent is given through fraud, the contract is voidable.
- Tolentino defines kind of deception whether in the form of insidious machinations, manipulations, concealments
or fraud as "every misrepresentations, for the purpose of leading another party into error and thus execute a
particular act.
- Thus, (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
Lack of consideration was proved by petitioners’ evidence aliunde showing that the Kasulatan did not express
the true intent and agreement of the parties. As explained above, said sale contract was fraudulently entered
into through the misrepresentations of respondents causing petitioners’ vitiated consent.
-
 Financial Building Corp v Rudlin International Corp
- Under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement were
reduced in writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such
terms can be admitted other than the contents thereof. Rudlin argues that under Section 9, Rule 130, a party
may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if it is put in issue in the
pleading, "[t]he failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and the agreement of the parties
thereto." Assuming as true Rudlin’s claim that Exhibit "7" failed to accurately reflect an intent of the parties to fix
the total contract price at ₱6,006,965.00, Rudlin failed to avail of its right to seek the reformation of the
instrument to the end that such true intention may be expressed.
- Rudlin cannot invoke the exception under (a) or (b) of the above provision. Such exception obtains only where
"the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be
understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of
the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and of 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.
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Padayon lang. :D
1. INTERPRETATION OF A WRITING ACCORDING TO ITS LEGAL MEANING
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.
2. INSTRUMENT CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE EFFECT TO ALL PROVISION
Section 11. Instrument 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.
3. INTERPRETAION ACCORDING TO INTENTION; GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROVISION
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.
4. INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCE
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
placed in the position of those who language he is to interpret.
5. PECULIAR SIGNIFICATION OF TERMS
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 a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so
used and understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly.
6. WRITTEN WORDS CONTROL PRINTED
Section 15. Written words control printed. — When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and
the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
7. EXPERT AND INTERPERETERS TO BE USED IN EXPLAINING CERTAINT WRITINGS
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 persons skilled in
deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language.
8. OF TWO CONSTRUCTION, WHICH PREFERRED
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.
9. CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF NATURAL RIGHT
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.
10. INTERPRETAION ACCORDING TO USAGE
Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. — An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its
true character.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
 People v Rodel Singson
- Testimonial evidence, to be believed, must not only come from credible lips but must be credible in substance. A story
that defies reason and logic and above all runs against the grain of common experience cannot persuade. Here, the
prosecutions account failed to pass these tests.
- With the inconsistencies and incompatibilities of the statement, the court unable to see the unfiltered truth and
concluded that the evidence failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused, hence
the court ordered the immediate release of Singson.
QUALIFICATION OF WITNESS
Padayon lang. :D
 AFP-RSBS v Republic
- However, there is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a witness for a party to present some form of
authorization to testify as a witness for the party presenting him or her. No law or jurisprudence would support the
conclusion that such omission can be considered as a failure to prosecute on the part of the party presenting such
witness. All that the Rules require of a witness is that the witness possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided therein. . Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence provides: Section 20, Except as provided in the
next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others,
may be witnesses.
- The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those
mentioned in the Rules. It is a maxim of recognized utility and merit in the construction of statutes that an express
exception, exemption, or saving clause excludes other exceptions.
- Ms. Aban is qualified to testify as a witness for the petitioner since she possesses the qualifications of being able to
perceive and being able to make her perceptions known to others. Furthermore, she possesses none of the
disqualifications described above.
 PP v Aleman
- A deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses. Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they (1) can understand and
appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and (3) can communicate
their ideas through a qualified interpreter. Thus, the accused was convicted on the basis of the testimony of a deaf-
mute.
- The inability to hear and speak may prevent a deaf-mute from communicating orally with others but he/she may still
communicate with others in writing or through signs and symbols and, as in this case, sketches. Thus, a deaf-mute is
competent to be a witness so long as he/she has the faculty to make observations and he/she can make those
observations known to others.
- When a deaf-mute testifies in court, “the manner in which the examination of a deaf-mute should be conducted is a
matter to be regulated and controlled by the trial court in its discretion, and the method adopted will not be reviewed
by the appellate court in the absence of a showing that the complaining party was in some way injured by reason of the
particular method adopted.”
- In this case, both the trial and the appellate courts found that Mark understood and appreciated the sanctity of an oath
and that he comprehended the facts he testified on. This Court sees no reason in ruling otherwise.
 People v Conrado Laog y Ramin

- It must be underscored that the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim’s testimony and not the
findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for
rape; the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.
- Thus we have ruled that a medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative
in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private
complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible.
 People if the Philippines v Julieto Sanchez

- Even if there had been no lacerations of the hymen, it does not necessarily mean that there was no rape. A broken
hymen is not an essential element of rape. The merest introduction of the male organ into the labia of pudendum is
sufficient. The mere penetration of the penis by the entry thereof into the labis majora of the female organ, even without
rupture of the hymen, suffices to warrant a conviction of rape.
- With regards to the degree of alibi of the accused, the court ruled that alibi is inherently a weak defense because it is to
fabricate and difficult to disprove it. For alibi to be believed, credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for the
accused to be at the scene of the crime is indispensable
- What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible.
 Rolito Rabanal v People and CA

- Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth and rates highly in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.
It enjoys a far more superior probative weight than corroborative testimonies.
- In the instant case, the autopsy report negates the lone witness’s account of the participation of petitioner in the
stabbing of the victim. The inconsistency between the positive testimony of Javier and the physical evidence,
particularly the autopsy report, further diminishes the credibility of the lone eyewitness.
- The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we cannot sustain
petitioner’s conviction.
 PP v Renandang Mamaruncas et., Al
- Credibility of witnesses not affected by minor inconsistencies.

- The perceived inconsistency on whether Gepayo knows Ampuan even before the incident is inconsequential as to
discredit the credibility of Gepayo’s testimony. The inconsistency pointed out by appellants pertains only to collateral or
trivial matters and has no substantial effect on the nature of the offense. In fact, it even signifies that the witness was
neither coached nor was lying on the witness stand.
- What matters is that there is no inconsistency in Gepayo’s complete and vivid narration as far as the principal
occurrence and the positive identification of Ampuan as one of the principal assailants are concerned
Padayon lang. :D
- The Court has held that although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do
not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the
assailant."
- Discrepancies between a sworn statement and testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused.
Such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit the witness since ex parte affidavits are often incomplete. They do not
purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant. Thus, our rulings
generally consider sworn statements taken out of court to be inferior to in court testimony
- The evidence at hand, moreover, clearly points out that it was the police officers who supplied the names of the
suspects in Gepayo’s affidavit
a. Wintesses; their qualifications
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can
perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law,
shall not be ground for disqualification.
 People v Pardua
- As long as a person is qualified to become a witness, he may be presented as one regardless of whether
his name was included in the information or not.
- It is well settled that the findings of a trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given
the clear advantage of a trial judge over an appellate magistrate in the appreciation of testimonial
evidence. It is well-entrenched that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses
and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their
demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. These are the most significant factors in
evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing the truth. In the absence of any showing that the
trial court's calibration of credibility was flawed, we are bound by its assessment.
- Mere relationship of Orlando and Juanito to the victim does not automatically impair their credibility as to
render their testimonies less worthy of credence where no improper motive may be ascribed to them for
testifying. In fact, a witness' relationship to a victim, far from rendering his testimony biased, would even
render it more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to
accuse somebody other than the real culprit.
 People v Hayag
- The general rule is that the evidence of a deaf mute who can be communicated with the signs may
be taken by an interpreter who understands such.
- Deaf mute is not incompetent as witness. All persons who can perceive and perceiving can make
known their perception to others may be witness. Deaf mutes are competent witnesses where they:
 Can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath

 Can comprehend the facts they are going to testify on.
 Can communicate their ideas through a qualied interpreter
- The case for the prosecution was irreparably impaired by the inconsistencies committed by the
complainant’s mother, Mrs. Ranga. She first swore that according to her interpretation of Ezperanza’s
language, five rapes were admitted on different dates.
- Hence, such inconsistencies in interpretation and testimonies acquitted Hayag.
 People v Sasota
- Aside from the inherent weakness of alibi as a defense, the appellants were clearly identified by no less
than four witnesses as the persons who took away the victim from his home and liquidated him.
- In a case of murder or homicide, it is not necessary to recover the body or to show where it can be found.
There are cases like death at sea, where the finding or recovery of the body is impossible. It is enough that
the death and the criminal agency causing it be proven. There are even cases where said death and the
intervention of the criminal agency that caused it may be presumed or established by circumstantial
evidence.
- To establish the corpus delicti by circumstantial evidence, facts are admissible, to show the impossibility of
rescue, as at sea; to show the existence and extent of wounds, and deceased’s condition of health; and
to show that the wound was sufficient to cause death, and that the party was reported dead. Death is
sufficiently shown by the testimony of a witness that he saw the flash and heard the report, and that the
deceased fell to the ground, declaring he was shot, and that accused did the shooting."
 People v Cabanilla
- The sweetheart defense is much abused defense that rashly decides the intelligence of the Court. Being
an affirmative defense, the invocation of a love affair must be supported by convincing proof. In case,
Padayon lang. :D
apart form his self- serving asserions, Cabanilla offered no sufficient and ocnvincing evidence to
substantiate his claim that they were lovers and to overcome AAA's spontaneous and credible testimony
buttressed by the medico legal findings.
- Bilag's lack of knowledge of Englisd is not an excuse for he could have easily relayed such important piece
of information in Ilocano. (Bilag's testimony was he saw AAA and Cabanilla copulated with each other in
the middle of the rice fileds and thereafter went on their way walking side-by-side and laughing)
- The Court found the story of Cabanillas witnesses wanting of convincing and credible corroboration,
b. Disqualification of Witness by reason of Mental Incapacity
Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. — The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of
intelligently making known their perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are
examined and of relating them truthfully.
 People v Golimlim
- That Evelyn is a mental retardate does not disqualify her as a witness nor render her testimony bereft of
truth. Sections 20 and 21 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the qualifications and
disqualifications of a witness, respectively.
- the Court held that a mental retardate or a feebleminded person is not, per se, disqualified from being a
witness, her mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. It is now universally accepted that
intellectual weakness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid objection to the competency of a
witness so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified
to. If his or her testimony is coherent, the same is admissible in court.
- A mental retardation or a feebleminded person is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness, her mental
condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual weakness,
no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as the
latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to.
 People v Ben Rubio

- When it comes to credibility, the trial courts assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and
binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence.[14] The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses deportment
and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate
testimonial evidence properly
- In deciding rape cases, the court are guided by these three well-entrenched principles:
 (a) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to
disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and (c) the evidence of the
prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness
of the evidence for the defense.
- As a result of these guiding principles, the credibility of the victim becomes the single most
important issue
- Furthermore, it bears stressing that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for youth
and immaturity are badges of truth. The sole testimony of a rape victim, if credible, suffices to convict. The
complainant’s testimony if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things may suffice to support a conviction of rape.
- This Court finds that the testimony of AAA is straightforward and convincing with no inconsistency with
regard to the material elements of the crime of rape.
-
 The qualifications and disqualifications of the witnesses are determined as of the time said witnesses are produced for
examination in the court or the taking of their depositions.
 A witness who has interest in the subject of the litigation does not disqualify him from testifying except those covered under the
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification.
 A defendant who was declared in default does not disqualify him from testifying for his non-defaulting co-defendant although he
has interest in the outcome of the case.
 Unless otherwise provided under the law, a person convicted of a crime is not disqualified but he must answer to the fact of a
previous final conviction as taken into consideration in affecting his credibility, except in cases of falsification of document, perjury
or false testimony.
 The phrase “unsound mind” which affects the competency of the witness includes any mental aberration, whether organic or
functional, or induced by drugs or hypnosis.
Padayon lang. :D
 Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time the fact to be testified to occurred affects only his credibility. As long as the witness
can convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficient intelligent answers to questions, she is competent witness even if she is
feeble-minded or schizophrenic.
 Deaf-mute are competent witnesses when they can understand and appreciate the sanctity of oath, can comprehend the facts
they are going to testify and can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter.
 A child witness, to be competent, the following must ne satisfied:
a. At the time the fact to be testified to occurred such that he could receive correct impressions;
b. Comprehend the obligation of an oath; and
c. Relate those facts truly at the time he is offered as a witness.
 Unless he child’s testimony is punctured with serious inconsistencies as to lead one to believe that he is coached, if he perceive
and make known his perception, he is considered a competent witness. Once it is established that they truly understand the
nature and character of an oath, full faith and credit should be given to their testimony.
 A child who witnessed a crime when he was 7 years old and testified when he is 15 years old is considered as a competent
witness.
c. Disqualification by reason of Marriage
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.
 People v Roberto Pansensoy

- We reiterate the time tested doctrine that a trial courts assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled
to great weight even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence.[14] The alleged flaws in the testimony of Analie do not serve to
impair her credibility or diminish the truthfulness of her remarks as to who initiated the aggression and fired
the shot.
- As the legitimate wife of appellant, Analies testimony would have been disregarded had appellant timely
objected to her competency to testify under the marital disqualification rule. 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.[19] 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.[21] In this case, the incompetency was waived by appellants failure to make a timely objection to
the admission of Analies testimony.
- Rogelio was presented to corroborate Analies testimony, but he gave a rather confusing account of what
he allegedly saw or heard on the night of the shooting. During his direct examination, he claimed that he
heard a gunshot, but on cross-examination he claimed that he opened the door of his house and actually
saw appellant shoot Hilario. Thus, it is well-settled that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if credible and
positive, is sufficient to convict an accused.[22] On the other hand, a plea of self-defense cannot be
justifiably appreciated, if it is not only uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also
extremely doubtful by itself[23] as in the instant case.
-
 Lezama v Rodriguez
- Because of the unexpensive wording of the rule which provides merely that the wife cannot be examined
"for or against her husband without his consent," it is further argued that "when husband and wife are
parties to an action, there is no reason why either may not be examined as a witness for or against himself
or herself alone," and his or her testimony could operate only against himself or herself.
- Even if such view were generally acceptable as an exception to the rule, or even as a separate doctrine,
it would be inapplicable in this case where the main charge is collusive fraud between the spouses and a
third person, and the evident purpose of examination of the wife is to prove that charge
- It was argued that she may be compelled to testify but her testimony would be receivable only against
her. It is even suggested that "each may testify in his or her own behalf, although the testimony may inure
to the benefit of the other spouse, or against his or her own interest, although the testimony may also
militate against the other spouse." On the other hand, it is insisted that compelling Paquita Lezama to
testify will transgress section 20(b) of Rule 130, especially if her testimony will support the plaintiff's charge.
- What was alleged was fraudulent conspiracy, the wife is called upon to testify as an adverse party witness
on the bases of her participation in the alleged fraudulent scheme (as secretary, who made the entry in
the books of the corporation.
- She will be asked to testify on what actually transpired during the meeting. Whether her testimony will turn
out to be adverse or beneficial to her own interest, the inevitable result would be to pit her against her
husband. The interests of the 2 are necessarily interrelated. A testimony against her own interest would
show the existence of collusive fraud and she may unwittingly testify against the interests of her husband.
Padayon lang. :D
- as an exception to the rule (based on the wording of the rule) was that there was no reason why either of
them may not be examined as a witness for or against himself or herself alone. Even if this was acceptable,
it would be inapplicable in this case where the main charge is collusive fraud between the spouses and a
third person, and the evident purpose of examination was to prove the charge.
- Finally it was alleged that to prevent the wife from testifying would encourage alliance of husband and wife
as an instrument of fraud (best way of preventing discovery since co-conspirator is made immune to the
most convenient mode of discovery available to the opposite party). Thus, Sec. 6 of rule 132 is a mere
concession, that rule of discovery should not be expanded in meaning or scope as to allow examination
of one's spouse in a situation where this natural repugnance obtains.
 Alvarez v 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.
- the marital disqualification rule has its own exceptions, both in civil actions between the spouses and in
criminal cases for offenses committed by one against the other. Where the marital and domestic relations
are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be
disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails.
- the offense of arson attributed to petitioner, directly impairs the conjugal relation between him and his wife
Esperanza. His act, as embodied in the Information for arson filed against him, eradicates all the major
aspects of marital life such as trust, confidence, respect and love by which virtues the conjugal relationship
survives and flourishes.
 MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE or SPOUSAL IMMUNITY, for this to be applied, it is necessary that the marriage is valid and existing
at the time of offer of testimony, and that the other spouse is a party to the action, the objections to the competency can be
waived. Hence, where the accused husband in his testimony imputed the commission of the crime to his wife, is deemed to have
waived his objection to the latter’s testimony in rebuttal.
 In prosecution of the husband for rape of their daughter, the wife is not disqualified to testify for the prosecution since the crime is
considered having been committed against the wife and conjugal harmony sought to be protected by this rule no longer exist.
Now, it is also applied to crimes committed against the direct ascendants and descendants of the other.
 EXCEPTION to the Marital Disqualification rule is where the wife was a complainant against her husband for falsification of her
signature in the deed involving their conjugal property.
 Where a wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her and her husband with collusive fraud, she cannot be called as an adverse
party witness under Section 10 of Rule 132, as this will violate the marital disqualification rule.
 In Alvares vs. Ramirez, the wife, without the consent of the husband, testified against him in prosecution for arson committed by
him on the property of his sister-in-law or sister of the wife. The court noted that Section 22 of Rule 130 is limited to crimes
committed against the other or the latter’s direct ascendant or descendant.
o The rationale for this marital disqualification is the identity of the interests between spouses, the consequent danger of
perjury, the legal policy on guarding marital confidence and preventing domestic disunion. However, where marital and
domestic relations are so strained, the rule does no longer apply.
o When the offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to
the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in criminal prosecution for the crime committed by
one against the other.
d. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party
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.
 Known as DEAD MAN STATUTE or SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION (DMS). This is a partial disqualification as the witness is not
completely disqualified but is prohibited to testify matters specified. This applies to civil case or special proceeding over the estate
of the deceased.
 For DMS to be applied:
a. The witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff, or the assignor of said party, or a person in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted;
 EXCEPTIONS: (DMS cannot be applied)
 The plaintiff is not a real party in interest;
 There is a counterclaim interposed by defendant as plaintiff
b. The case is AGAINST the executor or administrator or other representative of a person deceased or of unsound mind;
 Defendant is sued and defends in such representative capacity.
 Even if the property has already been judicially adjudicated to the heirs, it is still protected by this rule against
such prohibited testimony as they are considered as representative of the deceased.
 The rule still applies regardless of whether the deceased died before or after the suit against him is filed,
provided he is already dead at the time the testimony is sought to be given.
Padayon lang. :D
 The protection extends to the heirs of the deceased defendant who are substituted under Section 16 or Rule 3,
and the guardians of persons of unsound mind in representative capacity.
c. Case is upon a claim or demand against the ESTATE of such person who is deceased or of unsound mind; and
 The rule does not apply where it is the administrator who brings an action to recover property allegedly
belonging to the estate, or the action is by the heirs of a deceased plaintiff who were substituted for the latter.
d. The testimony to be given is on the matter of fact occurring BEFORE the death of such deceased person or before such
person became of unsound mind.
 It includes any matter of fact which bears a transaction or communication between the witness and the
decedent, even though without the presence or participation of the latter.
 Negative testimony, a testimony that the fact did not occur during the lifetime of the deceased, are not
covered by prohibition.
 The testimony on the present possession by witness of a written instrument signed by the deceased is also not
covered by the prohibition.
 In land registration cases instituted by deceased representative, prohibition does not apply, as the oppositors
are considered defendants and may testify against the petitioner.
 This prohibition does not also apply to cadastral cases since there is no defendant or plaintiff.
 The purpose of this rule is to discourage perjury and protect the estate from fictitious claims, the prohibition does not apply, even if
all four requisites are present, where the testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established under a written
document, or is intended to prove a fraudulent transaction of the deceased, provided that such fraud is established by evidence
aluinde.
 The disqualification under this rule is waived if the defendant:
a. does not timely object to the admission of such evidence;
b. testifies on the prohibited matters; or
c. cross examine thereof.
 Sunga-Chan v. Chua
- The “Dead Man’s Statute” provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from
testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue
advantage of giving his own contradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.
- Lilibeth filed a compulsory counterclaim against Lamberto in their answer before the RTC, and with
the filing of their counterclaim, Lilibeth herself effectively removed this case from the ambit of the
“Dead Man’s Statute”.
- Well entrenched is the rule that when it is the executor or administrator or representatives of the estate
that sets up the counterclaim, Lamberto, may testify to occurrences before the death of the
deceased to defeat the counterclaim. Moreover, as defendant in the counterclaim, Lamberto is not
disqualified from testifying as to matters of fact occurring before the death of the deceased, said
action not having been bought against but by the estate or representatives of the deceased.
- The testimony of Josephine is not covered by the “Dead Man’s Statute” for the simple reason that she
is not “a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted”.
- Lilibeth’s reliance alone on the “Dead Man’s Statue” to defeat Lamberto’s claim cannot prevail over
the factual findings that a partnership was established between Lamberto and Jacinto. Based not
only on the testimonial evidence, but the documentary evidence as well, they considered the
evidence for Lamberto as sufficient to prove the formation of a partnership, albeit an informal one.
 Tongco vs Vianzon
- The Code of Civil Procedure in section 383 (7) provides that "Parties or assignors of parties to an
action or proceeding, or persons in whose behalf an action or proceeding is prosecuted against
an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person . . . upon claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased person . . ., cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death and purpose of this stature is to guard against the temptation to give
false testimony in regard to the transaction in question on the part of the surviving party. The law
designed to aid in arriving at the truth and was not designed to suppress the truth.
- The law does not apply and a witness is competent to testify when the actions were not brought
"against" the estate, nor were they brought upon claims "against" the estate. The authorities ate
cited and distinguished.
 Ong-Chua vs. Edward Carr

- “It is well settled that the condition upon which a deed is delivered in escrow may be proved by
parol evidence and that ordinarily the statute of frauds has no application to such an
agreement, nor is it affected by the rule of evidence, which prohibits a written contract from
being contradicted or varied by parol evidence”
- It is also well established that an escrow delivered without authority or obtained fraudulently
passes no title
- section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars parties to an action or proceeding against
an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person upon a claim ore
Padayon lang. :D
demand against the estate of such deceased person from testifying as to any matter of fact
occuring before the death of such deceased person.
- In this case a number of credible witnesses testified to facts which conclusively showed that Carr's
conduct was tainted with fraud. The plaintiff did not take the witness stand until after the
existence of fraud on the part of Carr and been established beyond a doubt and not by a mere
preponderance of evidence. In these circumstances, we cannot hold that the trial court erred in
not excluding the plaintiff's testimony.
e. Disqualification by reason of Privileged communication
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged 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.
 Emma K Lee v CA
- The privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to “direct” ascendants and descendants, a family tie
connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her stepmother
NOTES FROM THE BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:
 Objections under this rule can be invoked only the persons protected thereunder and may be waived by the same person either
expressly or impliedly.
a. Husband and Wife
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;
 Requisites:
1. There was a VALID marital relation;
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to confidential communication between the spouses
DURING marriage; and
3. The spouse against whom such evidence is being offered has NOT GIVEN his or her CONSENT
 Privilege cannot be claimed with respect to communications made prior to the marriage of the
spouses.
 It cannot also be invoked where it was not intended to be kept in confidence by the spouse who
received the same (like dying declaration of husband to his wife as to who is the assailant) which
communication is intended to be reported to the authorities.
 The privilege is lost if the communication is overheard or comes into the hands of a third party, such 3 rd
party cannot testify thereon.
 It is necessary however that there be no collusion with voluntary disclosure by either spouse to 3rd
person, otherwise the latter be considered as agent of the spouse and would be thereby covered by
the prohibition.
Padayon lang. :D
MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION (Sec. 22, Rule 130) MARITAL PRIVILEGE (Sec. 25, par. a, Rule 130)
Can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a Can be invoked whether or not a spouse is a
party to the action party to a case
Applies only if the marriage is existing at the time Can be claimed even after the marriage has
the testimony is offered been dissolved
Constitutes a total prohibition against testimony Applies only to the confidential communication
for or against the spouse of the witness between spouses
 Even if the communication between spouses is not confidential, hence not privileged, the spouse who is a party to the action can
prevent the other spouse from testifying against him under the marital disqualification rule.
b. Attorney and Client
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;
 Gregorio R. Castillo v SandigangBayan and the RP
- The attorney-client privileged communication does not apply if the confidence received by an attorney is
for the purpose of advancing a criminal or fraudulent purpose.
- the rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client relationship is not a valid ground to dismiss a complaint
against a party. It is merely a ground for disqualification of a witness (Section 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
and may only be invoked at the appropriate time, such as, when a lawyer is under compulsion to answer
as witness, as when, having taken the witness stand, he is questioned on such confidential communication
or advice, or is being otherwise judicially coerced to produce, through subpoena duces tecum to
otherwise, letters or other documents containing the same privileged matter. What is clear from the
complaint is that defendant is being sued as principal defendant for being in conspiracy with the other
defendants in the commission of the acts complained of.
 Regala v Sandigangbayan
- The GENERAL RULE in our jurisdiction (as well as in the US) is that a lawyer may NOT invoke the privilege
and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.
- EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE: (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.
- Other situations which could qualify as exceptions to the general rule: (a) Content of any client
communication to a lawyer relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client
seeks legal assistance. (b) Where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously
disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential, since such revelation would
otherwise result in disclosure of 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. In the case at bar, the instant case falls under at least two exceptions to
the general rule. (KP: Exception 1 & 3 above)
 People v Sandigangbayan
- It is well settled that in order that a communication between a lawyer and a client may be privileged, it
must be for lawful purposes. Every communication between an attorney and client for criminal purposes is
conspiracy or an attempt at a conspiracy which is not only unlawful to divulge but must promptly be
disclosed.
- There is no privileged communication rule to talk about. The privileg e applies only if the
information was relayed by the client to the lawyer respecting a past crime. There reconing point is when
the communication was given, not when the lawyer was made to testify
- The privilege is not concerned to verbal or written communications made by the client to his attorney
but extends as well to information communicated by other means including physical acts.
- The acts and words of the parties, therefore, during the period when the documents were being falsified
were necessarily confidential since Paredes would not have i nvi ted Sansaet to hi s
h o u s e a n d a l l o w e d h i m t o w i t n e s s t h e s a m e e x c e p t u n d e r conditions of secrecy and confidence.
 Upjohn v US
Padayon lang. :D
- Work product prepared by lower and middle managers in preparation of litigation is protected by the attorney-client
privilege, even in instances of tax summonses.
- There is no exception for tax summonses, the work is still protected. Further, the work was performed under
the general counsel’s direction for the purpose of potential litigation.
 Requisites:
a. There is an attorney-client relationship;
b. Privilege is invoked with respect to the confidential communication between then in the course or professional
employment; and
c. The client has not given his consent to the attorney’s testimony (extends to attorney’s secretary, clerk or stenographer
sought to be examined, both lawyer and client did not give consent)
 For the privilege to be applied, the attorney must have been consulted in his professional capacity, even if no fee has been paid
therefor.
 The preliminary communications made for the purpose of creating an attorney-client relationship are within the privilege. Thus, if
the communication were not made for such purpose it is nor covered in the privilege.
 The communications included in the privilege include verbal statements and documents or papers entrusted to the attorney, and
of facts learned by the attorney through the act or agency of his client.
 The privilege does not apply to communications:
a. intended to be made in public;
b. intended be communicated to others;
c. intended for unlawful purpose;
d. received from third persons acting in behalf or ad agents of client; or
e. made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the attorney-client relationship.
 The period to be considered foe the application of the privilege is that date when the privilege communication was made by the
client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in
the future.
 A crime committee din the past or already committed by the offender and attorney is consulted is part of the
privilege.
 Those having to do with the client’s contemplated criminal act or furtherance thereof are not covered by the
privilege.
c. Physician and Patient
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;
 Lim v Ca
- This rule on the physician-patient privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe full and
confidential disclosure by the patient to the physician 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. It rests in public policy and is for
the general interest of the community.
- In the first place, Dr. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly held
by the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her examination,
interview and treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in the
hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever information or findings the
doctor obtained while attending to the patient.
- her expert opinion excluded whatever information or knowledge she had about the
petitioner which was acquired by reason of the physician-patient relationship existing
between them. As an expert witness, her testimony before the trial court cannot then be
excluded. Also, Dr. Acampado never disclosed any information obtained from the petitioner
regarding the latter’s ailment and the treatment recommended therefore.
 Krohn v CA
- In failing to object to the testimony on the ground that it was hearsay, counsel waived his right to make
such objection and, consequently, the evidence offered may be admitted.
- Thus, in Lim v. Court of Appeals clearly lays down the requisites in order that the privilege may be
successfully invoked: (a) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; (b) the person against whom the
privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; (c) such person
acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his professional capacity; (d) the
information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and, (e) the information was
confidential and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation(formerly character) of the patient.
Padayon lang. :D
- In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized to
practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the patient's husband who wishes to testify on a
document executed by medical practitioners. Plainly and clearly, this does not fall within the claimed
prohibition. Neither can his testimony be considered a circumvention of the prohibition because his
testimony cannot have the force and effect of the testimony of the physician who examined the
patient and executed the report.
 Chan v Chan
- “The physician-patient privileged communication rule essentially means that a physician who gets
information while professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil case be examined without the
patient’s consent as to any facts which would blacken the latter’s reputation.”
- SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.— The following persons cannot testify as
to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
 (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 that capacity, and which would
blacken the reputation of the patient
- This rule is intended to encourage the patient to open up to the physician, relate to him the history of
his ailment, and give him access to his body, enabling the physician to make a correct diagnosis of
that ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any fear that a physician could be compelled in the
future to come to court and narrate all that had transpired between him and the patient might
prompt the latter to clam up, thus putting his own health at great risk.
 Requisites:
a. The physician is AUTHORIZED to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
b. Information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in his professional capacity for purpose of
treating and curing the patient;
c. The information or advice or treatment, if revealed would blacken the reputation of the patient; and
d. Privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the patient is a party or not.
 The privilege extends to all forms of communication, advise or treatment and includes information acquired by the physician from
his professional observations and examination of the patient.
 It does not apply where:
a. Communication was not given in confidence;
b. Communication is irrelevant to the professional employment;
c. Communication was made for unlawful purpose, as when in is intended for the commission or concealment of a crime;
d. Intended to be made in public; or
 Under RULE 28 of ROC, the results of the physical and mental examination of a person, when ordered by the
court, are intended to be made in public, hence they can be divulged I that proceeding and cannot be
objected to on the ground of privilege.
 Results of autopsies or postmortem examinations are intended to be divulged in court, aside from the fact that
the doctor’s services are not for purpose of medical treatment.
e. There was waiver of the privilege either by provisions of the contract or law.
 Under Section 4 of Rule 28 of the ROC, if the party examined obtains a report on said examination or takes the
deposition of the examiner, he thereby waives any privilege regarding any other examination of said physical
or mental condition conducted or to be conducted on him by any other physician.
 Waiver of privilege by contract may be found in the life insurance policies.
d. Priest and Penitent
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.
 The disqualification requires:
a. The communication was made pursuant to a religious duty;
b. Must be confidential in character (under the seal of confession)
e. Public officers
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.
 The requisites are:
a. Communication was made to the public officer in official confidence; and
b. Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of such communication (like State secrets)
1. Executive Privilege
 Neri v Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations
- The communications are covered by executive privilege

- The revocation of EO 464 (advised executive officials and employees to follow and
abide by the Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, including, among others, the
case of Senate v. Ermita when they are invited to legislative inquiries in aid of
legislation.), does not in any way diminish the concept of executive privilege. This is
Padayon lang. :D
because this concept has Constitutional underpinnings.

- The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of
inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the Constitution to the President, such
as the area of military and foreign relations. Under our Constitution, the President is the
repository of the commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic powers.
Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers, the information relating to these
powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others.
- Several jurisprudence cited provide the elements of presidential communications

privilege:
 1) The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-
delegable presidential power.
 2) The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a
close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an
advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.
 3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that
may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information
sought “likely contains important evidence” and by the unavailability of the
information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
- In the case at bar, Executive Secretary Ermita premised his claim of executive privilege
on the ground that the communications elicited by the three (3) questions “fall under
conversation and correspondence between the President and public officials”
necessary in “her executive and policy decision-making process” and, that “the
information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic
relations with the People’s Republic of China.” Simply put, the bases are presidential
communications privilege and executive privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or
foreign relations.
- The right to public information, like any other right, is subject to limitation. Section 7 of
Article III provides:
 The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
 Sereno v Committee on Tariff and Related Matters

- But the people’s right to information is not absolute. It is limited to matters of public
concern, and is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
- Two requisites must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ
of mandamus. Firstly, the information sought must be in relation to matters of public
concern or public interest. And, secondly, it must not be exempt by law from the
operation of the constitutional guarantee.
- Court has already declared that the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to
information does not cover national security matters and intelligence information,
trade secrets and banking transactions and criminal matters. Equally excluded from
coverage of the constitutional guarantee are diplomatic correspondence, closed-
door Cabinet meeting and executive sessions of either house of Congress, matters
acknowledged as "privileged information under the separation of powers," which
include "Presidential conversations, correspondences, or discussions during closed-
door Cabinet meetings."
- Thus, executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of

information, not to categories of persons. What should determine whether or not
information was within the ambit of the exception from the people’s right to access to
information was not the composition of the body, but the nature of the information
sought to be accessed.
- The respondents are correct. It is always necessary, given the highly important and
complex powers to fix tariff rates vested in the President, that the recommendations
submitted for the President’s consideration be well-thought out and well- deliberated.
Padayon lang. :D
- CTRM was different from the Cabinet inasmuch as two of its members, namely, the
Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Chairman of the Tariff Commission,
were not members of the President’s Cabinet; and that the deliberations of the CTRM as
a body merely akin to the Cabinet could not be given the privilege and confidentiality
not expressly provided for by law or jurisprudence, most especially considering that only
by legislative enactment could the constitutional guarantee to the right to information
be restricted.
- the committee were not part of the President’s Cabinet was of no moment. What
should determine whether or not information was within the ambit of the exception
from the people’s right to access to information was not the composition of the body,
but the nature of the information sought to be accessed. A different holding would
only result to the unwanted situation wherein any concerned citizen, like the petitioner,
invoking the right to information on a matter of public concern and the State's policy
of full public disclosure, could demand information from any government agency
under all conditions whenever he felt aggrieved by the decision or recommendation
of the latter.
- In case of conflict, there is a need to strike a balance between the right of the
people and the interest of the Government to be protected. Here, the need to
ensure the protection of the privilege of non-disclosure is necessary to allow the
free exchange of ideas among Government officials as well as to guarantee the
well-considered recommendation free from interference of the inquisitive public
 DFA v BCA International

- A mere general allegation that the Court of Appeals has committed serious and
substantial error or that it has acted with grave abuse of discretion resulting in substantial
prejudice to the petitioner without indicating with specificity the nature of such error or
abuse of discretion and the serious prejudice suffered by the petitioner on account
thereof, shall constitute sufficient ground for the Supreme Court to dismiss outright the
petition.
2. Newsman’s Privilege (Editorial Privilege-RA No. 53)

- As amended by RA 1477, the publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any
newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to
reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which
was related in confidence to him, UNLESS the court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.
- RULE 19.37. Filing of Petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal
by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals issued
pursuant to these Special ADR Rules may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition
for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law, which must be
distinctly set forth.
- There have been instances when we overlooked the rule on hierarchy of courts and
took cognizance of a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the
Regional Trial Court when it granted interim relief to a party and issued an Order
assailed by the petitioner, considering the transcendental importance of the issue
involved therein[35] or to better serve the ends of justice when the case is
determined on the merits rather on technicality
- However, in this case, the appeal by certiorari is not from a final Order of the Court
of Appeals or the Regional Trial Court, but from an interlocutory order of the Arbitral
Tribunal; hence, the petition must be dismissed.
3. Police Informers Privilege

4. Public Interest
 Banco Filipino v Monetary Board
- The Monetary Board may order the cessation of operations of a bank in the
Philippine and place it under receivership upon a finding of insolvency or
when its continuance in business would involve probable loss its depositors
or creditors. If the Monetary Board shall determine and confirm within 60
days that the bank is insolvent or can no longer resume business with safety
to its depositors, creditors and the general public, it shall, if public interest
will be served, order its liquidation.
- Under Section 29 of the Central Bank Act, the following are the mandatory
requirements to be complied with before a bank found to be insolvent is
ordered closed and forbidden to do business in the Philippines:
 (1)an examination shall be conducted by the head of the
appropriate supervising or examining department or his examiners
or agents into the condition of the bank; (
Padayon lang. :D
 2) it shall be disclosed in the examination that the condition of the

bank is one of insolvency, or that its continuance in business would
involve probable loss to its depositors or creditors;
 (3) the department head concerned shall inform the Monetary
Board in writing, of the facts; and (4) the Monetary Board shall find
the statements of the department head to be true.
 The examination contemplated in Sec. 29 of the CB Act as a
mandatory requirement was not completely and fully complied
with. The closure and receivership of Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, which was ordered by the Monetary Board on is
null and void.
-
 Where no public interest would be prejudiced, this rule does not apply.
 Under the Labor Code (PD 442), as amended, provides that all information and statements made at the conciliation proceedings
shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the NLRC, and conciliators and similar officials
shall not testify in any court or body regarding the matter taken up in the conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
TESTIMONIAL PREVILEGE
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.
 This is referred to as filial privilege in which it is not correctly as a rule of disqualification, as the descendant was not incompetent or
disqualified to testify against his ascendant but was actually a privilege not to testify.
 Under the NCC the descendants may be compelled to testify against his parents or grandparents if such testimony is
indispensable in the prosecution of a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other. (215)
a. Parental and Filial Privilege

 Emma K Lee v CA
- The privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to “direct”
ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A
stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her stepmother
 PREVILEGE v SELF-INCRIMINATION
 IMMUNITY STATUTES
 USE IMMUNITY
 CRIME IMMUNITY
 TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY
1. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

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.
 ADMISSION- is any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavourable to the conclusion fir which he contends
or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.
 Admission vs. Confession
Admission Confession
Is a statement of fact which does not involve an Is a statement of fact which involve an acknowledgement of
acknowledgement of guilt or liability guilt or liability
May be express or tacit Must be express
May be made by 3rd persons and, in certain cases, are Can be made only by the party himself and in some instance,
admissible against a party are admissible against his co-accused.
 In order for admission to be admissible the following must be concur:
a. Involve matters of fact and not of law
b. Be categorized and definite
c. Be knowingly and voluntarily made
Padayon lang. :D
d. Be adverse to the admitter’s interest, otherwise it would be self-serving

 Admissions may be verbal or written, express or tacit, or judicial or extra-judicial.
 A judicial admission is made in connection to a judicial proceeding whole extra-judicial admission is any other admission.
 A testimony by the accused in a case of parricide alleging that he was married to the victim is and admission against his penal
interest and can sustain his conviction eve in the absence of independent evidence to prove such marriage.
 Admission vs. Declaration
Admission Declaration
Need not be made against the proprietary or pecuniary Made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the party
interest of the party, although it will greatly enhance its
probative value.
Is made by the party himself and is a primary evidence and Made by a person who is either deceased or unable to testify
competent though he be present in court and ready to testify
Can be made any time Made ante litem motam
 A self-serving declaration is one which has been made extra judicially by the party to favour his interest and is NOT admissible as
evidence.
 Self-serving testimonies refers to the extrajudicial statements if a party which is being urged for admission in court.
 Where the statement was not made in anticipation of a future litigation, the same cannot be considered self-serving
 Flight form justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of guilt.
 Evidence of attempts to suppress evidence by means of destruction of documentary evidence or eloigment of witness are
admissible.
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.
 As a rule an offeror of compromise in civil cases is not a tacit admission of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of the
offeror, unless such offer amounts to an admission of liability, the offered compromise being directed only to the amount paid.
 In criminal cases, an offer of compromise is an implied admission of guilt.
 In violation of the internal revenue laws, offers of compromise are not admissible in evidence as the law provides that the
payment of any internal revenue tax may be compromised, and all criminal violations may be compromised except those
already filed in court and those involving fraud.
 Rape cases can be compromised by and offer to marry the victim, and in effect extinguishes the criminal liability
 An offer to compromise for a monetary consideration in rape cases is an implied admission of guilt.
 An offer of marriage during investigation is also an admission of guilt
 Criminal cases involving criminal negligence are allowed to be compromised and such offer of settlements is not an implied
admission of guilt.
 An offer to pay or the actual payment of the medical, hospital and other expenses by reason of the victims injury is not admissible
to prove civil or criminal 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.
NOTES BASED ON BOOKS AND DISCUSSION:
 This section is refers to the doctring of res inter alios acta rule
 Exceptions to this rule are as follows:
1. A 3rd person is a partner, agent, joint owner, joint debtor or has joint interest with the
party(SEC 29)
2. A co-conspirator (SEC 30)
3. Privy of a party (SEC 31)
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.
NOTES BASE ON BOOK AND DISCUSSION:
 For this exception to apply the following must be present:

1. That the partnership, agency of joint interest is established by evidence other than the acts
or declaration
2. That the act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership, agency or declaration;
Padayon lang. :D
3. Such act or declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership,
agency or joint interest
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. (27)
 This rule applies to extrajudicial acts or statements and not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial where the party
adversely affected thereby has the opportunity to cross examine the declarant
 Admission by a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator if:
a. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde
b. The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy
c. The admission relates to the conspiracy itself
These however are not required in admissions during trial for the co-accused can cross examine the declarant.
 EJC made by a conspirator after the conspiracy had terminated and even before trial are no admissible against the conspirator
except:
a. Made in the presence of the latter who expressly or impliedly agreed
b. The facts in the said admissions are confirmed in the individual EJC made by the co-conspirator after apprehension
c. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness
d. Circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the latter’s participation in the offense
 In order for EJ statements of a co-accused may be taken into consideration, it is necessary that the statements are made by
several accused, the same are in all material respects identical, and there could have been no collusion among said co-accused
in making such statements
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.
 To be admissible the following requisites must concur:

a. There must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant
b. The admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor-in-interest, while holding the title to the property
c. The admission in in relation to the said property
 The privity in estate may have arisen by succession, by acts mortis causa or by acts inter vivos
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.
 To be admissible the following requisites must concur:

a. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person
b. He must have had the opportunity to deny it
c. He must have understood the statement
d. He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have done so if the statement was not true
e. The facts were within his knowledge
f. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the issue
 This rule applies where a person was surprised in the act or even if he is already in the custody of the police
 The rule does not apply if the statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigation.
 Not applicable where the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent, as where he was advised to remain silent by his counsel
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.
 Confession is a categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, without any exculpatory
statement or explanation.
 There can also be confession of judgement in civil case where the party expressly admits his liability
 Confession may be made in oral or in writing, and if in writing, it need not be under oath.
 EJC made and admitted prior to 1973 constitution are not rendered inadmissible
 A Confession may be made judicial or extrajudicial
 Judicial confession is one made before a court in which the case is pending
 Extrajudicial confession is one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti.
 Confession to be admissible, it is necessary that:
a. It involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt
Padayon lang. :D
b. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense

c. Must have been voluntarily given
d. There must be no violation of the right against sefl-incirmination
 Confessions are presumed to be voluntary and the burden in on the defence to prove that it was involuntary for having obtained
by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or lenience
 Some circumstances thaw was held to be indications of the voluntariness of confession:
a. The confession contains details which the police could not supply
b. The confession contains details which could have been known only to the accused
c. The confession contains statements which are exculpatory in nature
d. The confession contains corrections made by the accused in his handwriting or with his initials and which corrected facts
are best known to the accused
e. The accused is sufficiently educated and aware of the consequences of his act
f. It was made in the presence of impartial witnesses with the accused acting normally on that occasion
g. There is lack of motive on the part of the investigators to extract a confession, with improbabilities and inconsistencies in
the attempt if the accused to repudiate his confession
h. The accused questioned the voluntariness of the confession only for the first time at the trial of the case
i. The contents of the confession were affirmed by the accused in his voluntary participation in the re-enactment of the
crime, as shown by his silent acquiescence thereto
j. The facts contained in the confession were confirmed by other facts
k. After his confession, the accused was subjected to physical examination and there were no signs of maltreatment or the
accused never complained to such.
 The inadmissibility if involuntary confessions has been justified on the ground that they are unreliable, or on the grounds of
humanitarian conditions
 The effect that an involuntary confession is nevertheless admissible if it contains the truth
 An involuntary confession is not admissible in evidence unless found true
 Confession made under the influence of threat or promise of reward is not admissible
 Involuntary or coerced confessions obtained by force or intimidation is null and void
 Where verbal EJC was made without counsel, but it was spontaneously made by the accused immediately after the assault, the
same is admissible not under the confession rule but as part of res gstae
 When the accused was merely told of his constitutional right and asked if he understood what he was told, but never asked
whether he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights, his EJC is inadmissible
 EJC of the accused under custodial investigation and was merely prefaced by the investigator with a statement of his
constitutional rights, to which he answered that he was going to tell the truth, the same is inadmissible as his answer does not
constitute a waiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by on when he signed the confession
 The waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel
 Where the confession was illegally obtained from two of the accused such are not admissible against them and to the third
accused which had no participation therein
 Any form of coercion renders EJC inadmissible
 If the accused made a second EJC after he was maltreated in order to extort the first confession, such second confession is only
admissible when it can be proved that he was already relieved of the fear generated by the maltreatment
 The EJC of an accused is binding only upon himself and is not acceptable against his co-accused except:
a. If the latter impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession by not questioning its truthfulness
b. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without conclusions,
commonly known as interlocking confessions
c. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being apprised of such confession
d. If they are charge as co-conspirator of the crime which was confessed by one of the accused and said confession
is used only as a corroborating evidence
e. Where the confession Is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-
conspirator
f. Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant
g. Where the con-conspirators EJC is corroborated by other evidence of record
 Illegal confessions and admissions are inadmissible against the confessant or the admitter
 The doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree is not applicable to testimony or a confession obtained by an illegal arrest for such it
refers only to objects and not testimonial evidence.
 People v Bascugin
- When confession was freely, intelligently, and deliberately given. Judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high
order. The presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted
to do so by truth and conscience. Admission of guilt constitutes evidence against the accused pursuant to the following
provisions of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the
same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. [Rule 129]
SEC. 26. Admissions of a party.The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
against him. [Rule 130]
SEC. 33. Confession.The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. [Rule 130]
 Cayetano Capangpangan v PP
- An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require
proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made.” Clearly, petitioner cannot take a contrary or different position considering that he has made an
express admission of the Certification, which does not require proof and cannot be contradicted because there is no
Padayon lang. :D
previous evidence that the admission was made through palpable mistake. After admitting it, he cannot now assail that
said certification has not been properly identified. Besides, he has had several occasions to present proof that he was
licensed to possess firearms. Yet, even in this late stage he has not.
 Pp v Espanol
-appellant's act of pleading for his sister-in-law's forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to
compromise, which in turn can be received as an implied admission of guilt under Section 27, Rule 130:
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. — In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
 Phil First Ins. Co. v Wallem Phils

- A man cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing the statements that he wishes to prove. He does
not make the letter evidence by sending it to the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts [stated therein]. He
no more can impose a duty to answer a charge than he can impose a duty to pay by sending goods. Therefore a failure
to answer such adverse assertions in the absence of further circumstances making an answer requisite or natural has no
effect as an admission.
 Eduarte v People
- Basic is the rule that factual findings of trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses credibility, are entitled to
great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirms the findings.
This rule, however, admits of several exceptions, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact
are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10)
when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties,
which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
e. Admission by Party
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
 Betty B. Laybayan v Bayani S. Samoy Jr

- An admission is any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for
which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him. Admission against interest is governed by
Section 26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Sec. 26. Admissions of a party. - The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him.
To be admissible, an admission must (a) involve matters of fact, and not of law; (b) be categorical and definite;
(c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and (d) be adverse to the admitter's interests, otherwise it would be
self-serving and inadmissible.
 Salazar v CA
-
 Limos v Odones
- A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting
partys pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request, whose
purpose is to establish said partys cause of action or defense. Unless it serves that purpose, it is pointless, useless,
and a mere redundancy.
Verily then, if the trial court finds that the matters in a Request for Admission were already admitted or denied in
previous pleadings by the requested party, the latter cannot be compelled to admit or deny them anew. In
turn, the requesting party cannot reasonably expect a response to the request and thereafter, assume or even
demand the application of the implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26.
-A party who fails to respond to a Request for Admission shall be deemed to have impliedly admitted all the
matters contained therein. It must be emphasized, however, that the application of the rules on modes of
discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the court. As such, it is the duty of the courts to examine thoroughly
the circumstances of each case and to determine the applicability of the modes of discovery, bearing always
in mind the aim to attain an expeditious administration of justice.
 PP v Mary Lou Omicitin y Singco

-
 The Learning Child Inc v Ayala Alabang Village Association
Padayon lang. :D
-As an exception to the Res inter alios acta rule, the act 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 rules
apples to the act or declaration of other person jointly interested within the party. Here, Ayala Corporation is
jointly interested with AACA in an action to enforce the deed of restrictions.
 Narra Nickel Mining Corp v Redmont Consolidated Munes Corp

- As a rule, corporations are prohibited from entering into partnership agreements; consequently, corporations
enter into joint venture agreements with other corporations or partnerships for certain transactions in order to
form "pseudo partnerships."
The relations of the parties to a joint venture and the nature of their association are so similar and closely akin to
a partnership that it is ordinarily held that their rights, duties, and liabilities are to be tested by rules which are
closely analogous to and substantially the same, if not exactly the same, as those which govern partnership.
Thus, a joint venture agreement between and among corporations may be seen as similar to partnerships since
the elements of partnership are present.
-By entering into a JVA, it makes sec.29 of Rule 130 applicable to the said corporation. Under such rule, by
entering into a JVA it makes a corporation to have joint interest to its partner.
f. 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.
 People v Guada
-Appellants charge that the offers of compromise allegedly made by the parents of the appellant to Amalia,
and by the appellant himself to Amalias husband should not have been taken against him by the trial court,
even if sustained, will not exculpate him. To be sure, the offer of compromise allegedly made by appellant to
Amalia Loyolas husband is hearsay evidence, and of no probative value. It was only Amalia who testified as to
the alleged offer, and she was not a party to the conversation which allegedly transpired at the Hagonoy
Municipal Jail. A witness can only testify on facts which are based on his personal knowledge or perception.
The offer of compromise allegedly made by the appellants parents to Amalia may have been the subject of
testimony of Amalia. However, following the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet, the actions
of his parents cannot prejudice the appellant, since he was not a party to the said conversation, nor was it
shown that he was privy to the offer of compromise made by them to the mother of the victim. They cannot be
considered as evidence against appellant but we reiterate that these errors are not enough to reverse the
conviction of the appellant
 San Miguel Corp v Kalalo

- 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 compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission
of guilt.
 People v Yparragurre
-“An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be
received in evidence against the offeror. What is required is that after committing the crime, the accused or his
representative makes an offer to compromise and such offer is proved.”
g. Admission by third party
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter
provided.
 Harold v Tamargo v Romulo Awinga, et. Al.,

- The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration,
or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not
admissible against his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them The reason for this rule is
that :on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon himself, and are
evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but
also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party
Padayon lang. :D
ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against
him. An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator under Section 30, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court: 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 or declaration. This rule prescribes that the act or declaration of the
conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against co-
conspirators provided that the conspiracy is shown by independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial
confession Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators,
it is necessary that (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself (b) the
admission relates to the common object and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in
carrying out the conspiracy. Otherwise, it cannot be used against the alleged co-conspirators without violating
their constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against them and to cross-examine them.
h. 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.
 Narra Nickel Mining Corp v Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp

- Considering that the relationships found between petitioners and MBMI are considered to be partnerships,
then the CA is justified in applying Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the Rules by stating that "by entering into a joint venture,
MBMI have a joint interest" with Narra, Tesoro and McArthur
i. 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.
 People v Khadaffy Janjalani

- It is true that under the rule, statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are admissible only
when made during the existence of the conspiracy. However, if the declarant repeats the statement in court,
his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission, making the testimony admissible as to both
conspirators.
j. 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.
k. 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.
 Office of the Administrator v Bernadino

- Silence is admission if there was chance to deny, especially if it constitutes one of the principal charges
against her.
 Taghoy v Tigol
- An admission against interest is the best evidence that affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute,
based on the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true.
It is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not.
l. 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. 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.
 People v Reyes
- an extra-judicial confession is admissible only against the confessant, jurisprudence makes it admissible as
corroborative evidence of other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his co-accusedwe ruled that where the
confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator,
that confession is receivable as evidence against a co-accused.
It is also to be noted that APPELLANTS extrajudicial confessions were independently made without collusion, are
identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other. They are, therefore, also
admissible as circumstantial evidence against their co-accused implicated therein to show the probability of
the latters actual participation in the commission of the crime. They are also admissible as corroborative
evidence against the others, it being clear from other facts and circumstances presented that persons other
Padayon lang. :D
than the declarants themselves participated in the commission of the crime charged and proved. They are
what is commonly known as interlocking confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that
extrajudicial confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence only against the declarants thereof.
 People v Khadaffy Janjalani

- We must make a distinction between extrajudicial and judicial confessions. An extrajudicial confession may
be given in evidence against the confessant but not against his co-accused as they are deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine him. A judicial confession is admissible against the declarants co-accused since
the latter are afforded opportunity to cross-examine the former. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
applies only to extrajudicial acts or admissions and not to testimony at trial where the party adversely affected
has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Mercenes admission implicating his co-accused was given
on the witness stand. It is admissible in evidence against appellant Palijon. Moreover, where several accused
are tried together for the same offense, the testimony of a co-accused implicating his co-accused is
competent evidence against the latter.
 People v Hipona
- Statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed
voluntary and are admissible in evidence
 Tamargo v Awingan
-an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused
and is considered as hearsay against them
The reason for this rule is that: On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a mans own acts are
binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only
be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts
or conduct be used as evidence against him
 People v Sace
- a declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay
rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the
statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must
concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
2. Previous Conduct as Evidence
Previous Conduct as Evidence
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 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.
 This section is the second branch of the res inter alios act rule and applies to both civil and criminal cases. This is enforced in all
cases where it is applicable.
 The exceptions to the rule where the evidence of similar acts may prove:
d. A specific intent or knowledge
e. Identity
f. A plan, system or scheme
g. A specific habit
h. Established custom, usage and the like
 Previous acts of negligence is admissible to show knowledge or intent
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.
 This section is merely an evidentiary complement to the rule of tender of payment by providing that said offer of payment must be
made in writing.
 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v Custodio

- The fact that a person has committed the same or similar acts at some prior time affords, as a general rule, no logical
guaranty that he committed the act in question. This is so because, subjectively, a man's mind and even his modes of life
may change; and, objectively, the conditions under which he may find himself at a given time may likewise change and
thus induce him to act in a different way. Besides, if evidence of similar acts is to be invariably admitted, they will give rise
to a multiplicity of collateral issues and will subject the defendant to surprise as well as confuse the court and prolong the
trial.
Padayon lang. :D
Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially to actions based on fraud and deceit, because it
sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a person; it provides insight into such person's motive or intent; it
uncovers a scheme, design or plan, or it reveals a mistake.
- The general evidentiary rule is that evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to
prove that one did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time. However, evidence of similar acts may be
received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like.
 Boston Bank v Manalo

- Under Section 34, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, evidence that one did a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did the same or similar thing at another time, although such evidence may be received to
prove habit, usage, pattern of conduct or the intent of the parties.
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.
Habit, custom, usage or pattern of conduct must be proved like any other facts. Courts must contend with the caveat
that, before they admit evidence of usage, of habit or pattern of conduct, the offering party must establish the degree
of specificity and frequency of uniform response that ensures more than a mere tendency to act in a given manner but
rather, conduct that is semi-automatic in nature. The offering party must allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct
that might constitute evidence of habit. The examples offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence must
be numerous enough to base on inference of systematic conduct. Mere similarity of contracts does not present the kind
of sufficiently similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of prejudice and confusion. In determining whether the
examples are numerous enough, and sufficiently regular, the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of
response. After all, habit means a course of behavior of a person regularly represented in like circumstances. It is only
when examples offered to establish pattern of conduct or habit are numerous enough to lose an inference of systematic
conduct that examples are admissible. The key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response or ratio of
reaction to situations.
o Similar acts as evidence

o Unaccepted offer
-Rape shield rule S6 of RA 8505 (Rape Victim Protection & Assistance Act)
“Section 6. Rape Shield. - In prosecutions 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.”
5. Testimonial Evidence
 Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded

 Melanio Mallari Y Liberata v People
-The Rule of Court provides (S36 R130)that witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which they have personal
knowledge; otherwise their testimonies would be inadmissible for being hearsay. Jurisprudence provides that
testimonial or documentary evidence are hearsay if it is not based on personal knowledge of the witness, but on the
knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand. Consequently, hearsay evidence whether objected or
not has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence fall within any of the exceptions of the
hearsay rule.
- An unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded probative value. It is precluded because
the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right to cross-examine the person to whom the statements
or writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as witness to provide the other party to
litigation the opportunity to question its contents.
-Failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect and no probative value. For it being an
hearsay evidence.
 People v Rex T. Canlas

- A deaf-mute gestured to him that someone had embraced the victim. However, Silva was not able to check the
veracity of the deaf-mutes claim because the deaf-mutes mother prevented him from further communicating with
Silva. The deaf-mute was not presented in court. Failure to present the deaf-mute results within the auspices of the
court renders such statement as having no probative value for it being hearsay evidence.
 Independent Relevant Statement

 People v Malibiran
- The hearsay rule states that a witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either because he
was told, or he read or heard the same. This is derived from Section 36, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, which
requires that a witness can testify only to those facts that he knows of or comes from his personal knowledge, that is,
that are derived from his perception. Hearsay testimony may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has
learned.
The law, however, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One is the doctrine of independently
relevant statements, where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof
is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply; hence, the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to
Padayon lang. :D
the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or
be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. The witness who testifies thereto is competent
because he heard the same, as this is a matter of fact derived from his own perception, and the purpose is to prove
either that the statement was made or the tenor thereof.
 Doctrine of Adoptive Admission

 Estrada v Desierto
- AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION IS A PARTY’S REACTION TO A STATEMENT OR ACTION BY ANOTHER PERSON WHEN IT IS
REASONABLE TO TREAT THE PARTY’S REACTION AS AN ADMISSION OF SOMETHING STATED OR IMPLIED BY THE OTHER
PERSON. Jones explains that the “basis for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from the
ratification or adoption by the party of the statements which the other person had made.” To use the blunt
language of Mueller and Kirkpatrick, “this process of attribution is not mumbo jumbo but common sense.” In the
Angara Diary, the options of the petitioner started to dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support from him
as President and commander-in-chief. Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel to
advise petitioner to consider the option of “dignified exit or resignation.” Petitioner did not object to the suggested
option but simply said he could never leave the country. Petitioner’s silence on this and other related suggestions
can be taken as an admission by him.
 RP v Kenrick Dev’t Corp

-A party may, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopt or ratify another’s statement. Where it appears that a
party clearly and unambiguously assented to or adopted the statements of another, evidence of those statements
is admissible against him. This is the essence of the principle of adoptive admission.
An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to
treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. By adoptive
admission, a third person’s statement becomes the admission of the party embracing or espousing it. Adoptive
admission may occur when a party:
(a) expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another;

(b) hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it;
(c) utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of another;
(d) replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but ignores further points which he or she
has heard the other make or
(e) Reads and signs a written statement made by another.
HEARSAY RULE
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.
 Any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not based on personal knowledge.
 Hearsay evidence is excluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of his right and opportunity to cross-
examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed.
 If a party does not object to the hearsay evidence, the same is admissible, as a party can waive his right to cross-examine.
 Repeated failure of a party to cross-examine the witness is an implied waiver.
 Hearsay evidence alone may be insufficient to establish a fact in issue but when no objection is interposed, it is like any other
evidence, to be considered and given importance.
 Hearsay evidence not objected to may be admissible but, whether objected to or not, has no probative value and, as opposed
to direct primary evidence, the latter always prevails.
 Hearsay testimony of a child describing any act or attempted act of sexual abuse may be admitted in any criminal proceedings,
subject to certain prerequisites and the right to cross-examination by the adverse party.
 Exceptions of hearsay rule is section 37-47 of Rule 130
 When a statement or writings is attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand are being offered not to prove the truth of
the facts stated therein but only to prove that those statements were actually made or those writings were executed, such
evidence is not covered by the hearsay rule.
 A witness may testify to the statements made by a person if, for instance the fact that such statements were made by the latter
would indicate the latter’s mental state or physical condition. This is known as the doctrine of independent relevant statements,
that is independent of whether the facts stated are true or not, they are relevant since they are the facts in issue or are
circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.
 Newspaper clippings or facts published in the newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless substantiated by
persons with personal knowledge of the said facts.
 PEOPLE v OMICTIN (Illegal Recruitment: Hearsay)

- The common objection known as "self-serving" is not correct because almost all testimonies are self-serving. The proper basis
for objection is "hearsay". Petitioner fails to take into account the distinction between self-serving statements and testimonies
made in court.
- Self-serving statements are those made by a party out of court advocating his own interest; they do not include a party’s
testimony as a witness in court. Self-serving statements are inadmissible because the adverse party is not given the
Padayon lang. :D
opportunity for cross-examination, and their admission would encourage fabrication of testimony. This cannot be said of a
party’s testimony in court made under oath, with full opportunity on the part of the opposing party for cross-examination.
 CAMACHO-REYES v REYES (Nullity of Marriage: expert testimony)

- The professional opinion of a psychological expert became increasingly important in such cases. Data about the person’s
entire life, both before and after the ceremony, were presented to these experts and they were asked to give professional
opinions about a party’s mental capacity at the time of the wedding.
- The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with personality disorder,
does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings automatically constitute hearsay that
would result in their exclusion as evidence.
- The clinical psychologists’ and psychiatrist’s assessment were not based solely on the narration or personal interview of the
petitioner. Other informants such as respondent’s own son, siblings and in-laws, and sister-in-law (sister of petitioner), testified
on their own observations of respondent’s behavior and interactions with them, spanning the period of time they knew him.
These were also used as the basis of the doctors’ assessments.
- It is true that a clinical psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s diagnoses that a person has personality disorder is not automatically
believed by the courts in cases of declaration of nullity of marriages. Indeed, a clinical psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s finding
of a personality disorder does not exclude a finding that a marriage is valid and subsisting, and not beset by one of the
parties’ or both parties’ psychological incapacity.
- The respondent’s pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital
obligations as shown by his: (1) sporadic financial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business
attempts; (5) unpaid money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family businesses; and (7)
criminal charges of estafa.
 RAZON v TAGITIS (Enforced disappearances; applicability of hearsay rule in amparo cases)

- Even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test.
- The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any
evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence
adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason — i.e.,to the relevance of the evidence to the
issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted
if it satisfies this basic minimum test.
- In child abuse cases, Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness is expressly recognized as an exception to the
hearsay rule. This Rule allows the admission of the hearsay testimony of a child describing any act or attempted act of sexual
abuse in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding, subject to certain prerequisites and the right of cross-examination by the
adverse party.
- Strictly speaking, we are faced here with a classic case of hearsay evidence — i.e., evidence whose probative value is not
based on the personal knowledge of the witnesses (the respondent, Mrs. Talbin and Col. Kasim himself) but on the
knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand (the informant).
- To say that this piece of evidence is incompetent and inadmissible evidence of what it substantively states is to acknowledge
— as the petitioners effectively suggest — that in the absence of any direct evidence, we should simply dismiss the petition.
- To our mind, an immediate dismissal for this reason is no different from a statement that the Amparo Rule — despite its terms
— is ineffective, as it cannot allow for the special evidentiary difficulties that are unavoidably present in Amparo situations,
particularly in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
 PP v CACHUELA (Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide; Police line- up Identification/Out of Court Identification)
- In People v. Algarme, explains the procedure for out-of-court identification and the test to determine its admissibility, as
follows: In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the
totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz.: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the
criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior
description, given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the
length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
 Lino’s failure to state relevant details surrounding the police line-up is a glaring omission that renders unreliable
Zaldy’s out-of court identification. No way exists for the courts to evaluate the factors used in determining the
admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications
- Extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence against the appellants in view of the res inter alios acta rule. This rule
provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Consequently,
an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is not admissible against his or her co-accused because
it is considered as hearsay against them. An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a
conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
 Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is
necessary that: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; (b) the admission
relates to the common object; and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy.
Padayon lang. :D
 This exception, however, does not apply in the present case since there was no other piece of
evidence presented, aside from the extrajudicial confession, to prove that Nabilgas conspired with
the appellants in committing the crime charged.
 MIRO v VDA DE EREDEROS
- The affiants’ failure to identify their affidavits in the administrative case before the OMB and the grave nature of the
charges (grave misconduct) led the SC to treat their affidavits as inadmissible under the hearsay rule.
 DELA LLANA v BIONG(vehicle mishap; claim for damages)
- Medical certificate that plaintiff suffered whiplash is hearsay if the physician who executed it not presented in
court.
- The medicial certificate has no probative value for being hearsay. It is the basic rule that evidence, whether oral or
documentary is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the
knowledge of another person who is not on the witness stand. Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be
given credence except in very unusual circumstance that is not found in the present case.
- Furthermore, admissibility of evidence depends on it relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains
to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
- Under the Rules of Court, there is a substantial difference between an ordinary witness and an expert witness. The
opinion of an ordinary witness may be received in eivdence 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.1âwphi1 Furthermore, the witness may also testify on his impressions of the
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. On the other hand, the opinion of an expert witness may be
received in evidence on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to possess.
 PEOPLE v RONDINA(Rape)
- A medical report is hearsay when the doctor who prepared the same did not testify in court, even if the defense counsel
agreed to the stipulation that the rape victim submitted herself to a medical examination.
- It has been held that when the victim’s testimony is corroborated by the physician’s finding of penetration, there is
sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge; that laceration, whether
healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.25 The Court, however, finds no physical evidence of
sexual penetration and no corroboration of other vital details in AAA’s narration of the rape. The mere pro-forma printed
statement, the "conclusion" serves only to further render the report of mere hearsay value.
 ROSIT v DAVAO DOCTORS HOSPITAL (mishap; Medical malpractice)

- An affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its affiant/maker did not take the witness stand.
- It is the elementary principle against hearsay evidence that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its
affiant/maker did not take the witness stand. Here, Dr. Pangan never took the witness stand to affirm the contents of his
affidavit. Thus, the affidavit is inadmissible and cannot be given any weight.
 Moreover, even if such affidavit is considered as admissible and the testimony of an expert witness, the Court is
not bound by such testimony. Courts are not bound by expert testimonies. They may place whatever weight
they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The opinion of an expert should
be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case. The problem of the
evaluation of expert testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable
in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

1. DYING DECLARATION
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.
 A dying declaration is also known as an ate mortem statement or a statement in articulo mortis
 A dying declaration is admissible under the following requisites:
a. That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of the fact;
b. That the declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death;
c. That the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify to; and
d. That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry
 A declaration will be deemed as having been made under the consciousness of imminent death, in consideration of the
following:
a. The words or statements of the declarant on the same occasion
b. His conduct at the time the declaration was made
c. The serious nature of his wounds as would necessarily engender a belief on his part that he would not survive.
Padayon lang. :D
 The intervening time from the making of the declaration up to the actual death of the declarant is immaterial, as long as the
declaration was made under, the consciousness of impending death.
 The interval of time between the declaration and the death of the declarant may be taken into account where the declaration is
ambiguous as to whether the declarant believed that his death was imminent when he made such declaration.
 After a dying declaration is proved and admitted as such, its credibility and weight should be determined by the courts under the
same rules used in testing the weight and credibility of any other testimonial evidence.
 A dying declaration is admissible only insofar as it refers to facts regarding the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant’s death. Hence, a statement referring to the antecedents of the fatal encounter or opinions, impressions or conclusions
is not admissible.
 A dying declaration may be oral or written or made by signs which could be interpreted and testified to by a witness thereto.
 If made orally the witness who heard it may testify, without necessarily producing the exact words, as long as he can give the
substance.
 If the deceased had an unsigned dying declaration, the same may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it down.
 A dying declaration may be attacked on the ground that any of the requisites for its admissibility are not present, and the same
may be impeached in the same manner as testimony of any other witness on the stand.
 Dying declarations are on the same footing as testimony of a witness on a witness stand and whatever would disqualify such
witness would also make such declaration incompetent as evidence.
 PEOPLE v CERILLA (murder)
- 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 fixed belief that death is impending and is certain to follow
immediately, or in a very short time, without an opportunity of retraction and in the absence of all hopes of recovery. In other
words, it is a statement made by a person after a mortal wound has been inflicted, under a belief that death is certain, stating
the facts concerning the cause and circumstances surrounding his/her death.
- Requisites for a dying declaration to be admissible – (1) The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant's death. This 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. (2) At the time the declaration was made, the declarant must be under the consciousness
of an impending death. The rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent
death must be entered 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 on death as certainly impending. (3) The declarant is competent as a witness. The rule is that where the declarant would not
have been a competent witness had he survived, the proffered declarations will not be admissible. (4) The declaration must
be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is the victim. Anent this requisite, the same
deserves no further elaboration as, in fact, the prosecution had caused its witnesses to take the stand and
testify in open court on the substance of Alexander’s ante mortem statement in the present criminal case
for murder.
- The statements of victim complied with all the requisites of a dying declaration. The positive identification of
appellant must necessarily prevail over his alibi. It was not physically impossible for appellant to have been
present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v FALABRICA SERENAS(murder; BF gihatod si GF and stabbed at the bridge)
- As an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence, a dying declaration or ante mortem statement is evidence of
the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a
careless and false accusation.
- In order for a dying declaration to be held admissible, four requisites must concur: first, the declaration must concern
the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; second, at the time the declaration was made,
the declarant must be under the consciousness of an impending death; third, the declarant is competent as a witness;
and fourth, the declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the
declarant is the victim.
 All requisites for a dying declaration were sufficiently met by the statement of the victim communicated to
Cesar. First, the statement pertained to Niño being stabbed, particularly pin-pointing Joe-An as the
perpetrator. Second, Niño must have been fully aware that he was on the brink of death considering his
bloodied condition when Cesar met him near the bridge. Third, the competence of Niño is
unquestionable had he survived the stabbing incident. Fourth, Niño’s statement was being offered in a
criminal prosecution for his murder.
 Admittedly, Joel’s defense of denial and alibi are inherently weak, however, it is doctrinal that the weakness of
the defense cannot be the basis for conviction. The primary burden still lies with the prosecution whose
evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and who must establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt the
guilt of the accused before there can be conviction. At this juncture, we acquit appellant Joel.
 Thus, the court found Appellant JONEL FALABRICA SERENAS is found GUILTY of the crime of murder and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. For failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, appellant JOEL LORICA LABAD is ACQUITTED.
 MARTURILLAS v PEOPLE(Tabangi ko pre, gipusil ko ni kapitan”; be considered as his dying declaration)
- Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, provides: "The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of
Padayon lang. :D
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."
- Generally, witnesses can testify only to those facts derived from their own perception. A recognized exception, though, is
a report in open court of a dying person’s declaration made under the consciousness of an impending death that is the
subject of inquiry in the case.
- To be admissible, a dying declaration must 1) refer to the cause and circumstances surrounding the declarant’s death;
2) be made under the consciousness of an impending death; 3) be made freely and voluntarily without coercion or
suggestions of improper influence; 4) be offered in a criminal case, in which the death of the declarant is the subject of
inquiry; and 5) have been made by a declarant competent to testify as a witness, had that person been called upon to
testify.
- The law, however, does not require the declarant to state explicitly a perception of the inevitability of death. The
perception may be established from surrounding circumstances, such as the nature of the declarant’s injury and
conduct that would justify a conclusion that there was a consciousness of impending death. Even if the declarant did
not make an explicit statement of that realization, the degree and seriousness of the words and the fact that death
occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as sufficient evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with
full consciousness of being in a dying condition.
- Even if the declarant did not make an explicit statement of that realization, the degree and seriousness of the words and
the fact that death occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as sufficient evidence that the declaration was
made by the victim with full consciousness of being in a dying condition.46Also, the statement was made freely and
voluntarily, without coercion or suggestion, and was offered as evidence in a criminal case for homicide.
 As found by the CA, the dying declaration of the victim was complete, as it was "a full expression of all that he
intended to say as conveying his meaning. It [was] complete and [was] not merely fragmentary. Testified to by
his wife and neighbor, his dying declaration was not only admissible in evidence as an exception to the
hearsay rules, but was also a weighty and telling piece of evidence.
 PEOPLE v TABARNERO (Murder/stabbing incident)
- His testimony is insufficient and self-serving. The alleged initial attack on him when he was about to leave seemed to be
all-convenient considering that no one witnessed the start of the fight. The nine stab wounds inflicted on Ernesto indicate
intent to kill and not merely to defend himself.
- Alberto is a principal by direct participation having actually participated in stabbing Ernesto. Ernesto’s dying declaration
that it was the father and son, Gary and Alberto who stabbed him, proved to be very persuasive and entitled to the
highest credence. Killing of Ernesto is qualified by treachery because he was held by two other persons while he was
being stabbed, which rendered him defenseless and unable to effectively repel or evade the assault.
 PEOPLE v RARUGAL(murder; deprivation of bicycle)
- Hearsay Rule-Exception-- Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 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.
- In People v. Maglian , the Rules of Court states that a dying declaration is admissible as evidence if the following
circumstances are present: "(a) it concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) it
is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the
declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and (d) the dying declaration is offered in a
case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant’s death."
- In this case, the statement of Florendo made to his brother Renato has complied with the requisites of a dying
declaration. It is important to note that Florendo, after being stabbed by appellant twice on the chest, went home and
under labored breathing, told Renato that it was appellant who had stabbed him. Clearly, the statement made was an
expression of the cause and the surrounding circumstances of his death, and under the consciousness of impending
death. There being nothing in the records to show that Florendo was incompetent, he would have been competent to
testify had he survived.25 It is enough to state that the deceased was at the time competent as a witness. 26 Lastly, the
dying declaration is offered in an inquiry the subject of which involves his death. We reproduce the statement of the
RTC.
- Under the rules, statement made by a person under the consciousness of an impending death is admissible as evidence
of the circumstances of his death. The positive identification made by the victim before he died, under the
consciousness of an impending death is a strong evidence indicating the liability of herein appellant. It is of no moment
that the victim died seven days from the stabbing incident and after receiving adequate care and treatment, because
the apparent proximate cause of his death, the punctures in his lungs, was a consequence of appellant’s stabbing him
in the chest.
Padayon lang. :D
2. DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST

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 is asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to
declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed
it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.
 There is a vital distinction between admissions against interest and declaration against interest
ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST

Those made by a party to a litigation or by on privity with or Those made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity
identified in legal interest with such party, and are admissible with a party to a suit, are secondary evidence but constitute
whther or not the declarant is available as witness an exception to the hearsay rule, and are admissible only when
the declarant is unavailable as witness
 In order that a statement may be admissible as declaration against interest, it is required that:
a. The declarant is dead or unable to testify;
b. It relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant;
c. At the time he made said declaration the declarant was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest; and
d. The declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true
 A declaration against interest is the opposite of a self-serving declaration which is a statement favourable to or intended to
advance the interest of the declarant
 Self-serving declaration is inadmissible as being hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness
 PAREL v PRUDENCIO(Recovery of possession of property)

- The theory under which declarations against interest are received in evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is that
the necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of such
declaration asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary or moral interest.
- SC affirmed the decision of CA that respondent had shown sufficient evidence to support his complaint for recovery of
possession of the ground floor of the subject house as the exclusive owner thereof.
- Section 38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 38. Declaration against interest. – The declaration made by a
person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at
the time it was made so far contrary to the declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not
have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his
successors-in-interest and against third persons.
- A declaration against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute.
 LAZARO v AGUSTIN(Co-owners/sworn statement against interest)

- It is not a declaration against interest. Instead, it is an admission against interest. Admissions against interest are those
made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such party, and are admissible
whether or not the declarant is available as a witness. Declarations against interest are those made by a person who is
neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary evidence, and constitute an exception to the hearsay
rule. They are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness. In the present case, since Basilisa is
respondents' predecessor-in-interest and is, thus, in privity with the latter's legal interest, the former's sworn statement, if
proven genuine and duly executed, should be considered as an admission against interest.
- Settled is the rule that generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to
its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of
regularity. However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary.
- Not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication. Thus, an affidavit does not automatically
become a public document just because it contains a notarial jurat. The presumptions that attach to notarized
documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.
- Thus, indeed, a notarized document enjoys this presumption; the fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the
validity of its contents.
 A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are
stated therein. In the instant case, the notary public should have exercised utmost diligence in ascertaining the
true identity of the person executing the said sworn statement. However, the notary public did not comply with
this requirement
 PEOPLE v TOLEDO (land dispute; bolo duel)
- Yes the affidavit is considered hearsay because the one who made it was not presented in court under oath to testify on
his written statement. This is the general rule. The exhibit is admissible as evidence the reason being that it is one of the
Padayon lang. :D
accepted exceptions of the hearsay rule. This is called the Declaration Against interest, the dead man’s statute. Sec. 38
of the Rules of Court exemplifies this rule.
- Sec.38 Declaration against interest.- The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against the
interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant’s
own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true,
may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.
- In order for a statement to be admissible (in this case made as an exhibit) it must comply the following requisites:
1) That the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
2) That it relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant;
3) That at the time he maid said declaration the declarant was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest; and
4) That the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true.
- In the case it bar, it is clear as day that the declarant made the statement before the municipal president before he
died and that it was clearly against his interest because it had the effect of exonerating Eugenio Toledo from liability.
 Exhibit 1 should have been received not as conclusive evidence of innocence, but as evidence to be taken
into consideration in connection with the other proven facts.
 FUENTES v CA (murder)
- The declaration made by Zolio was not given credence as an exception to the hearsay rule that declaration against
interest because the so- called declarant was not shown tobedeadorunabletotestify.
- One of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule is that pertaining to declarations made against interest. Sec. 38 of Rule 130
of the Rules of Court provides that "(t)he declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence
against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons." The admissibility in evidence of such declaration is grounded
on necessity and trustworthiness.
- There are three essential requisites for the admissibility of a declaration against interest: (a) the declarant must not be available to
testify; (b) the declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the declarant; and (c) the circumstances must render it improbable that
a motive to falsify existed.
 The reason for the hearsay rule is that the extrajudicial and unsworn statement of another is not the best method of
serving this purpose. In other words, the great possibility of the fabrication of falsehoods, and the inability to prove
their untruth, requires that the doors be closed to such evidence.
- His mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make him ipso facto unavailable under this rule. For it is incumbent upon the
defense to produce each and every piece of evidence that can break the prosecution and assure the acquittal of the
accused.
 DANTIS v MAGHINANG(quieting of title and recovery of possession of property)
- Jurisprudence dictates that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its affiant/maker did not take the witness
stand. The sworn statement of Ignacio is of this kind. The affidavit was not identified and its averments were not affirmed
by affiant Ignacio. Accordingly, Exhibit “3” must be excluded from the judicial proceedings being inadmissible hearsay
evidence. It cannot be deemed a declaration against interest for the matter to be considered as an exception to the
hearsay rule because the declarant was not the seller (Emilio), but his father (Ignacio).
- A secondary evidence is admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5, which states that: when the original
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. Accordingly, the offeror of the
secondary evidence is burdened to satisfactorily prove the predicates thereof, namely: (1) the execution or existence of
the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or its non-production in court; and (3) the unavailability of the
original is not due to bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror. Proof of the due execution of the document and its
subsequent loss would constitute the basis for the introduction of secondary evidence.
3. ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE

Section 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.
 REPUBLIC v MANGOTARA
- Under Art. 172 of the Family Code, the filiation of legitimate children shall be proved by any other means allowed by the
Rules of Court and special laws, in the absence of a record of birth or a parents admission of such legitimate filiation in a
Padayon lang. :D
public or private document duly signed by the parent. Such other proof of ones filiation may be a baptismal certificate,
a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree,
admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court. By analogy, this method of proving filiation may also be utilized in the instant case.
- The admissibility of baptismal certificates offered by Lydia S. Reyes, absent the testimony of the officiating priest or the
official recorder, was settled in People v. Ritter, citing U.S. v. de Vera (28 Phil. 105 [1914]), thus - x x x the entries made in
the Registry Book may be considered as entries made in the course of the business under Section 43 of Rule 130, which is
an exception to the hearsay rule. The baptisms administered by the church are one of its transactions in the exercise of
ecclesiastical duties and recorded in the book of the church during the course of its business.
- It may be argued that baptismal certificates are evidence only of the administration of the sacrament, but in this case,
there were four (4) baptismal certificates which, when taken together, uniformly show that Lourdes, Josefina, Remedios
and Luis had the same set of parents, as indicated therein. Corroborated by the undisputed testimony of Adelaida
Sampayo that with the demise of Lourdes and her brothers Manuel, Luis and sister Remedios, the only sibling left was
Josefina Sampayo Reyes, such baptismal certificates have acquired evidentiary weight to prove filiation.
 TISON v CA(Reconveyance of property)
- The declaration made by Teodora Domingo to the effect that the petitioners are her niece and nephew was admitted in
evidence despite the absence of any independent evidence of pedigree or relationship. This involves the first scenario of an
act or declaration about pedigree wherein the claim is directed against the declarant, in this case against her estate.
 Dezoller Tison was presented as the lone witness, with the following documentary evidence offered to prove petitioners'
filiation to their father and their aunt, to wit: a family picture; baptismal certificates of Teodora and Hermogenes
Dezoller; certificates of destroyed records of birth of Teodora Dezoller and Hermogenes Dezoller; death
certificates of Hermogenes Dezoller and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero; certification of destroyed records of live
birth of Corazon and Rene Dezoller; joint affidavits of Pablo Verzosa and Meliton Sitjar attesting to the parents, date and
place of birth of Corazon and Rene Dezoller; joint affidavit of Juliana Cariaga and Manuela Cariaga attesting to the
fact of marriage between Martin Guerrero and Teodora Dezoller; and the marriage certificate of Martin and Teodora
Guerrero.
4. FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE

Section 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.
 The pedigree of a person may be proved by:

a. Act or declaration of a relative;
b. Reputation or tradition existing in his family;
c. By entries in the family bible;
d. With respect to marriage; and
e. By common reputation in the community
 In order that pedigree may be proved by acts or declaration by relatives it is necessary that:
a. The actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify;
b. The act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject by birth or marriage;
c. The relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject shown by evidence other than such act or declaration;
and
d. The act or declaration was made ante litem motam, or prior to controversy.
 The relationship must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Rules did not require any specific degree of relationship, but
the weight to which the declaration is entitled may be affected by the degree of relationship
 In respect to reputation or tradition it is necessary that:
a. The witness testifying is a member by consanguinity or affinity of the same family or subject; and
b. Such reputation or tradition must have existed in the family ante litem motam
 A persons statement as to his date of birth and age, as what he learned from his relatives, is an ante litem motam declaration of a
family tradition. Such statements prevails over the opinion of the trial judge but cannot generally prevail over the second
statement of the father.
5. COMMON REPUTATION
Section 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.
 Common reputation is admissible to prove the following:

a. Facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old
b. Marriage
c. Moral character
 Common reputation may be established either by testimonial evidence of a competent witnesses, by monuments and inscriptions
in public places, or by documents containing statements of reputation
Padayon lang. :D
 With respect to public interest such matters must be more than 30 years old. Such matters also requires to have existed ante litem
motam, must likewise be more than 30 years old and, therefore can be established by persons who have had knowledge of that
fact for such length of time or by monuments and inscriptions existing for that length of time.
 Common reputation regarding marriage or moral character is not required to be more than 30 years old.
 Character refers to the inherent qualities of a person, while reputation is the opinion of him by others; but, under this section, the
character of a person is permitted to be established by common reputation.
 As a rule, the reputation of a person should be that existing in the place of his residence, it may also be that existing in the place
where he is best known. Also, character of a place as an opinion joint may be proved by its common reputation in the
community.
6. PART OF RES GESTAE

Section 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.
 The rule of res gestae, which means “things done” refers to the following:
a. Spontaneous statements in connection with a startling occurrence relating to that fact and in effect forming part thereof;
and
b. Statements accompanying an equivocal act, otherwise known as verbal acts, on the theory that they are the verbal parts of
the act to be explained.
 For the admission of evidence for the first type of res gestae it is required that:
a. The principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence;
b. The statements forming part thereof were made before the declarant had the opportunity to contrive; and
c. The statements refer to the occurrence in question and its attending circumstances
 Res gestae v Dying declaration
RES GESTAE (in connection to homicidal act) DYING DECLARATION

Statements as part of res gestae may be that of the killer Can be made only by the victim
himself after or during the killing or that of a third person
The statement may precede, accompany or be made after Made only after the homicidal attack is committed
the homicidal act is committed
Its justification in the spontaneity of statement The trustworthiness of a dying declaration is based upon its
being given under an awareness of impending death
 While the statements of the victim may not qualify as a dying declaration because it was made under the consciousness of
impending death, it may still be admissible as part of the res gestae if it was made immediately after the incident. However, if the
elements of both are present, the statement will be admitted to be as a dying declaration and as part of res gestae.
 To be admissible as part of the res gestae the statements must:
a. Be spontaneous;
b. Be made while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto; and
c. Relate to the circumstance of the startling occurrence.
 Only statements as appear to have been involuntarily and simultaneously wrung from the witness by the impact of the
occurrence is admissible
 The interval of time between the startling occurrence and the statement depends upon the circumstances; but such statement
must have been made while the declarant was under the immediate influence of startling occurrence.
 If the declarant was rendered unconscious after the startling occurrence, his statements relative thereto upon regaining
consciousness are still part of res gestae regardless of the time that intervened in between.
 For verbal acts to be admissible it is required that:
a. The res gestae to be characterized must be equivocal;
b. Such act must be material to the issue;
c. The statements must accompany the equivocal act; and
d. The statements give a legal significance to the equivocal act.
 Verbal acts must have been made at the time and not after, the equivocal act was being performed.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ROMY FALLONES Y LABANA(sexual abuse of a mentally retarded person)
- Yes. It is exempted from the hearsay rule under the principle of Res Gestae.
- Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately
before, during, or after its commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the
excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. An important
consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and the statement, any circumstance calculated to
divert the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation.
 For spontaneous statements to be admitted in evidence, the following must concur:
1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
Padayon lang. :D
 PEOPLE v VILLARICO
- The statement was admissible against the accused as an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 42, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court, which provides:
 Section 42. Part of the res gestae. - Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence
as part of the 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.
- The Court observed that the familiarity of the witness with the assailant erased any doubt that the witness could have
erred; and noted that a witness related to the victim had a natural tendency to remember the faces of the person
involved in the attack on the victim, because relatives, more than anybody else, would be concerned with seeking
justice for the victim and bringing the malefactor before the law.
- The term res gestae refers to "those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and
which are admissible when illustrative of such act." It includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out
of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and which are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main
fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.
- The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so
intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded a part of the
principal fact or event itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
testimony.
- A declaration or an utterance is thus deemed as part of the res gestae that is admissible in evidence as an exception to
the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b)
the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern
the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
- We find that the requisites concurred herein. Also, we hold that there was no need for a surname to be attached to the
nickname Berting in order to insulate the identification by Haide from challenge. The victim's res gestae statement was
only one of the competent and reliable pieces of identification evidence.
 JUANITO TALINDANO v FALCON MARITIME(dismissal due to insubordination; fax message as evidence)

- The meaning of res gestae, either as a spontaneous statement (as spontaneity was not proven) or as a verbal act (as there
was no accompanying statement to the equivocal act).
- The Court held that the fax messages cannot be deemed part of the res gestae.
- To be admissible under the first class of res gestae, it is required that: (1) the principal act be a startling occurrence; (2) the
statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must
concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances.
 there is no showing that the statements contained in the fax messages were made immediately after the alleged
incident. In addition, no dates have been mentioned to determine if these utterances were made
spontaneously or with careful deliberation. Absent the critical element of spontaneity, the fax messages cannot be
admitted as part of the res gestae of the first kind.
- The requisites for its admissibility under the second class of res gestae are: (1) the principal act to be characterized must be
equivocal; (2) the equivocal act must be material to the issue; (3) the statement must accompany the equivocal act; and (4) the
statements give a legal significance to the equivocal act.
- any statement more so by the fax statements adverted to as parts of the res gestae. No date or time has been mentioned to
determine whether the fax messages were made simultaneously with the purported equivocal act.
- It is a vital evidence as the ship captains are required to keep a record of the decisions he had adopted as the vessel's head.
Therefore, the non-presentation of the logbook raises serious doubts as to whether the incident did happen at all.
 ZARATE v PEOPLE(stabbed by switchblade; frustrated homicide)
- Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides for the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule, which includes statements
given as part of the res gestae.The pertinent provision reads:
 SEC. 42. Part of the res gestae. - - Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place, or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence
as part of the 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.
- A declaration made spontaneously after a startling occurrence is deemed as part of the res gestae when (1) the
principal act, the res gestae is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to
contrive or devise; and (3) the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.
Padayon lang. :D
- It is well settled that positive identification, where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill
motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if notsubstantiated
by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving weight in law. For this reason,
the defense of alibi and denial cannot prosper in the light of the positive identification by complainant Guiritan that it
was petitioner who stabbed him.
- It is also a well-settled doctrine that findings oftrial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect.
If found positive and credible by the trial court, the testimony of a lone eyewitness, like complainant Guiritan, is sufficient
to support a conviction.
7. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS

Section 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.
 To be admissible as entries in the course of business it is necessary that:

a. The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify;
b. The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer;
c. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries ;
d. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or
religious; and
e. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business
 If the entrant is available as witness, the said entries will not be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, but they may
nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on the transaction reflected
therein.
8. ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS

Section 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.
 To be admissible, it is necessary that:

a. The entries were made by a public officer in the performance of his duties or by a person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law
b. The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from reports made by
persons under a legal duty to submit the same; and
c. Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records.
 RIZALINA M GEMINA v ATTY. ISIDRO MADAMBA
- In the herein case, although complainant made it appear that she has evidence to prove that there was anomaly in
the notarization of the subject documents, she failed to present the same. An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that
he is innocent of the charges preferred against him until the contrary is proved and that as an officer of the court he has
performed his duties in accordance with his oath. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant to overcome the
presumption and establish his charges by a clear preponderance of evidence.
 AFRICA v CALTEX
- To qualify their statements as "official information acquired by the officers who prepared the reports, the persons who
made the statements not only must have personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty to give such
statements for record. The reports in question do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule: the facts stated therein
were not acquired by the reporting officers through official information, not having been given by the informants
pursuant to any duty to do so.
- There are three requisites for admissibility under the rule just mentioned: (a) that the entry was made by a 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
his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer
or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally
or through official information.
 Of the three requisites just stated, only the last need be considered here.
 BARCELON, ROXAS SECURITIES INC v CIR
- The BIR record book (showing the name of the taxpayer, the kind of tax assesses, the registry receipt number and the date of
the mailing) was not admitted as entries in official records as the entrant was not shown to have personal knowledge of the
facts in the book nor did she acquire the facts from reports made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same.
Padayon lang. :D
- Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which states that: 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.
 An entrant must have personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from
reports made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same
- In this case, the entries made by Ingrid Versola were not based on her personal knowledge as she did not attest to the fact that she
personally prepared and mailed the assessment notice. Nor was it stated in the transcript of stenographic notes 26 how and
from whom she obtained the pertinent information. Moreover, she did not attest to the fact that she acquired the reports from
persons under a legal duty to submit the same. Thus, the evidence offered by respondent does not qualify as an exception to
the rule against hearsay evidence. Furthermore, independent evidence, such as the registry receipt of the assessment notice, or
a certification from the Bureau of Posts, could have easily been obtained. Yet respondent failed to present such evidence.
9. COMMERCIAL LIST AND THE LIKE

Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. — Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the
truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and
is generally used and relied upon by them therein.
 Examples of these compilations are the mortality tables, like the Carlisle or Wiggles worth tables, and accepted actuarial and
annuity tables.
 MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY V HON. QUISUMBING
- 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."
- Under the afore-quoted rule, statement of matters contained in a periodical may be admitted only "if that compilation is
published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein."
- It cannot be said that businessmen generally rely on news items such as this in their occupation. Besides, no evidence
was presented that the publication was regularly prepared by a person in touch with the market and that it is generally
regarded as trustworthy and reliable. Absent extrinsic proof of their accuracy, these reports are not admissible
- In the same manner, newspapers containing stock quotations are not admissible in evidence when the source of the
reports is available. With more reason, mere analyses or projections of such reports cannot be admitted. In particular, the
source of the report in this case can be easily made available considering that the same is necessary for compliance
with certain governmental requirements.
 PNOC SHIPPNG CORP v CA(Price quotations)

- Price quotations are not within the purview of commercial lists as these are not standard handbooks or periodicals,
containing data of everyday professional need and relied upon in the work of the occupation. These are simply letters
responding to the queries of Del Rosario.
- The price quotations are ordinary private writings which under the Revised Rules of Court should have been proffered
along with the testimony of the authors thereof. Del Rosario could not have testified on the veracity of the contents of
the writings even though he was the seasoned owner of a fishing fleet because he was not the one who issued the price
quotations.
- Section 45, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that: 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 there.
- A document is a commercial list if:
(1) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation;
(2) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other published compilation; (3) said
compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that occupation, and
(3) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation.
- Del Rosario’s his testimony as to the equipment installed and the cargoes loaded on the vessel should be given credence
considering his familiarity thereto. However, his valuation of such equipment, cargo and the vessel itself should not be
accepted as gospel truth.
- The price quotations presented as exhibits partake of the nature of hearsay evidence considering that the persons who
Padayon lang. :D
issued them were not presented as witnesses.
10. LEARNED TREATIES

Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein 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 as evidence if:

a. The court takes judicial notice thereof; or
b. The same are testified to by an expert in the subject
11. TESTIMONIES AND DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING

Section 47. 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.
 To be admissible it is required that:

a. The witness is dead or unable to testify
b. 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;
c. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action;
d. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case; and
e. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case.
 The testimony of the unavailable witness is also admissible even if given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative.
 Failure to appear at the second trial, or hostility since testifying at the first trial, does not amount to inability to testify.
 Where the witness in question are available but refused to testify, they do not fall under the meaning of unable to testify as what is
meant under sec 47 rule 130
 Testimony given by a witness in a civil case is not admissible in a subsequent criminal case, even if the said witness died in the
interim.
 What is admissible in a criminal case refers to testimony given during P.I
 The admissibility of a prior judgement and not the previous testimony is governed by different rules.
 The judgement in the criminal proceedings cannot be read in evidence in the civil action to establish any fact therein determined
even though both actions involve the same act or omission.
 Republic vs. Sandiganbayan(comparison between Rule 23 and Rule 130 on deposition)
- Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court on Deposition Pending Action (deposition de bene esse) provides for the
circumstances when depositions may be used in the trial, or at the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding.
 SEC. 4. Use of depositions. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part
or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any party who was
present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any
one of the following provisions:
 (c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court
finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or (2) that the witness resides at a distance more than one hundred (100)
kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it appears that his absence was
procured by the party offering the deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of
age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4) that the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure
the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application and notice, that such exceptional
circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of
presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used[.]
- On the other hand, Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
 SEC. 47. 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.
- A plain reading of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court readily rejects the petitioners position that the Bane deposition can be
admitted into evidence without observing the requirements of Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
 Before a party can make use of the deposition taken at the trial of a pending action, Section 4, Rule 23 of the
Rules of Court does not only require due observance of its sub-paragraphs (a) to (d); it also requires, as a
condition for admissibility, compliance with the rules on evidence. Thus, even Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of
Court makes an implied reference to Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court before the deposition may be
used in evidence. By reading Rule 23 in isolation, the petitioner failed to recognize that the principle conceding
Padayon lang. :D
admissibility to a deposition under Rule 23 should be consistent with the rules on evidence under Section 47,
Rule 130.
 In determining the admissibility of the Bane deposition, therefore, reliance cannot be given on one provision to
the exclusion of the other; both provisions must be considered. This is particularly true in this case where the
evidence in the prior proceeding does not simply refer to a witness testimony in open court but to a deposition
taken under another and farther jurisdiction.
 A deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery whose primary function is to supplement the pleadings for the
purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and affording an adequate factual basis
during the preparation for trial. Since depositions are principally made available to the parties as a means of
informing themselves of all the relevant facts, depositions are not meant as substitute for the actual testimony in
open court of a party or witness. Generally, the deponent must be presented for oral examination in open
court at the trial or hearing. This is a requirement of the rules on evidence under Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court.
- Examination to be done in open court. The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open
court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different
mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
- Indeed, any deposition offered to prove the facts set forth therein, in lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in
open court, may be opposed by the adverse party and excluded under the hearsay rule i.e., that the adverse party had
or has no opportunity to cross-examine the deponent at the time that his testimony is offered. That opportunity for cross-
examination was afforded during the taking of the deposition alone is no argument, as the opportunity for cross-
examination must normally be accorded a party at the time that the testimonial evidence is actually presented against
him during the trial or hearing of a case. However, under certain conditions and for certain limited purposes laid down in
Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, the deposition may be used without the deponent being actually called to the
witness stand.
- Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is an entirely different provision. While a former testimony or deposition appears
under the Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule, the classification of former testimony or deposition as an admissible hearsay is
not universally conceded. A fundamental characteristic of hearsay evidence is the adverse partys lack of opportunity to
cross-examine the out-of-court declarant. However, Section 47, Rule 130 explicitly requires, inter alia, for the admissibility
of a former testimony or deposition that the adverse party must have had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness or
the deponent in the prior proceeding.
- Section 47, Rule 130 requires that the issues involved in both cases must, at least, be substantially the same; otherwise,
there is no basis in saying that the former statement was - or would have been - sufficiently tested by cross-examination
or by an opportunity to do so. (The requirement of similarity though does not mean that all the issues in the two
proceedings should be the same. Although some issues may not be the same in the two actions, the admissibility of a
former testimony on an issue which is similar in both actions cannot be questioned.
 Manliclic vs Calaunan(mishap; reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property with physical injuries; deposition made
under the criminal case used in civil case)
- The testimonies of the respondent’switnesses in the criminal case were admitted in evidence in the civil case. Although
these were not classified as within the purview of a testimony or deposition at a former proceeding, considering that
petitioner PRBLI was not a party to the criminal case but only to the civil case and thus did not have an opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses, the testimonies were still admitted in evidence as such were not timely objected to by the petitioners.
- For Section 47, Rule 130 to apply, the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) the witness is dead or unable to testify; (b) 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; (c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different
causes of action; (d) the issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case; and (e) the
adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case.
 Admittedly, respondent failed to show the concurrence of all the requisites set forth by the Rules for a testimony
given in a former case or proceeding to be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
 Petitioner PRBLI, not being a party in the criminal case, had no opportunity to cross-examine the three witnesses in said
case. The criminal case was filed exclusively against petitioner Manliclic, petitioner PRBLI’s employee. The cases dealing
with the subsidiary liability of employers uniformly declare that, strictly speaking, they are not parties to the criminal
cases instituted against their employees.
- It is elementary that an objection shall be made at the time when an alleged inadmissible document is offered in
evidence; otherwise, the objection shall be treated as waived, since the right to object is merely a privilege which the party
may waive. Thus, a failure to except to the evidence because it does not conform to the statute is a waiver of the provisions
of the law.
 It cannot argue that the TSN of the testimonies of the witnesses of the adverse party in the criminal case should not be
admitted and at the same time insist that the TSN of the testimony of the witness for the accused be admitted in its
favor. To disallow admission in evidence of the TSN of the testimonies of Calaunan, Marcelo Mendoza and Fernando
Ramos in the criminal case and to admit the TSN of the testimony of Ganiban would be unfair.
 Francisco vs. People
- Jovita’s testimony, that Pacita had confessed to her that she had sold four pieces of jewelry to the petitioner, is
inadmissible in evidence against the latter to prove the truth of the said admission. It bears stressing that the petitioner
Padayon lang. :D
was not a party in the said criminal cases. The well-entrenched rule is that only parties to a case are bound by a
judgment of the trial court. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment of said case.
- The testimony of Pacita during the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 92-13841, as well as her supplemental
affidavit, is, likewise, inadmissible against the petitioner since Pacita did not testify in the court a quo.
- The testimony of PO1 Roldan, Jr., that Pacita pointed to the petitioner as the person who bought the subject jewelry from
her, is indeed admissible but only to prove the prove the truth of Pacitas declaration to the policemen, that the
petitioner was the one who purchased the jewelry from her. It must be stressed that the policemen had no personal
knowledge of the said sale, and, more importantly, Pacita did not testify in the court a quo
- The testimony of Macario is admissible in evidence against the petitioner since he testified for the prosecution and was
cross-examined. BUT his testimony is dubious; hence, barren of probative weight
- Thus, Court rule that the petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of violating P.D. No. 1612 for the prosecutions failure to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
OPINION RULE
GENERAL RULE
Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following sections.
OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS

Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he shown to possess, may be received in evidence.
 Felizardo S. Obado and Juan S. Obando v People of the Philippines (conflicting expert testimonies couped with positive evidence
of due execution)
- Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. They are generally regarded as purely advisory in character. The courts
may place whatever weight they choose upon and may reject them, if they find them inconsistent with the facts in the
case or otherwise unreasonable. When faced with conflicting expert opinions, as in this case, courts give more weight
and credence to that which is more complete, thorough, and scientific. The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert
depends not upon his mere statements of whether writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in
pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of
writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer.
- Thus, the questioned signatures and the standard signatures taking into consideration inconspicuous differences
noted by Torres on the questioned and standard signatures, we find that the questioned signatures showed
substantial differences with that of the standard signatures of Alegria.
 Tabao v People
- Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states 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. The use of the word
may signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the
courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean, too, that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. The
testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the
parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it, and is for the court to adopt or not to adopt
depending on its appreciation of the attendant facts and the applicable law.
- Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they may choose upon
such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is
peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions
upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias
in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and
observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which deserve to illuminate his
statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the
facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given
controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the
discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.
- We emphasize that P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio was not an eyewitness to the incident; his testimony was merely based on the
Traffic Accident Report prepared by SPO4 Edgar Reyes who himself did not witness the incident. At any rate, nowhere in
P/Sr. Insp. Cornelios testimony did he conclusively state that the petitioner could not have been involved in the incident.
Gamido v CA(note: I-connect lang ni sya sa topic gyud under Rule 130 Section 50 (b) kay ang legal basis in this case is Rule 132 nga dili
Opinion Rule but Authentication and Proof of Documents)
- Under Rule 132, §22 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, it is not required that the person identifying the handwriting of
another must have seen the latter write the document or sign it. It is enough, if the witness "has seen writing purporting to
be his [the subject's] upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person."
In this case, De la Cruz has been record custodian at Malacañang for so many years; it is inconceivable he had not
Padayon lang. :D
acquired familiarity with the signature not only of President Marcos but of other Presidents under whom he had served.
- There was thus no necessity for a handwriting expert testify on the genuineness of the challenged signatures. As this
Court has once observed, the authenticity of signatures "is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions
concerning, e.g., quantum physics or topology or molecular biology, would constitute matters of a highly technical
nature. The opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness of a questioned signature is certainly much less
compelling upon a judge than an opinion rendered by a specialist on a highly technical issue. The signatures on a
questioned document can be sighted by a judge who can and should exercise independent judgment on the issue of
authenticity of such signatures.
- Here, as the trial court observed, "the forgeries were not only established by the evidence, but they are also as clearly
discernible to the naked eye or mere ocular inspection, as they are conspicuously evident from their appearance. . . .
 Republic v Molina
- The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision
- The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each other and had
not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by
Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as psychological
incapacity.
 Marcos vs Marcos
- The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be
physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such
an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have
given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the
application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a
psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified
psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS

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.
 Hernandez v Santos
- Under Section 50, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, an ordinary witness may give his opinion on the mental sanity of a
person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
- Lulu's attending physicians spoke and interacted with her. Such occasions allowed them to thoroughly observe her
behavior and conclude that her intelligence level was below average and her mental stage below normal. Their
opinions were admissible in evidence.
- Furthermore, where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion is not necessary. The observations of the trial judge
coupled with evidence establishing the person's state of mental sanity will suffice. Here, the trial judge was given ample
opportunity to observe Lulu personally when she testified before the RTC.
- Under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court, persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak
mind or other similar causes are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid, are
considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship. Thus, since determining whether or not
Lulu is in fact an incompetent would require a reexamination of the evidence presented in the courts a quo, it
undoubtedly involves questions of fact.

 Section 48 is the GR on opinion evidence while 49 and 50 are the exceptions
 Opinion of a witness is admissible to the following instances:
a. On matters requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he possesses, that is, when he is an expert thereon;
b. Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a person, when he has knowledge of the person or handwriting, whether he is an
ordinary or expert witness;
Padayon lang. :D
c. On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is sufficiently acquainted with the former or if the latter is an expert witness;
d. On the emotion, behaviour, condition or appearance of a person which he has observed; and
e. On ordinary matter known to all men of common perception, such as the value of ordinary household article.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
GENERAL RULE
Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible
EXCEPTION
Section 51.
(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,

 The rules on the admissibility of character evidence may be summarized as follows:
a. In CRIMINAL CASES, the prosecution may not at the outset prove the bad moral character of the accused which is pertinent
to the moral trait involve in the offense charged. If, the accused, however, in his defence attempts to prove his good moral
character, then the prosecution can introduce evidence of such bad moral character in rebuttal stage.
b. In CRIMINAL CASES, the good or bad moral character of the offended party may always be proved by either party as long as
such evidence tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
c. In CIVIL CASES the moral character of either party thereto cannot be proved unless it is pertinent to the issue of character
d. In BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES, the bad moral character of a witness may always be proved by either party, but no
evidence of his good character, unless it has been impeached.
 In CRIMINAL CASES the prosecution cannot initially attack the character of the accused and can only do so if the accused opens
that issue by introducing evidence of his good moral character when he makes his defense.
 With respect to the nature and substance of the character evidence which may be admissible, the rules require that:
a. With respect to the accused, such character evidence must be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
b. With respect to the offended person, it is sufficient that such character evidence may establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
c. With respect to the witness, such character evidence must refer to his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity, that is,
as affecting his credibility.
 As an exception, proof of the bad character of the victim in a murder case is not admissible of the crime was committed through
treachery or premeditation; bad moral character of a victim in a rape case is not admissible of the crime was commityed by
violence or intimidation.
 In CIVIL CASES, for evidence of a party to be admissible, the issue involved must be character.
 People vs. Noel Lee

- Sec. 51, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence: Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:--
- In Criminal Cases:
 The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
 Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
 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.
- Proof of the bad moral character of the VICTIM must be relevant to determine the probability or improbability of his
killing.
- Proof of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder committed with treachery and
premeditation. While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or
improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not necessary in the crime of murder where the killing is committed
through treachery or premeditation.
- The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide cases to show “that it has produced a reasonable belief
of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was
necessary. This rule does not apply to cases of murder.
Padayon lang. :D
- CHARACTER: possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing him from others. It is the
opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are acquainted with him;
his reputation. Strictly speaking, character is not synonymous with reputation.
- REPUTATION: community estimate of him. In the US, reputation is a method of proving character.
- GOOD MORAL CHARACTER: includes all the elements essential to make up such a character; among these are: common
honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse; a character that measures up as good among 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.
- GENERAL RULE: Character or reputation of a party is legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that evidence
relating thereto is NOT admissible.
 REASON: If issues were so influenced by person’s character, trial would have aspects of a popularity contest
rather than a factual inquiry into the merits.
 The business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may have a righteous cause.
- EXCEPTIONS: Sec. 51, Rule 130 in both criminal and civil cases.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASES (Sec. 51 (1) & (2) of Rule 130)
- GOOD MORAL CHARACTER [Sec. 51 (a) (1)]: The accused may such if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
- When the accused presents proof of his good moral character, this strengthens the presumption of innocence, and
where good character and reputation are established, an inference arises that the accused did not commit the crime
charged. This view proceeds from the theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not likely to have
committed the act charged against him.
BAD MORAL CHARACTER [Sec. 51 (a) (2)]: Prosecution may not prove the bad moral character of the accused except only in
rebuttal and when such evidence is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
- The offering of character evidence on his behalf is a privilege of the defendant, and the prosecution cannot comment
on the failure of the defendant to produce such evidence . Once the defendant raises the issue of his good character,
the prosecution may, in rebuttal, offer evidence of the defendant’s bad character. Otherwise, a defendant, secure from
refutation, would have a license to unscrupulously impose a false character upon the tribunal
- CASE AT BAR: It was the prosecution that first presented evidence of the bad moral character of Lee by citing the 2
criminal cases pending against him. The presentation of this evidence, however, was not objected to by Lee.
- “PERTINENT TO THE MORAL TRAIT INVOLVED IN THE OFFENSE CHARGED”: Character evidence must be relevant and
germane to the kind of the act charged, e.g., on a charge of rape, character for chastity; on a charge of assault,
character for peacefulness or violence; on a charge for embezzlement, character for honesty and integrity.
- CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF THE WITNESS (not relevant here)

With respect to a witness in both criminal and civil cases, his bad moral character may be proved by either party as provided
under Sec. 11, Rule 132. Usually Usu. offered to support a claim of self-defense in an assault or homicide case or a claim of
consent in a rape case.
- Proof of the moral character of the offended party is applied with frequency in sex offenses and HOMICIDE. RAPE AND
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS or in any prosecution involving an unchaste act perpetrated by a man against a woman
where the willingness of a woman is material
- GENERAL RULE: Woman’s character as to her chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented to the man’s
act.
- EXCEPTION: When the woman’s consent is immaterial such as in statutory rape or rape with violence or intimidation.
- CRIMES OF QUALIFIED SEDUCTION or CONSENTED ABDUCTION: The offended party must be a “virgin,” which is “presumed
if she is unmarried and of good reputation,” or a “virtuous woman of good reputation.
- CRIME OF SIMPLE SEDUCTION: Involves “the seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over 12
but under 18 y/o
- BURDEN OF PROOF: Prosecution - that the complainant is a woman of good reputation. Accused may introduce
evidence that the complainant is a woman of bad reputation.
- HOMICIDE CASES: a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissible in 2 situations:

(1) as evidence of the deceased’s aggression;
(2) as evidence of the state of mind of the accused.
 The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the deceased or his calmness, gentleness and
peaceful nature, as the case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the accused was the
aggressor.
- When the evidence tends to prove self-defense, the known violent character of the deceased is also admissible to show
that it produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a
prompt defensive action was necessary.
 People v. Sumicad: deceased was a bully of known violent character, although himself unarmed, he
Padayon lang. :D
attempted to take from the accused a bolo, the only means of defense possessed by the latter. It would have
been an act of suicide for the accused to allow the bolo to pass into the hands of the victim.
- CASE AT BAR: Proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of
his killing. LEE has not alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense. No
connection bet. the deceased’s drug addiction and thievery with his violent death. That because of the victim’s bad
character he could have been killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen, is speculative. MOREOVER, proof of
the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder committed with treachery and premeditation.
- While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the
commission of an offense (Sec. 51 (a) (3), Rule 130), such is NOT NECESSARY in the crime of murder where the killing is
committed through TREACHERY or PREMEDITATION.
- The proof of such character may only be allowed in HOMICIDE cases to show “that it has produced a reasonable belief
of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was
necessary” (Moran). This rule does not apply to cases of MURDER.
- CASE AT BAR: Lee is charged with murder committed through treachery and evident premeditation. Treachery Present:
Joseph was sitting in his living room when Lee peeped through the window and, without any warning, shot him twice in
the head. No opportunity for the victim to defend himself or retaliate. The suddenness of the attack ensured his death
without risk to Lee.
BURDEN OF PROOF and PRESUMPTIONS (RULE 131)
BURDEN OF PROOF
Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law
NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSION:

 BURDEN OF PROOF – or “onus probandi”, is the obligation imposed upon a party who alleges the existence of facts necessary for
the prosecution of his action or defense to establish the same by the requisite quantum if evidence.
Quantum of evidence
 In civil cases, quantum of evidence required to sustain the proponent of an issue is PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.
 In criminal cases:
o For issuance of warrant of arrest after preliminary examination- evidence of probable cause, that there is reasonable
ground to believe that the accused committed the crime
o To warrant the filing of the information- prima facie evidence
o For preliminary investigation- engender a well-founded belief as to the fact of the commission of the crime
o To sustain conviction - evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
o For charges of misconduct against judges – Clear and convincing evidence
o For removal of judges - proof beyond reasonable doubt
 In agrarian, administrative and quasi-judicial cases, the proof required is substantial evidence
Burden of Proof
 In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given
 In criminal cases, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution
 In BOTH, the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts an affirmative allegations, ALSO, negative allegations do not
have to be proved except where such negative allegations are essential parts of the cause of action or defense in a civil, or are
essential ingredients of the offense in a criminal case or the defense
o In breach of contract, the plaintiff has to prove the fact that the obligation is not complied with
o In illegal possession of firearms, prosecution has to prove absence of a license therefor
o In crimes of omission, the prosecution has to prove the non-performance by the accused of the required act
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence

Does not shift as it remains through the trial with the party upon Shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the
whom it is imposed case in the course of the trial
generally determined by the pleading filed by the party Generally determined by the developments at the trial, or by the
provisions of the substantive law or procedural rules which may
relieve the party from presenting evidence on the fact alleged
GR: If criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation or that a negative averment, is an essential element of a crime, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the charge
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED?

1. Facts which are presumed (Rule 131)
2. Facts which are of judicial notice (Rule 129)
3. Facts which are judicially admitted (Rule 129)
FACTS WHICH ARE PRESUMED:

 PRESUMPTION- an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw form the proof of other
facts
Presumption Judicial Notice and Judicial Admission
Proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the Proponent does not have to introduce any evidence
presumption of the existence or non-existence of the facts from
which the court can draw the inference of the fact in issue
Padayon lang. :D
Presumption
 Presumption of law – either conclusive (or absolute, or juris et de jure) and disputable (or rebuttable, or juris tantum, or prima facie)
presumptions
Presumption of Law Presumption of Fact
Certain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which A discretion is vested in the tribunal as to drawing the inference
furnish the basis of the inference
Reduced to fix the rules and form part of the system of Derived wholly and directly from the circumstances of the particular
jurisprudence case by means of the common experience of mankind
CASES:
 Republic v Sandingangbayan, Eduardo M. Cojuanco, Jr. et al
 The burden of proof, according to Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts
in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Here, the Republic, being the
plaintiff, was the party that carried the burden of proof. That burden required it to demonstrate through competent evidence that
the respondents, as defendants, had purchased the SMC shares of stock with the use of public funds; and that the affected
shares of stock constituted ill-gotten wealth.
 Reyes v. Century Canning Corporation, G.R. No. 165377, February 16, 2010 (It is a basic rule in evidence that each party to a case
must prove his own affirmative allegations by the degree of evidence required by law. In civil cases, the party having the burden
of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence, or that evidence that is of greater weight or is more convincing
than that which is in opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one side is more
believable than that of the other side, and that the probability of truth is on one side than on the other.
 Dr. Genevieve L. Huang v Philippine Hoteliers Inc.
It bears stressing that in this jurisdiction there is a disputable presumption that the trial court’s decision is rendered by the
judge in the regular performance of his official duties. While the said presumption is only disputable, it is satisfactory unless
contradicted or overcame by other evidence. Encompassed in this presumption of regularity is the presumption that the trial court
judge, in resolving the case and drafting the decision, reviewed, evaluated, and weighed all the evidence on record. That the
said trial court judge is not the same judge who heard the case and received the evidence is of little consequence when the
records and transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) are complete and available for consideration by the former, 67 just like in the
present case.
In quasi- delict, there is no presumption of negligence and it is incumbent upon the injured party to prove the
negligence of the defendant, otherwise, the former’s complaint will be dismissed, while in breach of contract, negligence is
presumed so long as it can be proved that there was breach of the contract and the burden is on the defendant to prove that
there was no negligence in the carrying out of the terms of the contract; the rule of respondeat superior is followed.
 People v Tan
 When the accused invoke self-defense, the burden of proof is shifted to them to prove that the killing was justified and that they
incurred no criminal liability therefor. They must rely on the strength of their own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the
prosecution, for even if the latter is weak, it could not be disbelieved after their open admission of responsibility for the killing.
 Sultan Padaranganao A. Ilipa v Macalindog S. Abdullah (certificate of divorce)
- It is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his or her
complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has
regularly performed his duties will prevail.
- The alleged erroneous entries on the Certificate of Divorce cannot be attributed to respondent Clerk of Court considering
that it is only his duty to receive, file and register the certificate of divorce presented to him for registration. Further, even if
there were indeed erroneous entries on the certificate of divorce, such errors cannot be corrected nor cancelled through
[his] administrative complaint.
 The Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration and Depaortation v Jung Keun Park (invalid passport)
 In deportation proceedings, the alien bears the burden of proving that he entered the Philippines lawfully.
 We do not believe that Park was able to discharge this burden by belatedly presenting a photocopy of his Passport No.
NW0057145 that bore stamp marks of the date of his arrival in and departure from Malaysia, just days before his return to the
country. In all his pleadings before the BID and the CA, he never mentioned this prior Malaysian trip, and he conveniently excused
the presentation of his Passport No. NW0057145 by claiming he had misplaced/lost it. Since the authenticity of the arrival and
departure stamp marks in Park’s Passport No. NW0057145 had not been passed upon by either the BID or the CA, we cannot
accord it weight and credence.
 Olaza v Hon. Tinga
 Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government official. he may be disciplined by this court as a member of the bar only when his
misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. Considering the serious consequences of the penalty of
disbarment or suspension of a member of the bar, the burden rests on the complainant to present clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers. The respondent generally is under no obligation to prove his/her
Padayon lang. :D
defense, until the burden shifts to him/her because of what the complainant has proven. Where no case has in the first place
been proven, nothing has to be rebutted in defense.
 People of the Philippines v Noel Causay (murder qualified by treachery)
- When self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the killing was legally
justified.Thus, the accused must prove these requisites for self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused; and (3) employment of reasonable means to prevent and
repel aggression.
- In this case, the trial court found that accused-appellant failed to prove the requisites of self-defense.
CONLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a
particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it:
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them.

 Paragraph A and B are based on the doctrine of estoppel in pais. In the law of evidence, they are considered as conclusive
presumptions, that is, with respect to par. A, the fact which the party in estoppel has represented to be true is conclusively
presumed as against him to be true and he is not permitted to introduce evidence to the contrary; with respect to par. B the
ownership of the landlord at the start of the tenancy relation is conclusively presumed as against the tenant and the latter is not
permitted to dispute such fact.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted
and overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(e) That evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;

 There is no Constitutional objection to a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary
presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct, and declaring what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome
such presumption of innocence.
 In order for presumption in paragraph (e) may arise, the ff. are necessary:
a. The evidence is material
b. The party had the opportunity to produce the same; and
c. The said evidence is available only to the said party.
 The presumption does NOT apply if the evidence in question is equally available to the both parties, or the evidence is merely
corroborative, or merely cumulative, or unnecessary.
 The adverse presumption of suppression of evidence does not arise when:
a. Suppression is not wilful;
b. the evidence withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative;
c. evidence is at the disposal of both parties; and
d. the suppression is an exercise of a privilege
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
(i) That prior rents or instalments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced;
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole
act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the
money or delivered the thing accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that
all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the
instrument is dated;
Padayon lang. :D
(u) That writing is truly dated;

(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;

 The doctrinal rule is that before an inference of guilt arising from possession of recently stolen goods can be made:
 Crime was actually committed recently;
 Crime was committed recently;
 Stolen property was found in the possession of the accused; and
 Accused was unable to satisfactorily explain his possession.
 Purpose of conclusively proving possession:
 Possession must be unexplained by any innocent origin;
 Possession must be fairly recent; and
 Possession must be exclusive.
 The Supreme Court stands that in conviction cases involving the foregoing assumptions are not actually sustained upon
presumption of law but rest wholly upon an inference of fact as guilt of the accused.
 Rationale in the presumption under par. (j), if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it, taken
advantage of it and profited thereby the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification.
 For presumption in par. (v), it must be proved that the letter was properly addressed with the postage pre-paid and that it was
actually mailed, and if such letter was not returned to the sender, it is presumed that it was received by the addressee.
 Under Section 10, Rule 13, service of letter by mail is complete upon expiration of 10 days after mailing, unless the court otherwise
provides, while service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, but if he fails to claim his mail from
the post office within 5 days from the first notice, the service is complete upon expiration of such time.
 There must be a conclusive proof of first notice was sent to the addressee as the presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed does NOT apply to this situation.
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all
purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he
disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be
opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not been heard of for four years
since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four
years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he
or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of
death the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as
provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the
effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
NOTES BASED ON BOOK:

 Except for subpar. (4), this is taken from Article 390 and 391 of the CC.
 With respect to the ordinary but continued absence of 7, 10, or 5 years contemplated in the two paragraphs, the absentee is
presumed to have died in the first two subparagraphs.
 In case of qualified absence, where the absentee was in danger of death under the three circumstances, the absentee is
presumed to have died at the time he was exposed to such danger or peril, that is, at the start of the 4-year period therein.
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with
each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts,
work or industry.
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire
properly through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares
including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such
termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been
conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage.
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been
conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage.

 Par. (dd) was taken from Article 259 of the CC.
Padayon lang. :D
 Presumptions of paternity, except the former now includes termination of prior marriage for causes other than death of the
husband in line with Article 168 of the FC.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public authority, was so printed or published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is
published, contains correct reports of such cases;
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him
when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration,
and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is
determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same,
the older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.

 In order that presumption on survivorship will arise, the ff. are necessary:
a. Deaths occurred in a calamity;
b. There are particular circumstances from which it can be inferred that one died ahead of the other.
 Thus, if one ia s one-day old child and the other is 61 years old, it CANNOT be presumed that the one-day old child survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died
first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered
to have died at the same time.

 Same with Rule 43 of the CC, except that it omits the last clause which states “and there shall be no transmission of rights from one
to the other”.
Paragraph kk. Paragraph jj.

not required that the parties perished in a calamity and applies to Applies only when the deaths occurred during the calamity and
questions of successional rights does NOT apply to issues on successional rights
Provides presumption of simultaneity in deaths of persons called to Provides presumption of survivorship
succeed each other
 Insigne v Abra Valley Colleges
 In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or
evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Thus,
the party, whether the plaintiff or the defendant, who asserts the affirmative of an issue bears the onus to prove his
assertion in order to obtain a favorable judgment. From the plaintiff the burden to prove his positive assertions never
parts. Yet, for the defendant, an affirmative defense is one that is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff’s
cause of action, but rather one that, if established, will be a good defense – i.e., an "avoidance" of the claim.
 Being the parties who filed the Motion for Preliminary Hearing of Special and Affirmative Defenses, the respondents bore
the burden of proof to establish that the petitioners were not stockholders of Abra Valley. The respondents’ assertion
therein, albeit negative, partook of a good defense that, if established, would result to their "avoidance" of the claim. On
that basis, the CA erroneously laid the burden of proof on the petitioners.
 Secondly, the petitioners, assuming that they bore the burden of proving their status as stockholders of Abra Valley,
nonetheless discharged their burden despite their non-production of the stock certificates.
 A stock certificate is prima facie evidence that the holder is a shareholder of the corporation,28 but the possession of the
certificate is not the sole determining factor of one’s stock ownership. A certificate of stock is merely: –
 x x x the paper representative or tangible evidence of the stock itself and of the various interests therein. The certificate is
not stock in the corporation but is merely evidence of the holder's interest and status in the corporation, his ownership of
the share represented thereby, but is not in law the equivalent of such ownership. It expresses the contract between the
corporation and the stockholder, but it is not essential to the existence of a share in stock or the creation of the relation
of shareholder to the corporation.
 Travel-On v CA
 Reliance by the lower and appellate court on the company’s financial statements were wrong, to see if Miranda
was liable or not. This financial statements were actually not updated to show that there was indebtedness
on the part of Miranda. The best evidence that the courts should have looked at were the checks itself. There is
a prima facie presumption that a check was issued for valuable consideration and the provision puts the burden
upon the drawer to disprove this presumption. Miranda was unable to relieve himself of this burden.
 Only clear and convincing evidence and not mere self-serving evidence of drawer can rebut this presumption.
Padayon lang. :D
 The company was entitled to the benefit conferred by the statutory provision. Miranda failed to show that the
checks weren’t issued for any valuable consideration.
 The checks were clear by stating that the company was the payee and not a mere accommodated party.
 And also, notice was given to the fact that thechecks were issued after a written demand by the company re
garding Miranda’s unpaid liabilities.
 Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides:
 Section 24. Presumption of consideration. — Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been
issued for a valuable consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a
party thereto for value.
 Section 5(s) of Rule 131 also establishes the presumption "[t]hat a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
sufficient consideration; . . ."
NO PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY OR ILLEGITIMACY
Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. — There is no presumption of legitimacy of a child born after three
hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or
illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation.

 This is an exact copy of Article 261 of the CC and should properly applied when the dissolution of marriage is by reason of causes
other than death of the husband.
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (Rule 132)

EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
Examination to be done in open court
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in
open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the questions calls for a different mode
of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1a)
 People vs. Alma Bisda

 Any child regardless of age, can be a competent witness if she can perceive and perceiving, can make known to
others, and that she is capable of relating truthfully facts for which she is examined.
 In order that one may be competent as a witness, it is not necessary that he has a definite knowledge of the difference
between his duty to tell the truth after being sworn and before, or that he be able to state it, but it is necessary that he
be conscious that there is a difference.[58] It cannot be argued that simply because a child witness is not examined on
the nature of the oath and the need for her to tell the whole truth, the competency of the witness and the truth of her
testimony are impaired. If a party against whom a witness is presented believes that the witness is incompetent or is not
aware of his obligation and responsibility to tell the truth and the consequence of him testifying falsely, such party may
pray for leave to conduct a voire dire examination on such witness to test his competency.[59] The court may motu
proprio conduct the voir dire examination.
 [W]hen a witness is produced, it is a right and privilege accorded to the adverse party to object to his examination on
the ground of incompetency to testify. If a party knows before trial that a witness is incompetent, objection must be
made before trial that a witness is incompetent, objection must be made before he has given any testimony; if the
incompetency appears on the trial, it must be interposed as soon as it becomes apparent.
 The determination of the competence and capability of a child as a witness rests primarily with the trial judge. [67] The trial
court correctly found Angela a competent witness and her testimony entitled to full probative weight. Any child
regardless of age, can be a competent witness if she can perceive and perceiving, can make known to others, and
that she is capable of relating truthfully facts for which she is examined.
 THUS, When Angela testified, the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness was not yet in effect. Under Section 7 of the said
Rule, before testifying, a child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. The Rule took effect on December 1, 2000.
 In relation to Section 6, of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness reads:
 SEC. 6. Competency.Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct a
competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt exists
regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or
appreciate the duty to tell the truth.
(a) Proof of necessity. A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of necessity of competency
examination. The age of the child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a competency examination.
(b) Burden of proof. To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the
party challenging his competence.
(c) Persons allowed at competency examination. Only the following are allowed to attend a competency
examination:
Padayon lang. :D
(1) The judge and necessary court personnel;
(2) The counsel for the parties;
(3) The guardian ad litem;
(4) One or more support persons for the child; and
(5) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in his absence.
(d) Conduct of examination. Examination of a child as to his competence shall be conducted only by the
judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit questions to the judge that he may, in his
discretion, ask the child.
(e) Developmentally appropriate questions. The questions asked at the competency examination shall
be appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child; shall not be related to the issues at
trial; and shall focus on the ability of the child to remember, communicate, distinguish between truth
and falsehood, and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.
(f) Continuing duty to assess competence. The court has the duty of continuously assessing the competence of
the child throughout his testimony.
Proceedings to be recorded
Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. — The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions propounded to a
witness and his answers thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to
the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer, steno typist or recorder and certified as correct
by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. (2a)
NOTES BASED ON THE BOOK:
 To be admissible, the testimony of the witness must be given in open court, except that such requirement may be
supplanted:
o In civil cases, by depositions pursuant to and under the limitations of the Rule 23 and 24; and
o In criminal cases, by depositions or conditional examinations, pursuant to Sections 12-15, Rule 119, and
Section1, Rule 123, or by the records of the preliminary investigation, under the circumstances of Section
10, Rule 115
 The mere presentation of the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses subject to cross-examination is not allowed by the
Rules.
 Under Blg. 129, summary procedures may be authorized by the Supreme Court, like, ejectment, violation of traffic laws,
rules and regulations, violation of rental law and other cases determined by SC, procedures may be adopted by SC which
may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony.
 The testimony of the witness should be elicited by questions of counsel. The court should be given leeway to ascertain the
truth, and the extent to which such examination may be constructed rests in its discretion to the prejudice of either party.
 The testimony of a witness in court cannot be considered self-serving since he can be subjected to cross-examination.
 SELF-SERVING – one made out of court and is excluded on the same ground as hearsay evidence, like, deprivation of the
right to cross-examination.
Rights and obligations of the witness
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a
claim against him. However, it is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from
which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an
offense. (3a, 19a)
 “witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense” is an exception to SELF-DEGREDATION
 A witness cannot refuse to answer questions material to the inquiry even if it may tend to establish a claim against him, but
he may validly refuse to answer:
o Under the right against self-incrimination, if this answer will tend to subject him to punishment for an
offense.
o Under the right against self-degredation, if his answer will have direct tendency to degrade his character,
unless:
 Such question is directed to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact at issue would
be presumed, or
 It refers to his previous final conviction for an offense.
Padayon lang. :D
 With respect to the accused in criminal cases, his right against self-incrimination is provided in Section1(e), Rule 115 wherein
he may refuse to take the stand altogether, but in other cases or proceedings, a party may be compelled to take the sand
although he may object the incriminating questions.
 The right against self-incrimination is available in criminal, civil, administrative cases.
 The right against self-incrimination, which may be invoked by the accused, may be with reference to the offense involved
in the same case wherein he is charged or to an offense for which he may be charged and tried in another case; with
respect to the witness, the offense involved is one for which he may be tried in another case.
 For cases involving falsification of evidence, where the accused took the witness stand and testified denying his authorship
of the alleged falsified signature, on cross-examination, he can be compelled to give sample of his handwriting and it was
not a denial of his right against self-incrimination.
 This section grants the witness the right against self-incrimination “unless otherwise provided by law.” The exception
provided refers to immunity statutes. Immunity statutes may be classified in to two and are as follows:
a. USE IMMUNITY- prohibits the use of the witness compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the
criminal prosecution.
b. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY- grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled
testimony relates.
- Where the statute grants only use immunity, merely testifying and/or producing evidence does not render the witness
immune from prosecution despite his invocation of the right against self-incrimination.
- A corporation cannot invoke the right against self-incrimination as the questioned testimony can come only from a corporate
officer which has separate and distinct from that of the corporation.
Order in the examination of an individual witness
Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. — The order in which the individual witness may be examined is as
follows;
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4)
Direct examination
Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the
facts relevant to the issue. (5a)
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
is a rule intended to expedite court proceedings necessitating an extensive discussion to thresh out various issues, for purpose of case
congestion and delays.
- It is applicable in all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring reception of evidence before:
a. MTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, and Shari’a Circuit Cours but shall NOT apply in small claim cases
b. RTC and Shari’a District Courts
c. Sandigan bayan, CTA, CA and Shari’a appellate courts
d. Investigating officers and bodies authorized by SC, including IBP
e. Special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of SC
- Submission of judicial affidavits in lieu of direct testimonies:
a. Judicial affidavits of their witness; and
b. Parties’ documentary or object evidence shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and marked as exhibits A,B,C,
and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as exhibit 1,2,3 and so on in case of the respondent or
the defendant
- Content is prepared in the language known to the witness and, if nit in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in
English or Filipino.
- Content requirement:
a. Name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness:
b. Name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the place where
the examination is being held;
c. Statement that the witness is answering the question asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and
that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury
d. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance
with the Rules of Court;
e. The signature of the witness over his printed name; and

f. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by law to
administer the same.
- If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile
Padayon lang. :D
witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books,
documents, or other things under his control available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the
requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules
of Court.
- Adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or strike out his affidavit or any of the answers on the ground of
inadmissibility
- Court will rule on the motion, if granted- marking of any excluded by placing brackets under the initials of an authorized court
personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under sec 40 rule 132
- Adverse party shall have the right to cross examine the witness on his Judicial Affidavit and exhibits
- (ORAL OFFER OF AND OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS)Court shall take active part in examining of the witness to determine his
credibility and to the truth:
a. Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his
documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which
he offers the particular exhibit.
b. After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if any, to its
admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
c. Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is
sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing
with the description of each exhibit.
- This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
a. Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
b. Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or
c. With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
- Failure to submit Judicial Affidavit and exhibits on time:

a. Effect: waiver of submission; the court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the
scheduled hearing of the case
 Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his
client’s right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses.
 Court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content and attestation
requirement.
b. Court may allow, once, the submission before hearing or trial provided:
 For valid reason
 Not prejudicial to the opposing party
 Defaulting party shall pay of not less that 1k and not more that 5k at the discretion of the court
- Supplemental Affidavits may be allowed when it is necessary to execute a supplemental or amended affidavit, like in cases
of newly-discovered evidence
- RTC- no, unless the accused consents, or unless if the subject of judicial affidavit is the civil aspect.
- In MTC- always judicial affidavit.
- S5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule expressly excludes from its application adverse party and hostile witnesses. Enough for the
party calling the adverse party witness to serve beforehand written interrogatories pursuant to S6 R25. (Ng Meng Tam v. China
Banking Corp., 5 August 2015).
- In cases covered by the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct
testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of the presentation of the witness.
• JURAT- refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents
an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes
an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENT- refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public
and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary;
and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document
Judicial Affidavit Rule Deposition
Affidavits are Not admissible in evidence, except if it is a Means to compel disclosure of facts of persons which are
Judicial affidavit or satisfies the formal requirement under relevant
JAR
 EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER RULE

- Is a rule in the judicial system’s use excessive quantities of costly paper, save our forests, avoid landslides, and mitigate the
worsening effects of climate change that the world is experiencing
- It is applicable to ALL courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of the SC.
- FORMAT and STYLE:
a. All pleadings, motions and similar papers intended for the court and quasi-judicial body’s consideration and action
(court-bound papers) shall written in single space with one-and-a –half space between paragraphs, using an easily
Padayon lang. :D
readable font style of the party’s choice, of 14-size font, and on a 13 –inch by 8.5- inch white bond paper; and
b. All decisions, resolutions and orders issued by courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of
the Supreme Court shall comply with these requirements. Similarly covered are the reports submitted to the courts
and transcripts of stenographic notes.
c. The parties shall maintain the following margins on all court-bound papers: a left hand margin of 1.5 inches from the
edge; an upper margin of 1.2 inches from the edge; a right hand margin of 1.0 inch from the edge; and a lower
margin of 1.0 inch from the edge. Every page must be consecutively numbered.
- Copies to be filed:
a. In the Supreme Court, one original (properly marked) and four copies, unless the case is referred to the Court En
Banc, in which event, the parties shall file ten additional copies. For the En Banc, the parties need to submit only two
sets of annexes, one attached to the original and an extra copy. For the Division, the parties need to submit also
two sets of annexes, one attached to the original and an extra copy. All members of the Court shall share the extra
copies of annexes in the interest of economy of paper. (4/10)
b. Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are further required, on voluntary basis for the first six months following the
effectivity of this Rule and compulsorily afterwards unless the period is extended, to submit, simultaneously with their
court-bound papers, soft copies of the same and their annexes (the latter in PDF format) either by email to the
Court’s e-mail address or by compact disc (CD). This requirement is in preparation for the eventual establishment of
an e-filing paperless system in the judiciary.
c. In the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, one original (properly marked) and two copies with their annexes;
(1/2A)
d. In the Court of Tax Appeals, one original (properly marked) and two copies with annexes. On appeal to the En
Banc, one Original (properly marked) and eight copies with annexes; and (1/2A)
e. In other courts, one original (properly marked) with the stated annexes attached to it. (1)
Cross-examination; its purpose and extent
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-
examined by the adverse party as to many matters stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient
fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
 People vs. Fabre
- The cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party against whom the witness is called. The purpose of cross-
examination is to test the truth or accuracy of the statements of a witness made on direct examination. The party against
whom the witness testifies may deem any further examination unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence
theretofore adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on what would be believed is the perception of the court thereon.
Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give full weight to the testimony of a witness on direct examination merely because
he is not cross-examined by the other party.
Re-direct examination
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. — After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he
may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. On re-
direct-examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its
discretion. (12)
Re-cross-examination
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the
witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its
discretion. (13)
 A witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party not only as to matters stated in the direct examination but also as to any
matter connected therewith, and this he should be allowed to do with sufficient fullness and freedom to test the witness
accuracy, truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, and also to elicit from him any important fact bearing upon the issue.
 Where the witness in an unwilling or hostile witness so declared by the court or is and adverse party, the cross-examination shall
only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. This is the same as the limitation of the cross-examination of an accused
who testifies as a witness in his own behalf.
 When the question which assumes facts not on record is asked on cross-examination, it is objectionable for being misleading; if on
direct examination, it is objectionable for lack of basis.
 Cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the
uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent and should be stricken from the record.
Padayon lang. :D
 Please relate this to the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC/November 21,2001)
Recalling witness
Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be
recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may require.
(14)
 People vs. Velasco(murder/stabbed)
- This rule is well-settled that the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses presented before it
for it had occasion to observe the witnesses' deportment on the stand and the manner in which they gave their testimonies.
In fact, it has become a consistent and immutable rule, since more often than not, the appeals relate to the credibility of
witnesses, that we are bound by the prevailing doctrine, founded on a host of jurisprudential rulings, to the effect that the
matter is best determined at the trial court level where testimonies are "first hand given, received, assessed and evaluated.
Thus in the absence of a showing that serious and substantial errors were committed by the lower court in the appraisal of the
evidence before it, factual findings, particularly, the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses
are accorded great weight and respect 85 and treats it with finality.
- It is a well-settled rule that the defense of alibi, admittedly, the weakest defense, cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses.
- In the light of the positive identification made by an eyewitness who admittedly has no grudge against the accused-
appellant the defense of alibi put up by the latter does not hold water.
- It is the burden of the accused not only to prove that he was not at the scene of the crime when it happened but also that it
was impossible for him to be there at the time of the commission of the offense.
- In the case of Arce, et al. vs. Arce, et al., it was held that if, after hearing all the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial
Judge is not satisfied, he may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, on his own motion and in furtherance of justice, call
additional witnesses or recall some of the same witnesses, for the purpose of questioning them himself, in order to satisfy his
mind with reference to particular facts or issues involved in the case.
 The recall of the witness for further examination is discretionary with the court as the interest of justice requires. However, where
such examination has not been concluded, or if the recall of the witness was expressly reserved by a party with the approval of
the court then his recall is a matter of right.
Leading and misleading questions
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party
desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender
years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or
of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has
previously stated. It is not allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a)
 People vs. Perez (Statutory rape case)

- As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when the witness is a child of tender
years13 as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts without prompting or suggestion. Leading questions are necessary
to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips .In the case at bar, the trial court was justified in allowing leading questions to
Mayia as she was evidently young and unlettered, making the recall of events difficult, if not uncertain.
- In People v. Rodito Dagamos:

"The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to the courts in exercising control over the questioning of a child
witness. The reasons are spelled out in our Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on December 15,
2000, namely, (1) to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2) to ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate
to the developmental level of the child, (3) to protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and (4) avoid
waste of time. Leading questions in all stages of examination of a child are allowed if the same will further the interests of
justice."
- The Court has repeatedly stated that it is highly inconceivable for a child of tender age, inexperienced in the ways of the
world, to fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo a medical examination of her private part, subject herself to public trial,
and tarnish her family’s honor and reputation, unless she was motivated by a strong desire to seek justice for the wrong
committed against her.
Padayon lang. :D
Impeachment of adverse party’s witness
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called,
by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he
has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts,
except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an
offense. (15)
Party may not impeach its own witness
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
Section 10, the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse
interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting
him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad character. He may also be
impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief. (6a, 7a)
 Design Sources International v. Eristingcol (the other witness heard the statements of the other witnesses)
- Excluding future witnesses from the courtroom at the time another witness is testifying, or ordering that these witnesses be
kept separate from one another, is primarily to prevent them from conversing with one another. The purpose is to ensure that
the witnesses testify to the truth by preventing them from being influenced by the testimonies of the others. In other words, this
measure is meant to prevent connivance or collusion among witnesses. The efficacy of excluding or separating witnesses has
long been recognized as a means of discouraging fabrication, inaccuracy, and collusion. However, without any motion from
the opposing party or order from the court, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits a witness from hearing the testimonies of
other witnesses.
- There is nothing in the records of this case that would show that there was an order of exclusion from the RTC, or that there
was any motion from respondent’s counsel to exclude other witnesses from the courtroom prior to or even during the
presentation of the testimony of Kenneth. Also, there was nothing to prevent Stephen from hearing the testimony of Kenneth.
Therefore, the RTC should have allowed Stephen to testify for petitioners.
- Without any prior order or at least a motion for exclusion from any of the parties, a court cannot simply allow or disallow the
presentation of a witness solely on the ground that the latter heard the testimony of another witness. It is the responsibility of
respondent’s counsel to protect the interest of his client during the presentation of other witnesses. If respondent actually
believed that the testimony of Kenneth would greatly affect that of Stephen’s, then respondent’s counsel was clearly remiss
in his duty to protect the interest of his client when he did not raise the issue of the exclusion of the witness in a timely manner.
How witness is impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements
Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. — Before a witness can be impeached by evidence
that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with
the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements,
and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to
him concerning them. (16)
 People vs. Jaime Castillano (murder/multiple stab wounds)

- The Court has consistently held that like alibi, self-defense is inherently weak because it is easy to fabricate
- In a case where self-defense and defense of relatives is invoked by the accused, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to
prove with clear and convincing evidence the essential requisites of self-defense, namely (a) unlawful aggression on the part
of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself. There can be no complete or incomplete self-defense or defense of relatives unless
the accused proves unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Appellant Ronald failed to discharge his burden.
- On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General asserts that the credibility of the testimony of Luz, the prosecutions
principal witness, cannot be impeached via her testimony during the preliminary examination before the municipal trial court
nor by her sworn statement given to the police investigators for the reason that the transcripts and sworn statement were
neither marked and offered in evidence by the appellants nor admitted in evidence by the trial court.
- Before the credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his testimony can be impeached by evidence consisting of his prior
statements which are inconsistent with his present testimony, the cross-examiner must lay the predicate or the foundation for
impeachment and thereby prevent an injustice to the witness being cross-examined.
- The witness must be given a chance to recollect and to explain the apparent inconsistency between his two statements and
state the circumstances under which they were made.
Padayon lang. :D
- held in People v. Escosura[52] that the statements of a witness prior to her present testimony cannot serve as basis for
impeaching her credibility unless her attention was directed to the inconsistencies or discrepancies and she was given an
opportunity to explain said inconsistencies.
- In this case, the appellants never confronted Luz with her testimony during the preliminary examination and her sworn
statement. She was not afforded any chance to explain any discrepancies between her present testimony and her testimony
during the preliminary examination and her sworn statement.
- The inconsistencies adverted to by the appellants pertained only to minor and collateral matters and not to the elements of
the crime charged; hence, they do not dilute the probative weight of the testimony. It bears stressing that even the most
truthful witness can make mistakes but such innocent lapses do not necessarily affect his credibility.
 People vs. Nestor Bajada y Bautista (Robbery with homicide)
- In People vs. Alegado, it was held that held that inconsistencies between the sworn statement and the testimony in court do
not militate against the witness credibility since sworn statements are generally considered inferior to the testimony in open
court.
- In any case, Asaytono was able to sufficiently identify Bajada as one of the perpetrators to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Asaytonos familiarity with Bajada cannot be denied; she has known Bajada and Calisay for more than a year prior to the
incident. The two accused were also frequent visitors at the victims house. Hence, Asaytono was acquainted with Bajadas
physical features. The trial court found her testimony to be credible, frank, straightforward, and consistent throughout the trial.
We see no reason to disturb this finding since trial courts are in a unique position to observe the demeanor of witnesses. The
trial courts findings regarding the witness credibility are accorded the highest degree of respect.
- Bajadas alibi likewise deserves no merit. For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that the accused was somewhere else at the
time of the commission of the offense and that it was physically impossible for the accused to be present at the scene of the
crime at the time of its commission.[20] Bajada himself admitted, however, that the travel time from Bayate, Liliw, Laguna to
the crime scene is only 15 minutes by jeep. Hence, it was possible for him to be at the crime scene at or around the time the
offense was committed.
 A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the answer desired; propounded to a witness may, be reacting to an
inference in his mind, cause him to testify in accordance with the suggestion by the question; his answer may be “rather an echo
of the question” than genuine recollection of events.
 A misleading question is one which assumes facts not in evidence or without sufficient basis or which assumes testimony or proof
which has not been given
 Testimony on direct examination elicited through leading questions of counsel for the proponent has little probative value
 A leading question may be permitted in examination of a witness who is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical condition;
uneducated; ignorant of; unaccustomed to, court proceedings; inexperienced; unsophisticated; feebleminded; confused and
agitated; terrified; timid or embarrassed whole on the stand; lacking in comprehension of questions or slow to understand; deaf
and dumb; or unable to speak or understand the English language
 A party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in the case is, as a rule by the testimony of the said witness. Except:
a. In the case of a HOSTILE WITNESS;
b. Where the witness is the ADVERSE PARTY or the representative of a juridical person which is the adverse party; and
c. When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is required by law to be presented by the proponent, as in the case of
subscribing witnesses to a will
 A party can impeach the adverse party witness by:
a. Contradictory evidence
b. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements
c. Evidence of bad character
d. Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or incompetent
 A party can impeach his own witness by:
a. Evidence contradictory to his testimony
b. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements.
 In case of hostile witnesses, adverse party witness or involuntary witnesses, they can also be impeached by other methods of
impeachment, aside from contradictory statements and prior inconsistent statements.
 Contradictory statements refer to other testimony of the same witness, or other evidence present by him in the same case, but not
the testimony of another witness.
 Prior inconsistent statements refer to statements, oral or documentary, made by the witness sought to be impeached on
occasions other than the trial in which he is testifying.
 A witness may be impeached by prior inconsistent statements by “laying the predicate” by:
 By confronting him with such statements, with the circumstances under which they were made;
 By asking him whether he made such statements; and
 By giving him the chance t explain the inconsistency.
UNLESS the witness is given the opportunity to explain the discrepancies, the impeachment is incomplete.
The defect in the impeachment of a witness sis deemed waived where no objection on that ground is raised when the document
involved is offered for admission.
 If prior inconsistent statement appears in a deposition of the adverse party, and not a mere witness, that adverse party who
testifies may be impeached without laying the predicate, as such prior statements are in nature of admissions.
Padayon lang. :D
 Under Section 4(b), Rule 23, the deposition of an adverse party may be used by any party for any purpose, like, as evidence of
the latter or to impeach or contradict such party deponent through inconsistent statements.
 As held by SC, where previous statements of a witness are offered as evidence of the admission, and not merely to impeach him,
the rule on laying the predicate does not apply and the same would apply to like statements of the adverse party to the case.
Evidence of good character of the witness
Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. — Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached. (17)
Exclusion and separation of the witness
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude from the court any witness not
at the time under examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses to
be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. (18)
 This is in relation to Rule 130, Section 51 wherein:
 The rules on the admissibility of character evidence may be summarized as follows:

e. In CRIMINAL CASES, the prosecution may not at the outset prove the bad moral character of the accused which is pertinent
to the moral trait involve in the offense charged. If, the accused, however, in his defence attempts to prove his good moral
character, then the prosecution can introduce evidence of such bad moral character in rebuttal stage.
f. In CRIMINAL CASES, the good or bad moral character of the offended party may always be proved by either party as long as
such evidence tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
g. In CIVIL CASES the moral character of either party thereto cannot be proved unless it is pertinent to the issue of character
h. In BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES, the bad moral character of a witness may always be proved by either party, but no
evidence of his good character, unless it has been impeached.
 In CRIMINAL CASES the prosecution cannot initially attack the character of the accused and can only do so if the accused opens
that issue by introducing evidence of his good moral character when he makes his defense.
 With respect to the nature and substance of the character evidence which may be admissible, the rules require that:
d. With respect to the accused, such character evidence must be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
e. With respect to the offended person, it is sufficient that such character evidence may establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
f. With respect to the witness, such character evidence must refer to his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity, that is,
as affecting his credibility.
 As an exception, proof of the bad character of the victim in a murder case is not admissible of the crime was committed through
treachery or premeditation; bad moral character of a victim in a rape case is not admissible of the crime was committed by
violence or intimidation.
 The power of exclusion applies only to the witnesses and not to the parties in a civil case, as the parties have the right to be
present at the trial either by themselves or through their attorneys, as well as reasonable notice of the time fixed therefor.
 The SC ruled that: “A party to an action has the right to be present in court while his case is being tried, and the rule authorizing
the exclusion of witnesses during the trial cannot be understood to extend to him”
 If the witness violates the order of exclusion, the court may bar him from testifying or give a little weight to his testimony aside from
is liability for contempt.
 On the other hand, it is within the power of the trial judge to refuse to order the exclusion of the principal witness of the
government during the hearing of the criminal case, it may not, on that count alone, be considered as an abuse of discretion.
When witness may refer to memorandum
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. — A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by
anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at
any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case
the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the
witness upon it, and may read it in evidence./ So, also, a witness may testify from such writing or record, though he retain no
recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made;
but such evidence must be received with caution. (10a)
 The 1st sentence of this section is known as “revival of present memory”- applies if the witness remembers the facts regarding his
entries and is entitled to greater weight.
 The 2nd sentence is known as “revival of past recollection”- applies where the witness does not recall facts involved, and is entitled
of lesser weight.
 The provision applies only when it is shown that there is a need to refresh the memory of the witness.
 The memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such for
the reason that the witness has just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory.
Padayon lang. :D
 Where the witness has testified independently of or after his memory has been refreshed by the memorandum of the events in
dispute, it is not admissible as corroborative evidence, since the witness may not be corroborated by written statements of the
same facts, unless proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down.
When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, remainder, the remainder admissible
Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder, the remainder admissible. — When part
of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be
inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other
act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. (11a)
Right to respect writing shown to witness
Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to witness. — Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the
adverse party. (9a)
 Catacutan vs. People(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act/promotional appointments)

- Petitioner was not deprived of his right to due process.
- Due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard. Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. Where an opportunity to be heard either through
oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.
- Guided by these established jurisprudential pronouncements, petitioner can hardly claim denial of his fundamental right to
due process. Records show that petitioner was able to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, argue his case
vigorously, and explain the merits of his defense.
- It is well within the courts discretion to reject the presentation of evidence which it judiciously believes irrelevant and
impertinent to the proceeding on hand. This is specially true when the evidence sought to be presented in a criminal
proceeding as in this case, concerns an administrative matter.
- Court has no option but to declare that the courts below correctly disallowed the introduction in evidence of the CA
Decision. Due process of law is not denied by the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent evidence, or testimony
of an incompetent witness. It is not an error to refuse evidence which although admissible for certain purposes, is not
admissible for the purpose which counsel states as the ground for offering it.
- Petitioner could have availed of the remedy provided in Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the
offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may
state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed
testimony.
- he could have included the same in his offer of exhibits. If an exhibit sought to be presented in evidence is rejected, the party
producing it should ask the courts permission to have the exhibit attached to the record.
- Any evidence that a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court must be formally offered by him otherwise it is
excluded and rejected and cannot even be taken cognizance of on appeal. The rules of procedure and jurisprudence do
not sanction the grant of evidentiary value to evidence which was not formally offered.
NOTES:
 Same with the rules on depositions, Section 4, Rule 23
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
Classes of documents
Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the entered therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)
 Under the Revised Penal Code, documents are classified into:
Padayon lang. :D
 Public- acknowledged before persons authorized to administer oaths, as governed by Section 30.
 Commercial/ Private
 Private documents are required by law to be entered in public records, are considered public documents and governed by
Section 27.
 Public Documents generally include notarial documents and are admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof
as to its authenticity ad due execution, except where a special rule or law requires proof thereof despite being a document
acknowledged in accordance with Section 30 (as in the case of probate of a will where testimony of attesting witnesses are still
required)
 Requisites of admissibility of copy of a foreign documents:
 It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the record or by his deputy; and
 It mus be accompanied by a certificate of the Philippine diplomatic or consular representative to the foreign country
certifying that such attesting officer has custody of the documents.
 A document to be public must be an official written act of a public officer (Rule 132, Section 19(a), Revised Rules of Court). While
public records kept in the Philippines of private writings are also public documents under Section 19 (c), of Rule 132. The public
writing is not the writing itself but the “public record” thereof.
 If a private writing itself is inserted officially in a public record, its record to the public record becomes a public document, but
does not make the private writing itself a public document as to make it admissible without authentication.
 A claim for enforcement of foreign judgment can be brought only before the regular courts and not to administrative agency.
 A foreign decision purporting to be a written record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country, is a public writing
under Section 19 (a), Rule 132 and must be proved in accordance with Section 24 and 25 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Proof of private document
Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)
 Spouses Dela Rama vs. Spouses Papa(notarized Absolute Deed of Sale/Forgery)
- The Court of Appeals correctly observed that petitioners had the onus probandi to establish such forgery. In concluding that
petitioners failed to discharge such burden, the appellate court cited the rule upholding the presumption of regularity of a
notarized document. Applying that rule, it is necessary that the forgery must be established not merely by preponderance of
evidence, but by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the Court of Appeals appears to have applied that more
exacting standard.
- Yet Atty. Gumtang was never called on as a witness for the defense, nor was any other step taken by the respondents to
otherwise establish that Papa had signed the deed of sale in front of the notary public.
- With respect to deeds of sale or conveyance, what spells the difference between a public document and a private
document is the acknowledgment in the former that the parties acknowledging the document appear before the notary
public and specifically manifest under oath that they are the persons who executed it, and acknowledge that the same are
their free act and deed.
- The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the
notarization was regular. We cannot ascribe that conclusion at bar to the deed of sale. Respondent failed to confirm before
the RTC that he had actually appeared before the notary public, a bare minimum requirement under Public Act No. 2103.
Such defect will not ipso facto void the deed of sale. However, it eliminates the presumptions that are carried by notarized
public documents and subject the deed of sale to a different level of scrutiny than that relied on by the Court of Appeals. This
consequence is with precedent
- In Tigno v. Sps. Aquino,[16] where the public document in question had been notarized by a judge who had no authority to
do so, the Court dispensed with the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to duly notarized
documents, and instead applied preponderance of evidence as the measure to test the validity of that document.
- The clear requirements of law for a proper acknowledgment may not be dispensed with simply because generations of
transactions have blithely ignored such requirements. If it is physically impossible for the vendor and the vendee to meet and
sign the deed in the presence of one notary public, there is no impediment to having two or more different notaries ratifying
the document for each party that respectively appears before them. This is the prudent practice adopted by professional
law enterprises, and it is a correct measure in consonance with the law.
- Under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, documents acknowledged before a notary public except for last wills and
testaments are deemed as public documents, and as such, under Section 23 of the same Rule, they are evidence of the
fact which gave rise to its execution and as to its date.
- Excepting the other public documents enumerated in Section 19, all other writings are private, and before such private
document is offered as authentic, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) by anyone who saw the
document executed or written; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Accordingly, in order that the challenged deed of sale may be accepted by the Court as genuine, we must be satisfied by
the evidence on record establishing that its genuineness was proved by anyone who saw the document executed or written,
or by evidence of the genuineness or handwriting of the maker.
- This shift in perspectives relieves petitioners of an extraordinary burden to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the
Padayon lang. :D
deed of sale was forged, as well as any presumption that the said document is genuine as to its due execution. The question
now is thus whether they were able to establish the fact of forgery through a preponderance of evidence.
- Accordingly, in this case if the evidence presented by the petitioners that the deed of sale is a forgery is greater or more
convincing than that presented by the respondents, then favorable relief may be granted to petitioners. The evidence-in-
chief presented by petitioners to prove that the deed of sale was fraudulent consists of the testimony of two witnesses for the
plaintiff petitioner Juan dela Rama, and respondent Oscar Papa, who called as a hostile witness for the plaintiff.
- The Court of Appeals noted that his testimony was not corroborated, thus, self-serving, and further castigated the trial court
for failing to apply Section 22 of Rule 132, which establishes how the genuineness of handwriting must be proved.
- If the challenged deed of sale were considered by us as a public document, then dela Ramas mere testimonial disavowal of
his signature would be insufficient to rebut the presumptive due execution of that writing. However, since we cannot consider
the deed of sale as a public document owing to its improper acknowledgment, Dela Ramas denial that the signature was his
gains greater weight for evidentiary purposes.
When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a private document is more than thirty
years old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. (22a)
How genuineness of handwriting proved
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it
to be the handwriting of such person 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.
(23a
 Spouses Dela Rama vs. Spouses Papa

- The Court of Appeals noted that his testimony was not corroborated, thus, self-serving, and further castigated the trial court
for failing to apply Section 22 of Rule 132, which establishes how the genuineness of handwriting must be proved.
- In the case of Emas v. De Zuzuarregui and Aguilar, As evidence of the crime of forgery, the plaintiff's attorney submitted in the
trial court certified copies of the judgments entered in the Court of First Instance of Manila and afterwards in the Supreme
Court in the criminal case convicting Ortega of the crime of estafa by falsification of a public document. These certified
copies were admitted by the trial court as competent proof and the attorney for the defendants objected on the ground
that said judgments are inadmissible in this civil action, being res inter alios acta. As an abstract point of law the assignment
of error based on this exception is perhaps well taken; but we are of the opinion that, apart from said certified judgments, the
record contains ample evidence to support the finding of the trial court that the original of the Exhibit A is a forged
document, and that the present plaintiff, Lucio Emas, was not a party thereto.
- After all, the owner of such disputed signature may fall within the category of any witness who believes it to be the
handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
such person.
- At the very least, Section 22 of Rule 132 does not exclude such testimony from consideration. It is in fact well-established in the
law of evidence that the testimony of the very person whose signature is disputed is more than competent proof on the
genuineness of such signature.
- According to Wigmore on Evidence, there even was once thought that for proving the genuineness of a document the
alleged writer was a preferred witness, though it is now believed that no such rule of preference exists.
- We acknowledge the general premise that the testimony of the very person whose signature is put in question has probative
value, whether such testimony is offered to affirm or dispute the genuineness of his signature. That testimony satisfies the
requirements under Section 22 of Rule 132 on how handwriting must be proved. At the same time, the evidentiary weight of
such testimony wholly depends on the strength of the particular witnesss testimony viewed in conjunction with the totality of
the evidence at hand.
- In addition, another corroborative piece of evidence of the petitioners, as found by the trial court, lay in the fact that the
dela Ramas had paid real estate taxes on the property until about 1993,[35] or eight (8) years after the purported sale. Any
reasonable person who had sold his property would not undertake the unnecessary burden of continuing to pay real
property taxes on the same.
- That piece in evidence should be taken into account together with petitioners presentation of Papas clear-cut and
unrebutted testimony of as well as the evasive and ambivalent testimony of Papa. The totality of the evidence for the
petitioners established a prima facie case that the deed of sale was not genuine. Even as the burden of proof may have
initially lain with petitioners in establishing the forgery of what is a private document, their evidence was sufficient to shift the
burden of evidence to respondents to establish the authenticity and due execution of said private document, especially as it
is they who rely on the same in their defense.
- The reversal of the Court of Appeals decision is clearly warranted. We do not discount the fact that the petitioners could
have further bolstered their case either by presenting a handwriting expert, or Amuerfina dela Rama as a witness. Still, their
failure to do so is not fatal as the document in question is a private document, one which carries no presumption as to its
authenticity and due execution. All told, the findings and conclusions of the trial court are correct and credible, compared
to those of the Court of Appeals hence, reinstatement of the lower courts decision is in order.
Padayon lang. :D
- Finally, the Court of Appeals had observed that upon close comparison of the signatures on the questioned deed of sale and
that earlier executed between the petitioners and CSE and in petitioners passport, the challenged signatures appeared very
similar with each other.
- We have examined the signatures in the two deeds of sale, and in fact noticed distinct differences, and varying writing styles.
The signatures of the petitioners on the 1980 deed of sale are smooth and smaller than their purported signatures on the 1985
deed of sale. Moreover, the signature of Juan dela Rama in the deed of sale appears hesitant and non-fluid. The signature
Eugenia dela Rama on the two deeds betray their very distinctive angles or slants.
 Agasen vs. CA
- The following circumstances all indicate the genuineness and due execution of the subject documents: (1) The subject
documents were duly notarized public documents; (2) The documents enjoy the legal presumption of validity; (3) Their
genuineness and due execution were not specifically denied under oath by private respondent; (4) Private respondents signature
thereon were found genuine by the lower court upon a comparison of her signature thereon with that in her own documentary
evidence; (5) The actual identification and positive testimony of petitioner; and (6) The testimony of the lawyer who had notarized
one of the subject documents. Private respondents bare denial of the same cannot, by any measure, overcome the above-
mentioned evidence and legal presumptions in petitioners favor.
 Sections 20, 21 and 22 are the rules on authentication of private documents.

 DOCTRINE OF SELF-AUTHENTICATION- where the facts in the writing could only have known to the writer
 Rules on authentication of the adverse party- where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the transmittal to him and
his receipt of the letter in question, a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence.
 Authentication of document is not required in:
 The writing is an ancient document; (Section 21)
 The writing is a public document or record under Section19;
 It is a notarial document acknowledged, proved and certified in accordance with Section 30;
 The authenticity and due execution of the document has been expressly or impliedly admitted by a failure to deny the
same under oath, as in the case of actionable document under Section8, Rule 8.
 The authenticity and due execution of a private document are proved by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the
maker. It is proved by:
 A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument:
 A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion thereon, as an exception to the opinion rule;
 A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof; and
 Expert witness.
Public document as evidence
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a
duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even
against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (24a)
 Republic vs. Marlon Medida

- Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence as follows:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred to in Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose,
may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or
by his deputy x x x. The CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring
public lands as alienable and disposable. The CENRO should have attached an official publication of the DENR Secretarys
issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable.
Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:
"Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence. Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by
a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. 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."
The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not fall within the class of public documents
contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect "entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer," such as entries made by the Civil Registrar in the books of registries, or by a ship
captain in the ships logbook. The certifications are not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official
records in the legal custody of a government office. The certifications are not even records of public documents.
Padayon lang. :D
 Dela Rama vs. Papa

- In Tigno v. Sps. Aquino,[16] where the public document in question had been notarized by a judge who had no authority to
do so, the Court dispensed with the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to duly notarized
documents, and instead applied preponderance of evidence as the measure to test the validity of that document.
- The clear requirements of law for a proper acknowledgment may not be dispensed with simply because generations of
transactions have blithely ignored such requirements. If it is physically impossible for the vendor and the vendee to meet and
sign the deed in the presence of one notary public, there is no impediment to having two or more different notaries ratifying
the document for each party that respectively appears before them. This is the prudent practice adopted by professional
law enterprises, and it is a correct measure in consonance with the law.
 Dycoco vs. Orina
- Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last wills and testaments, are public document
 Republic vs. Marcos-Manotoc

- Public documents are:
All other writings are private.
SECTION 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is received inevidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
 Kummer vs. People of the Philippines

- Public documents are admissible in court without further proof of their due execution and authenticity
A public document is defined in Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court as follows:
SEC. 19. Classes of Documents. – For the purpose of their presentation [in] evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(b) Documents acknowledge[d] before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, [or] private documents required by law to [be] entered therein.
All other writings are private.
 Republic vs. De Tensuan

- Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence as follows:
Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred to in Section 19(a), when admissible for any
purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of
the record, or by his deputy
Proof of official record
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible
for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such
officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of
the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)
What attestation of copy must state
Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the
case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court
having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
Irremovability of public record
Padayon lang. :D
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be
removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just
determination of a pending case. (27a)
 A public record cannot be removed from the office in which it is kept without a court order, such as subpoena duces tecum, and
even the court cannot order the removal therefrom, except when essential to just determination of the pending case.
 This rule refers to a public record, an official copy of which could be made available to the interested party and is
admissible in evidence.
 Section 24 lays down the requirements for the admissibility in evidence of a foreign document.
 Absent the attestation of the officer having the legal custody of the records and the certificate to that effect by a
Philippine foreign service officer, a mere copy of the foreign document id NOT admissible as evidence to prove the
foreign law.
Public record of a private document
Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the
original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such
officer has the custody. (28a)
Proof of lack of record
Section 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his
deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied
by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. (29)
 Syed Azhar Abbas vs. Gloria Goo Abbas

- SEC. 28. Proof of lack of record. – A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his
deputy that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office,
accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such
record or entry.
In the case of Republic, in allowing the certification of the Civil Registrar of Pasig to prove the non-issuance of a marriage
license, the Court held:
The above Rule authorized the custodian of the documents to certify that despite diligent search, a particular document
does not exist in his office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be found in a register. As custodians of
public documents, civil registrars are public officers charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a register book where
they are required to enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the names of the applicants, the date the marriage
license was issued and such other relevant data.44
The Court held in that case that the certification issued by the civil registrar enjoyed probative value, as his duty was to
maintain records of data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.
How judicial records impeached
Section 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in
the court or judicial officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
proceedings. (30a)
Proof of notarial documents
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may
be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution
of the instrument or document involved. (31a)
NOTES:
 Public documents are proved by:

 The original copy;
 An official publication; or
 A certified true copy
 When a certified true copy is presented, what should appear in the certification or attestation of said true copy and which must
have s documentary stamp affixed thereto in order to be admissible, unless specifically exempted therefrom (as in case of
baptismal or birth certificates of the contracting parties to marriage)
 It is presumed that the requisite stamps have been affixed to the original copy of the document where only carbon copies are
available.
 The probative value of the public instrument depends on the kind of document that is presented in evidence.
Padayon lang. :D
 Baptismal certificates issued during the Spanish regime are considered as public documents. Those Baptismal certificates issued
after the Spanish regime are considered private documents and cannot be considered as prima facie evidence of the fact that
gave rise to its execution, therefore a hearsay and inadmissible in evidence unless the priest who performed the baptismal rites
and made the certificate id produced.
 Baptismal certificates are not sufficient to prove paternity or voluntary recognition of the child. It is a proof only of the
baptism by the priest who baptized the child but not on the veracity of the statements and declarations in the
certificate concerning the relationship of the person baptized.
 In determining the minority of a victim in statutory rape, it is recognized that there is primacy of a birth certificate as a proof, in the
absence thereof, the victim’s minority may be proved by other documentary evidence such as her baptismal certificate or other
authentic records.
 Article 172 of FC, provides that filiation of legitimate children is established by the record of birth in the civil registry or appearing in
the final judgment, an admission thereof in a public or private handwritten document signed by the parent concerned and open
continuous possession of such status by the child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws (which may
be baptismal certificate, judicial admission or any non-official kinds of proof under Rule 130)
 Death certificate is not proof of the cause of death, its probative value being confined only in the fact of death, and the
statement therein contained regarding the duration of illness and the cause of death are mere hearsay.
 However, it can be used as a proof of residence of the deceased at the time of his death.
Alteration in document, how to explain
Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. — The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and
appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He
may show that the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties
affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the
instrument. If he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. (32a)
Seal
Section 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as
evidence is concerned. (33a)
Documentary evidence in an unofficial language
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. — Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be
admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties
or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (34a)
 In 1935 Philippine Constitution, English and Spanish will be the official language, until otherwise provided by law.
 In 1973 Philippines Constitution, English and Pilipino will be the official language, until otherwise provided by law.
 In 1987 Philippine Constitution, the official languages are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English, with the regional
languages as auxiliary official languages in the region.
OFFER AND OBJECTION
 Heirs of Pedro Pasag et.al. vs. Spouses Lorenzo

- Failure to make a formal offer within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it. Consequently, as in
this case, any evidence that has not been offered shall be excluded and rejected.
 Heirs of Cruz-Zamora vs. Multiwood Inter. Inc.

- The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and
strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or
purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight. Mere
identification of documents and the markings thereof as exhibits do not confer any evidentiary weight on documents unless
formally offered.
Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which
the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)
 Westmont Investment Corporation vs. Amos Francis, Jr.

- It is clear that the court considers the evidence only when it is formally offered. The offer of evidence is necessary because it
is the duty of the trial court to base its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly on the evidence offered by the
parties. A piece of document will remain a scrap of paper without probative value unless and until admitted by the court in
evidence for the purpose or purposes for which it is offered. The formal offer of evidence allows the parties the chance to
object to the presentation of an evidence which may not be admissible for the purpose it is being offered.
- However, the Court relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted. The evidence to
be considered despite failure to formally offer it, namely: "first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly
recorded and, second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case." The Court also considered
Padayon lang. :D
exhibits which were not formally offered by the prosecution but were repeatedly referred to in the course of the trial by the
counsel of the accused.
When to make offer
Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called
to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be
done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)
 In People vs. Mate, it was held that in the criminal case foe kidnapping with murder that even if there was no formal offer of the
exhibits but the same have been duly identified by the testimony duly recorded and the exhibits have been duly incorporated
against the accused;
 the court clarified by way of liberalized doctrine the stringent provision of Section 34. It is relative to the admission and
consideration of exhibits which were not formally offered although identified and marked as exhibits. It is important in Section 34
had been relaxed in the sense that the evidence not formally offered can be admitted by the trial court provided the following
are present:
 Same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and
 Same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.
 In Ramos vs. Dizon, the exhibits in question have been presented and marked in the pre-trial of the case, thus have been
incorporated in the records of the case. Both requisites are present.
Objection
Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the unless a different period is allowed by
the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
When repetition of objection unnecessary
Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. — When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination
of a witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made, whether
such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse
party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions. (37a)
Ruling
Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless the court desires to take
a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time
as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more
grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a)
Striking out of answer
Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice
fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the
answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
(n)
Tender of excluded evidence
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror
may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record
the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. (n)
Padayon lang. :D
NOTES:
 The formal offer of testimonial evidence at the time the witness is called to testify is necessary to enable the court to intelligently
rule on any objection to the questions asked.
 As a rule, a proponent must show its relevance materiality and competence, and the adverse party must promptly raise the
objection thereto
 Parties who offer objections to questions, on whatever grounds, are entitled to a ruling at the time the objection is made, unless
they present a question with regard to which the court desires to inform itself before making its ruling.
 If no ruling is made during the course of the trial, counsel would have no means of knowing whether or not he would be
compelled to meet any evidence at all, hence without prejudice the substantial rights of the client.
 The failure of the curt to make ruling should be brought to its attention.
 Failing which, the case cannot be reopened for new trial on that ground.
 The reservation of the ruling made by the court on objection, without excluding the same amounts to denial of the objection.
 The trial court should promptly rule upon the objections to enable the party objecting to meet the situation created by such
denial, but if the objecting party does not insist on such ruling during the trial, he cannot be heard to complain thereof on first time
on appeal.
 EXCEPT where such act of the trial court has resulted serious prejudice in the substantial rights of the objecting party in
which the appellate court may consider that the omission are reversible error.
 It has been held that where documentary evidence was rejected by the trial court and the offeror did not move that the same
be attached to the record, the same cannot be considered by the appellate court as the documents forming no part of proofs
before the appellate court cannot be considered on disposing the case, otherwise, that would infringe upon the constitutional
right of the adverse party to the due process of law.
 The unjustified exclusion of evidence may lead to erroneous acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the charges, from which
people can no longer appeal.
 When real, testimonial or documentary evidence are deemed formally offered for admission and objections should be
interposed.
 The purpose of which the evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence may be admissible for several purpose
under the DOCTRINE OF MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY, or may be admissible for one purpose and not for another, otherwise, the adverse
party cannot interpose the proper objection.
 Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other purpose.
 Identification of evidence- made in the course of trial and marked as exhibits when the proponent rests his case and formally
offers evidence that objection thereto may be made. The evidence identified at the trial and marked exhibits may be withdrawn
before the forma offer thereof or may not at all be offered as evidence.
 Documents which may have been marked as exhibits during the hearing but which were not formally offered as evidence cannot
be considered as evidence nor can they be given any evidentiary value.
 The repetition of objection to the same class of evidence is not required. A party may just enter a general and continuing
objection to the same class of evidence and ruling of the court shall be applicable to all such kind of evidence of the same class.
It has been held that the court itself may motu proprio treat the objection as continuing one.
 If the trial court erroneously ruled out the evidence and discovered such error before the judgment had become final or before
an appeal therefrom had been perfected it may re-open the case.
 An erroneous admission or rejection of evidence by the trial court is not a ground for new trial or reversal of the decision if there
are other independent evidence which can sustain the decision, or if rejected as evidence, if it had been admitted, would have
changed the decision, otherwise, a new trial is warranted by reason of such erroneous ruling which goes into the merits of the
case and would have affected the decision.
 The ruling of the court on procedural questions and on admissibility of evidence during the course of trial are interlocutory in
nature and may not be subject on separate appeals or petition for review on certiorari.
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (RULE 133)

 Siao Aba et.al vs. Atty. Salvador De Guzman
- Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight
than that of the other.It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered
in opposition thereto.Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the
court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which
they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does
not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number. When the evidence of the parties are evenly
balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the decision should be against the party with the
burden of proof, according to the equipoise doctrine.
 People vs Lucena
- It has been consistently held by this Court that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and
most competently performed by the trial judge, who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess
their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected in the record. The demeanour of the person on the stand
can draw the line between fact and fancy. The forthright answer or the hesitant pause, the quivering voice or the angry
tone, the flustered look or the sincere gaze, the modest blush or the guilty blanch these can reveal if the witness is telling the
truth or lying through his teeth.
Padayon lang. :D
- The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law; the rule is
not an inflexible one of universal application. Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the testimony of a
witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at the trial. Thus,
where the challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated in its material points, or where the mistakes arise from innocent
lapses and not from an apparent desire to pervert the truth, the rule may be relaxed. It is a rule that is neither absolute nor
mandatory and binding upon the court, which may accept or reject portions of the witness testimony based on its inherent
credibility or on the corroborative evidence in the case
 People vs, De Guzman Y Danzil

- The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor
constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the failure to observe the proper procedure negates the operation of the
presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.
- As a general rule, the testimonies of the police officers who apprehended the accused are accorded full faith and credit
because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. But when the performance of their duties is tainted
with failure to comply with the procedure and guidelines prescribed, the presumption is effectively destroyed. Thus, even if the
defense evidence is weak, the prosecution's whole case still falls. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.
 Manalo vs. Roldan Confessor cited in Sheryl Dela Cruz vs. Pamela P. Malunao
- The weight of evidence required in administrative investigations is substantial evidence. In Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court,
substantial evidence is defined:
In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable man might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Consequently, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear and
convincing evidence, then by preponderance of evidence, and lastly by substantial evidence, in that order.
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case
by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved
lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same
may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not
necessarily with the greater number. (1a)
 Maria Lourdes Tamani vs. Roman Salvador and Filomena Bravo

- In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of
evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous
with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a
phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of
belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error,
produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. (2a)
 People vs. Rubio

- It has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he
had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug. To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as
evidence.
NOTES:
 Evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from a creditable source but must, in addition, be credible in itself.
 Evidence to believe should be in accord with the common knowledge and experience of mankind.
 The GENERAL RULE, the findings of the judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless
there are substantial facts and circumstances which have been overlooked and which, if properly considered, might affect the
result of the case.
o Such findings, except for good cause, are generally not disturbed on appeal.
Padayon lang. :D
 The findings of the trial in the credibility of the witness cannot be disturbed on appeal since it was in better position to decide the
question, having heard and observed the demeanour of the witness, unless it has plainly overlooked the facts of the substance
which would affect the result of the case.
o However, if the issue is identification of the accused or the credibility of the witness and one judge heard the testimony
of the prosecution witness and different judge penned, this rule does not apply because the latter have not heard the
testimonial presentations.
 As a GENERAL RULE, the number of the witness should not in and by itself determine the weight of evidence, but in case of
conflicting testimonies of witness, the numerical factor may be given certain weight.
 Failure of the a party to present merely corroborative or cumulative evidence does not give rise to any adverse or unfavourable
presumption.
 It is well-settled doctrine that the demeanour, the emphasis, gestures and infliction of the voice of a witness, while testifying, are
potent aids in the proper evaluation of his credibility.
 When a witness makes two sworn statements and these incur in the gravest contradictions, the court cannot accept either
statements as proof.
 The record of a preliminary investigation constitutes no part of the final proceedings in a cause unless it is presented in evidence,
and the facts adduced therein are evidence only for the purpose of the credibility of witness.
 The testimony of interested witnesses are not necessarily biased, incredible or self-serving, although their interest may to some
extent affect their credibility.
 Testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce conviction if it appears to be trustworthy and reliable.
 The prosecution is not obliged to present each and every person who witnessed the occurrence but only a sufficient number to
prove the commission of the offense.
 Inconsistencies or contradictions on mere details in the testimony of a witness do not materially impair the credibility of such
witness. On the other hand, such contradictions indicate veracity rather than prevarication, and only tend to bolster the
probative value of such testimony.
 FALSUS IN UNO< FALSUS IN OMNIBUS

 The non-production of a corroborative witness without any explanation given why he was not so produced, weakens the
testimony of the witness who named that corroborating witness in his testimony.
 Corroboration is not required or expected in the crime of rape, as a rule, is committed without anybody else being present except
the rapist and the victim.
 To prove the conspiracy, the prosecution need not establish that all the parties thereto agreed on every detail in the execution of
the crime or that they were actually together at all the stages of conspiracy. It is enough that, from the individual acts of each
accused, it may reasonably be deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony.
o Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of the acts charged, but may and generally must be proved by
number if indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances which vary according to the purpose to be accomplished. It
can be proved by circumstantial evidence.
 As a rule, the motive of the accused in a criminal case is immaterial and, not being an element of a crime, it does not have to be
proved. However, evidence of motive is relevant or essential in the following instances:
1. Identity of the assailant is in question
2. Determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the sanity of the accused
3. Determine from which side the unlawful aggression commenced, as where the accused invoked self-defense
wherein unlawful aggression on the part of his opponent is essential element
4. Determine the specific nature of the crime committed
5. Determine whether the shooting was intentional or accidental
6. Accused contends that he acted in defense of a stranger, since it is essential, for such defense to prosper, that the
accused is induced by revenge, resentment or evil motive.
7. Evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is doubt whether the crime has been committed or whether the
accused committed the crime.
 The SC held that on the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identification of suspects, TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES must be
considered:
a. The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
b. The witness’ degree of attention at that time;
c. The accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
d. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
e. The length of time between the crime and the identification; and
f. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure
 Res ipsa loquitor “the thing speaks for itself”- the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances,
may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence who controls the instrumentality causing the injury, in the absence
of some explanation, creates a prima facie presumption of negligence.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
 Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia

- An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof
beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While
administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the
object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in
Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and
convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than
proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and
convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. In this
case, there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. Consequently, this case
Padayon lang. :D
should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and
convincing evidence."
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION, NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR CONVICTION
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. — An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall
not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
NOTES:
 Re: Sec. 33 rule 130

 CORPUS DELICTI means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a common fact made up of 2
things: 1. The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge and the existence of a criminal agency
as the cause of the act or result.
 The identity of the accused is not a necessary element of corpus delicti.
 Other definitions of corpus delicti:
 The body or substance of the crime
 The actual commission by someone of the particular crime
 Corpus delicti is proved when the evidence on record shows that the crime prosecuted had been committed
 A mere voluntary extrajudicial confession corroborated by independent proof of the corpus delicti is not sufficient to sustain a
judgement of conviction. There must be independent proof of the corpus delicti.
 The corpus delicti in Theft:
a. Property was lost by the owner; and
b. it was lost by felonious taking
 the corpus delicti in the crime of Illegal Possession of firearm:
a. existence of the firearm; and
b. it has been actually held with animus possidendi by the accused without corresponding license to hold it
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN SUFFICIENT
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (5)
NOTES:
 In order for the accused to be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence alone, prosecution must present such
circumstantial evidence which will and must lead to the conclusion that the accuse is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, excluding
all other reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.
 Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction even in capital offenses, except when the law specifies the species of quantum
of evidence.
 Circumstantial evidence would not suffice to sustain a conviction for falsification, bigamy and libel through written publications,
and the documents involved must be presented.
 It was held that while the motive of the accused is generally immaterial not being an element of the crime, such motive becomes
important when the evidence of the crime is purely circumstantial.
 Nove Bryan Salvador Y De Leon vs. People of the Philippines

- Direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules of
evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that
evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. At times, resort to
circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny
proper protection to the community.
- Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following requisites
are complied with:
(1) There is more than one circumstance;
(2) The facts from 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.
All the circumstances must be consistent with one another, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld,
provided that the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that
points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.
 People vs Carlito Pabol

- Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect or presumptive evidence, refers to proof of collateral facts and circumstances
whence the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.15 It can support a
conviction as long as the following requisites prescribed under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court are satisfied:
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
Padayon lang. :D
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
- For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other,
consistent with the hypothesis that accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and
with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. If the prosecution adduced the requisite circumstantial evidence to
prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to controvert the evidence of
the prosecution.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established
if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)
 Career Philippines Shipmanagement, .Inc. vs. Salvador T. Serna

- Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.
NOTES:
 Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases, but such kind of relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER EVIDENCE
Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any
particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably
expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. (6)
NOTES:
 The court has the power to stop introduction of testimony which will merely be cumulative
EVIDENCE ON MOTION
Section 7. Evidence on motion. — When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on
affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on
oral testimony or depositions. (7)
 The court may hear and decide upon the motions solely on the basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits, if such affidavits contradict
each other on the matter of fact, the court has no basis to make its findings and it is prudent to subject the affiants to cross-
examination to determine whom to believe.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS (A.M. No. 004-07-SC)

Applicability of the Rule
SECTION. 1. Applicability of the Rule, – Unless otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are
victims of crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal
proceedings involving child witnesses.
Meaning of “child witness”
A “child witness” is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen (18) years. In child abuse cases, a
child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.
Others definitions:
Guardian ad litem- A “guardian adlitem is a person appointed by the court where the case is pending for a child who is a victim
of, accused of, or a witness to a crime to protect the best interests of the said child.
Best interest of the child-“Best interests of the-child’ means the totality of the circumstances and conditions as are most congenial
to the survival, protection, and feelings of security of the child and most encouraging to his physical, psychological, and emotional
development It also means the least detrimental available alternative for safe guarding the growth and development of the child.”
Padayon lang. :D
Competency of a child witness
SEC. 6. Competency. – Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct a competency
examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the
child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court
Examination of a child witness
SEC. 8. Examination of a child witness. -The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or any proceeding shall be done
in open court. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the
witness shall be given orally.
The party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such child witness may, however, move the court to allow him
to testify in the manner provided in this Rule.
SEC. 9. Interpreter for child. -
(a) When a child does not understand the English or Filipino language or is unable to communicate in said languages due to his
developmental level, fear, shyness, disability, or other similar reason, an interpreter whom the child can understand and who
understands the child may be appointed by the court, motuproprio upon motion, to interpret for the child.
(b) If a witness or member of the family of the child is the only person who can serve as an interpreter for the child, he shall not
be disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of the child. The interpreter, however, who is also a witness, shall testify ahead of
the child,
(c) An interpreter shall take an oath or affirmation to make a true and accurate interpretation.
SEC. 10. Facilitator to pose questions to child. -
(a) The court may, motuproprioor upon motion, appoint a facilitator if it determines that the child is unable to understand or
respond to questions asked. The facilitator may be a child psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, guidance counselor, teacher,
religious leader, parent, or relative.
(b) If the court appoints a facilitator, the respective counsels for the parties shall pose questions to the child only through the
facilitator. The questions shall either be in the words used by counsel or, if the child is not likely to understand the same, in words
that are comprehensible to the child and which convey the meaning intended by counsel.
(c) The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to pose questions to the child according to the meaning intended by counsel.
SEC.11. Support persons. -
(a) A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a deposition shall have the right to be accompanied by one or two
persons of his own choosing to provide him emotional support.
(1) Both support persons shall remain within the view of the child during his testimony.
(2) One of the support persons may accompany the child to the witness stand, provided the support person does not completely
obscure the child from the view of the opposing party, judge, or hearing officer.
(3) The court may allow the support person.to hold the hand of the child or Jake other appropriate steps to provide emotional
support to the child in the course of the proceedings.
(4) The court shall instruct the support persons not to prompt, sway, or influence the child during his testimony.
(b) If the support person chosen by the child is also a witness, the court may disapprove the choice if it is sufficiently established
that the attendance of the support person during the testimony of the child would pose a substantial risk ot influencing or
affecting the content of the testimony of the child.
(c) If the support person who is also a witness is allowed by the court, his testimony shall be presented ahead of the testimony
of the child.
SEC. 12. Waiting area for child witnesses. - The courts are encouraged lo provide a waiting area for children that is separate from
waiting areas used by other persons. The waiting area for children should be furnished so as to make a child comfortable.
SEC. 13. Courtroom environment, -To create a more comfortable environment for the child, the court may, in its discretion, direct
and supervise the location, movement and deportment of all persons in the courtroom including the parties, their counsel, child,
witnesses, support persons, guardianad/item, facilitator, and court personnel. The child may be allowed to testify from a place
other than the witness chair. The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may be turned to facilitate his
testimony but the opposing party and his counsel must have a frontal or profile view of the child during the testimony of the child.
The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may also be rearranged to allow the child to see the opposing
Padayon lang. :D
party and his counsel, if he chooses to look at them, without turning his body or leaving the witness stand. The judge need not
wear his judicial robe.
Nothing in this section or any other provision of law, except official in-court identification provisions, shall be construed to require
a child to look at the accused.
Accommodations for the child under this section need not be supported by a finding of trauma to the child.
SEC. 16. Testimonial aids. - The court shall permit a child to use dolls, anatomically-correct dolls, puppets, drawings, mannequins,
or any other appropriate demonstrative device to assist him in his testimony.
SEC. 17. Emotional security item. – While testifying, a child shall be allowed to have an item of his own choosing such as a blanket,
toy, or doll.
SEC. 18. Approaching the witness. - The court may prohibit a counsel from approaching a child if it appears that the child is
fearful of or intimidated by the counsel.
SEC. 19. Mode of questioning. – The court shall exercise control over the questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate the
ascertainment of the truth, (2) ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child, (3)
protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and (4) avoid waste of time. The court may allow the child witness to
testify in a narrative form.
SEC. 20. Leading questions. - The court may allow leading questions in all stages of examination of a child if the same will further
the interests of justice.
SEC. 21. Objections to questions. – Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to mislead, confuse, frighten,
or intimidate the child.
Live-link TV Testimony of a child witness
SEC. 25. Live-link television testimony in criminal cases where the child is a victim or a witness. –
(a) The prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that the testimony of the child be taken in a room
outside the courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-link television.
Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section, he shall consult the prosecutor or counsel and shall defer to
the judgment of the prosecutor or counsel regarding the necessity of applying for an order. In case the guardian ad litem is
convinced that the decision of the prosecutor or counsel not to apply will cause the child serious emotional trauma, he himself
may apply for the order.
The person seeking such an order shall apply at least five (5) days before the-trial date, unless the court finds on the record that
the need for such an order was not reasonably foreseeable.
(b) The court may motu proprio hear and determine, with notice to the parties, the need for taking the testimony of the child
through live-link television.
(c) The judge may question the child in chambers, or in some comfortable place other than the courtroom, in the presence of the
support person, guardian ad litem , prosecutor, and counsel for the parties. The questions of the judge shall not be related to the
issues at trial but to the feelings of the child about testifying in the courtroom.
(d) The judge may exclude any person, including the accused, whose presence or conduct causes fear to the child.
(e)The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of live-link television and stating the reasons therefor. It shall consider
the following factors:
(1) The age and level of development of the child;

(2) His physical and mental health, including any mental or physical disability;
(3)Any physical, emotional, or psychological injury experienced by him;
(4) The nature of the alleged abuse;
(5) Any threats against the child;
(6) His relationship with the accused or adverse party:
(7)His reaction to any prior encounters with the accused in court or elsewhere;
(8) His reaction prior to trial when the topic of testifying was discussed with him by parents or professionals;
(9) Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the child in the days prior to testifying;
(10) Testimony of expert or lay witnesses;
(11) The custodial situation of the child and the attitude of the members of his family regarding the events about which he will
testify; and
(12) Other relevant factors, such as court atmosphere and formalities of court procedure.
Padayon lang. :D
(f) The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial likelihood that the
child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. The
trauma must be of a kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.
(g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-link television:
(1) The child shall testify in a room separate from the courtroom in the presence of the guardian ad litem, one or both of
his support persons: the facilitator and interpreter, if any; a court officer appointed by the court; persons necessary to
operate the closed-circuit television equipment; and other persons whose presence are determined by the court to be
necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child:
(2)The judge, prosecutor, accused, and counsel for the parties shall be in the courtroom. The testimony of the child shall
be transmitted by live-link television into the courtroom for viewing and hearing by the judge, prosecutor, counsel for the
parties, accused, victim, and the public unless excluded.
(3) If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial, the court may allow the child to enter the Courtroom for
the limited purpose of identifying the accused, or the court may allow the child to identify the accused by observing the
image of the latter on a television monitor.
(4) The court may set other conditions and limitations on the taking of the testimony that it finds just and appropriate,
taking into consideration the best interests of the child.
(h) The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape, digital disc, or other similar devices which shall be made part of
the court record and shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section 31 (b).
Videotaped deposition of a child witness
SEC. 27. Videotaped deposition.-
(a) The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem may apply for an order that a deposition be taken of the testimony of the child
and that it be recorded and preserved on videotape. Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section, he shall
consult with the prosecutor or counsel subject to the second and third paragraphs of section 25(a):
(b) if the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at trial, it shall issue an order that the deposition of the
child be taken and preserved by videotape.
(c) The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child. Objections to deposition testimony or evidence, or parts
thereof, and the grounds for !he objection shall be stated and shall be ruled upon at the time of the taking of the deposition. The
other persons who may be permitted to be present at the proceeding are:
(1) The prosecutor;

(2) The defense counsel;
(3) The guardian ad litem,
(4) The accused, subject to sub-section (e);
(5) Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child;
(6) One or both of his support persons, the facilitator and interpreter, if any;
(7)The court stenographer; and
(8) Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment.
(d) The rights of the accused during trial, especially the right to counsel and to confront and cross-examine the child, shall not be
violated during the deposition.
(e) If the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is unable to testify in the physical presence of the accused, the
court may direct the latter to be excluded from the room in which the deposition is conducted. In case of exclusion of the
accused, the court shall order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television in accordance with section 25 of this
Rule. If the accused is excluded from the deposition, it is not necessary that the child be able to view an image of the accused.
(f) The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and steno graphically recorded. The videotape and the stenographic notes shall
be transmitted to the clerk of the court where the case is pending for safekeeping and shall be made a part of the record.
(g) The court may set other conditions on the taking of the deposition that it finds just and appropriate, taking into consideration
the best interests of the child, the constitutional rights of the accused, and other relevant factors.
(h) The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section 31 (b).
(i) If, at the time of trial, the court finds that the child is unable to testify for a reason stated in section 25(f) of this Rule, or is
unavailable for any reason described in section 4(c), Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may admit into
evidence the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his testimony at the trial. The court shall issue an order stating the
reasons therefor.
(j) After the original videotaping but before or during trial, any party may file any motion for additional video-taping on the
ground of newly discovered evidence. The court may order an additional videotaped deposition to receive the newly discovered
evidence.
Hearsay exception in the child abuse cases
Padayon lang. :D
SEC. 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. -A statement made by a child 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 may be 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. If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion
of the adverse party, require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the
adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent.
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time, content and circumstances thereof
which provide sufficient indicate of reliability. It shall consider the following factors:
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie;

(2) The general character of the declarant child;
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement;
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness;
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child;
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote; and
(8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child
misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:
(1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe psychological
injury; or
(2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by
process or other reasonable means.
(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible
evidence.
Sexual Abuse Shield Rule
SEC, 30. Sexual abuse shield rule.-
(a) Inadmissible evidence. – The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual
abuse:
(1) Evidence offered io prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
(b) Exception. – Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the
accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.
A party intending to offer such evidence must:
(1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days before trial, specifically describing the evidence and stating the
purpose for which it is offered, unless the court, for goad cause, requires a different time for filing or permits filing during
trial; and
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of the motion.
Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child, his guardian ad litem, the
parties, and their counsel a right to attend and be heard. The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain
under seal and protected by a protective order set forth in section 31 (b). The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing
in chambers except with his consent.
SEC, 30. Sexual abuse shield rule.-
(a) Inadmissible evidence. – The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual
abuse:
(1) Evidence offered io prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
(b) Exception. – Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the
accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.
A party intending to offer such evidence must:
(1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days before trial, specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for
which it is offered, unless the court, for goad cause, requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and
Padayon lang. :D
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of the motion.
Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child, his guardian adlitem, the
parties, and their counsel a right to attend and be heard. The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain
under seal and protected by a protective order set forth in section 31 (b). The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in
chambers except with his consent.
 Dulla vs. CA
- With respect to the fact that leading questions were propounded to Andrea during her direct examination, suffice it to say that
under the Rules of Court, such questions are allowed considering the age (three years and 10 months) of the witness at the time
she testified in court. Rule 132, 10 provides:
Leading and misleading questions. A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a
leading question. It is not allowed, except:
(c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of
feeble mind, or a deaf-mute
 People vs. Mendiola

- The victim's failure to answer some questions is understandable. She was only five (5) years old when the rape took place and six
(6) years old when she was put on the witness stand. Apart from this, she is a disturbed child who had disruptive behavioural
symptoms. However, such conditions did not materially affect her credibility. When Daryll was, however, asked the material
question of what her father did to her, she answered clearly, candidly and categorically that the accused-appellant inserted his
penis inside her vagina several times. It is an accepted precept that testimonies of child victims who are young and immature are
given full weight and credit.
 People of the Philippines vs. Roger Rama

- The determination of the competence and credibility of a child as a witness rests primarily with the trial judge as he had the
opportunity to see the demeanor of the witness, his apparent intelligence or lack of it, and his understanding of the nature of the
oath. As many of these qualities cannot be conveyed by the record of the case, the trial judge's evaluation will not be disturbed
on review, unless it is clear from the record that his judgment is erroneous.[26]
This conclusion is in accord with the spirit and letter of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (the "Rule") which became
effective last December 15, 2000. The following provisions are apropos:
"Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. -- Unless otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are
victims of crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal
proceedings involving child witnesses."
"Section 3. Construction of the Rule. -- This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold the best interests of the child and to promote
the maximum accommodation of child witnesses without prejudice to the constitutional rights of the accused."
"Section 6. Competence. -- Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct a competency
examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the
child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.
(a) Proof of necessity. -- A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of necessity of competence examination.
The age of the child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a competency examination."
ENIVIRONMENTAL CASES
RULE 20 PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Section 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and
environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it.
The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt.
Section 2.cra law Standards for application. - In applying the precautionary principle, the following factors, among others, may be
considered: (1) threats to human life or health; (2) inequity to present or future generations; or (3) prejudice to the environment
without legal consideration of the environmental rights of those affected.
RULE 21 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 1. Photographic, video and similar evidence. - Photographs, videos and similar evidence of events, acts, transactions of
wildlife, wildlife by-products or derivatives, forest products or mineral resources subject of a case shall be admissible when
authenticated by the person who took the same, by some other person present when said evidence was taken, or by any other
person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
Padayon lang. :D
Section 2. 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 performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated.
Padayon lang. :D

Evidence Notes (Chan &amp; Mitch)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Evidence Notes (Chan &amp; Mitch)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Christian and Mitch notes

NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSION:

 Republic v Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation:

 Philippine Hawk Corporation v Lee Re: Tan v OMC Carriers Inc.

 Guadines v Sandigang Bayan

Best Evidence Rule

NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:

 Air France v Carrascoso

 Nissan North EDSA v United Phil Scout Agency

Section 4. Original of document. —

NOTES BASED ON BOOKS AND DISCUSSIONS

 People of the Philippines v Neil B. Colorado (rape)

 Surgar Regulatory Administration v Encarnacion B. Torman (COA Decisio; Receipt)

 Gulf Air v NLRC

NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS: EXCEPTIONS

In written document, original document must be presented according to BER.

To present secondary evidence, there must be proof by satisfactory evidence of:

a. Due execution of the original;

The due execution must be proved through the testimony of either:

 SECONDARY EVIDENCE may consist: (IN ORDER)

2. WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN ADVERSE PARTY’S CUSTODY OR CONTROL

1. Prove the existence of the original

 To prove reasonable notice:

3. RECORDS ARE VOLUMINOUS

 In RULE 132 (PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE), such document may be evidenced by:

PARTY WHO CALLS FOR DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT – as evidence

 RP v Marcos II cited in RP v Ma. Imelda “Imee” R. Marcos-Monotoc (Stenographic notes)

 Citibank, N.A Mastercard v Teodoro citing De Vera v Aguilar

 Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v Antonio Lagman

 Baguio Trinity Developers INc v The Heirs of Jose Ramos

 Vda. De Avenido v Avenido (Declaration of nullity of marriage)

RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (A.M. NO 01-7-01-SC)

1. MEANING OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE; ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE

2. PROBATIVE VALUE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT; METHOD OF PROOF

3. AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE

4. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND THE HEARSAY RULE

5. AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE

 Ellery March G. Torres v Phil. Amusement and Gaming Corporation

 Rustan Ang Y. Pascua v CA and Irish Sagud (before)

- An electronic document should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided

NOTES FROM THE BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:

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

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

The term "agreement" includes wills.

NOTES BASED ON THE BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:

PAROL EVIDENCE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

1. EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS

 Inciong v CA (promissory note)

 Ortanez v CA (lost tiltle and in the custody of another)

 Financial Building Corporation v Bloomfield Educational Foundation, Inc., et. AL

 Modesto Leovera v Casimero Valdez

 Sps. Agbaba v Inter-Urban Developers Inc

 Dulce Pamintuan v People of the Philippines

 Permanent Savings Corporation v Velarde (Promissory Note)

 Pacres v Heirs of Ygona

Kinds of ambiguity and effects:

 STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ARTICLE 1403 CIVIL CODE)

 Sps. Lequin v Sps. Vizconde

 Financial Building Corp v Rudlin International Corp

1. INTERPRETATION OF A WRITING ACCORDING TO ITS LEGAL MEANING

2. INSTRUMENT CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE EFFECT TO ALL PROVISION

3. INTERPRETAION ACCORDING TO INTENTION; GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROVISION

4. INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCE

Evidence Notes (Chan & Mitch)

Evidence Notes (Chan & Mitch)