Evidence
Rule 131 Q: What is an oath?
Sec. 3 Disputable Presumptions
The following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome
by other evidence:
e. That the evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
m. That official duty has been regularly performed
p. That private transactions have been fair and
regular
v. That a letter duly directed and mailed was
received in the regular course of the mail
Rule 132
(Sir) Rule 132 is trial technique; it deals with the rules
and the procedure for hearings.
A. Examination of Witnesses
Sec. 1 Examination to be done in open court
The examination of witness 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.
Q: How is the examination of a witness done?
A: The examination of a witness shall be done in open
court, and under oath or affirmation
Q: When is a court considered open?
A: A court formally opened and engaged in the
transaction of judicial affairs, to which all persons who
conduct themselves in an orderly manner are admitted
Q: Is arraignment part of the trial?
A: Technically arraignment is not part of the trial,
because when we speak of trial it presupposes the
presentation of evidence but, for our purposes under
Section 1, arraignment is part of the trial
Q: Who is considered to be a witness?
A: A witness is someone who testify before a judicial
tribunal, quasi-judicial, administrative proceeding under
oath or affirmation before an open court.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
A: An appeal to God to witness the truth of what he
declares, and an impreciation of Divine punishment or
vengeance upon him if what he says is false.
Q: Oath vs. Affirmation
A: An oath is when the witness places his hands before
a Bible and an Affirmation is when there is no Bible
used.
Q: Is the CA allowed to accept evidence and hear the
testimonies of the witnesses?
A: Upon its discretion
Q: What do you mean by discretion?
A: The power given to the courts or Judges to decide
questions during trial where no particular law is
applicable and controlled by personal judgment.
Q: Is the CTA allowed to accept evidence and hear the
testimonies of the witnesses?
A: Yes (i.e. Manny Pacquiao’s tax evasion case)
Note: Any case involving the question of taxes levied
upon by the BIR and BOC, and the amount is 1M and
above cannot be taken by ordinary courts, they are
under the jurisdiction of the CTA.
Q: How should answers/testimonies be given?
A:
GR: It is usually given orally in open court
XPN:
1. If the question calls for a different mode of
answer (i.e. demonstration)
2. When the testimonies of witnesses may be
given in affidavits under the Rules on Summary
Procedure (civil cases)
3. Depositions
Q: Why open court?
A: To enable the court to judge the credibility of the
witness by his manner of testifying, demeanor, their
intelligence and their appearance.
Q: Why should the testimony be given under oath or
affirmation?
A: Because once a witness tells a lie, he will be charged
with perjury or false testimony under civil and/or
criminal cases
Q: The rule says testimonies should be given orally;
can the answers of testimonies of witnesses be in the
 Evidence
form found in a question and answer, like those made
before or executed before police officers or affidavits?
A:
GR: Affidavits cannot take place the testimonies of
witnesses
XPN:
1. In cases governed by the rules of Summary
Procedure
2. Where the fact obtaining the affidavit is in issue
3. As an admission by the adverse party
4. To impeach a witness on stand
5. When the allows Judicial Affidavits
6. As part of Res Gestae
7. As an admission or declaration against interest
8. As part of the testimony of the witness
9. When the adverse party waives its objection on
its admissibility
10. When the court takes Judicial Notice thereof
Q: If the answer of the witness is not responsive to the
question, what are you going to do?
A: Ask the court to Strike Out the answer on the ground
that you are not given time to object because the
witness’ answer it not responsive
Q: What if the answer is given so quick that you are
not able to immediately object, what are you going to
do?
A: Ask the court to Strike Out the answer on the ground
that you are not given time to object because the
witness answered so quick
Sec. 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.
Q: Can the lawyer say, “off the record”?
A: Technically this is not allowed because of Section 2
provided that it has reference to the case.
Sec. 3 Rights and Obligations of a Witness
A witness must answer questions, although his answer
may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is
the right of a witness:
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
(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)
Q: What are the rights and obligations of a witness?
A:
a. Rights
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.
b. Obligations
1. A witness must answer questions, although his
answer may tend to establish a claim against
him, provided that it is not violative of his right
against self-incrimination.
2. A witness must answer to the fact of his
previous final conviction for an offense.
Q: What is this right against self-incrimination?
A: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself (Section 17, Article 3, 1987 Constitution)
Q: Is the right against self-incrimination self-executing?
A: No, it should be invoked.
Q: Is the right against self-incrimination applicable to a
corporation?
A: No, it cannot be invoked be a corporation but only by
an individual person.
 Evidence
Q: Is the right against self-incrimination applicable in
civil, criminal and administrative cases?
A: Yes.
Q: Does the right against self-incrimination involve
only testimonial compulsion?
A: No. It involves production of incriminating
documentary evidence
Q: What is the difference between the right against
self-incrimination of an ordinary witness and the right
against self-incrimination of a witness who is at the
same time an accused?
A:
a. Ordinary Witness – you can invoke the right only
when the incriminating question is asked, it is akin
to a partial disqualification
b. Accused Witness – you can invoke the right at the
first instance, you can automatically refuse to
obey the subpoena to testify, it is akin to absolute
disqualification
Q: X is charged with falsification, he was called to the
witness stand by his counsel. On cross-examination,
the counsel of the adverse party asked him, “Mr. X, are
you the author of this falsification?” The accused said
no. The Counsel of the Adverse Party then asked X to
write in a piece of paper. X’s counsel objected, right
against self-incrimination. Rule on the Objection.
A: Overruled. Although the act of asking the witness to
give samples of his signature is violative of his right
against self-incrimination, when he denied authorship
of the falsified document, he in effect waived his right
against self-incrimination.
Q: In the above question, what if the fiscal did not ask
him to produce sample signatures but on rebuttal, the
fiscal is now asking X, as an adverse witness to
produce sample signature. Can X now invoke his right
against self-incrimination, although in cross-
examination, he already denied authorship of the
falsified document?
A: Yes. Waiver of the right against self-incrimination
invoked during the cross-examination does not mean its
waiver during rebuttal stage.
Sec. 4 Order in the examination of an individual
witness
The order in which the individual witness may be
examined is as follows;
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
Q: At what stage does the order of examination take
place?
A: At the trial stage, during the presentation of
evidence.
Q: The prosecution has three witnesses – 1, 2, and 3.
Can the fiscal ask the judge that the direct examination
of ALL three witnesses be done first before the cross,
re-direct and re-cross of each?
A: As a rule, technically speaking, that is not allowed.
But the court, on the principle that it has the power to
control its proceedings, may allow such. That is purely
discretionary.
Sec. 5 Direct examination
Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue.
Q: What is direct examination?
A: Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue. (Sec. 5)
Q: When is a fact relevant to the issue?
A: When it is material and probative
Q: What is the purpose?
A: To prove the elements of the crime
Q: Can the courts delegate the reception of evidence
to its Clerk of Court?
A: Yes, provided that:
a. The Clerk of Court is a lawyer; and
b. The case is a Special Proceeding Case
Sec. 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 any 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.
 Evidence
Q: What is a cross-examination?
A: Sec. 6
Q: What is the purpose of the cross-examination?
A: To test the witness’ accuracy and truthfulness and
freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue; to
break the credibility of the witness.
Q: What is the scope of the cross-examination?
A: Matters stated in the direct examination, or those
connected therewith
Q: Can the cross-examiner ask the witness on a fact
not stated during the direct nor connected therewith?
A: Yes, under the ROC, the cross-examination is to elicit
facts bearing upon the issue – the fact must be material
and relevant, although it was not asked during the
direct examination nor connected therewith.
Q: What is the basis of the right to cross-examine the
witness?
A: (Sec. 14(2), Art. 3, 1987 Constitution) The right to
meet the witness face to face involves the right to
cross-examine the witness.
Q: Pp vs. X. X was charged with murder. His defense
was that in July 31, 2012, he is in the US. X is now on
the witness stand. X’s lawyer now asks him, “Where
were you on July 31, 2012?” Is that question
objectionable?
A: No. It is a correct direct examination question.
Q: In the above problem, what if my question was,
“What happened during July 31, 2012,” is the question
objectionable?
A: Yes. The question calls for a narration.
Q: Is the actual cross-examination necessary, or a mere
opportunity?
A: It is a mere opportunity
Q: Can a lawyer of the accused cross-examine the
witness of his co-accused?
A: Yes. As long as there is already a showing of adverse
interest upon the testimony of the witness – they are
now opponents.
Q: Are leading questions allowed in cross-
examinations?
A: Yes, they are allowed in cross and re-cross BUT not in
direct and re-direct.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
Note: Misleading questions are not allowed in direct,
cross, re-direct and re-cross examination.
Q: May a judge asks clarificatory questions to a
witness?
A: Yes, but not searching questions (as if you are
already the fiscal)
Q: What if the judge asks searching questions, what
should the lawyer of the accused do?
A: Invoke the case that provides that Judges are not
allowed to conduct searching questions (Valdes vs.
Aquiriza; 133 SCRA 150; GR 122749; J. Vitug); tell it
politely
Q: What if the judge is not asking searching questions
but is asking objectionable questions (leading,
misleading)?
A: Invoke the case of Lopez vs. Standard Oil (5 Phil 549)
Sec. 7 Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent
After the cross-examination of the witness has been
concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling
him, to explain or supplement his answers given during
the 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.
Q: What is re-direct examination?
A: It is the examination after the cross examination
Q: What is the purpose?
A: To complete the testimony in the direct examination
Q: What is the scope of re-direct examination?
A: Only matters asked during the cross-examination
Q: if the matter is not asked during the cross-
examination, can you still ask such questions?
A: Yes, upon the judges’ discretion
Sec. 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.
 Evidence
Q: What is re-cross examination?
A: It is the examination after the re-direct examination
Q: What is the purpose?
A: To break down the elements and credibility of the
witness
Q: What is the scope of re-direct examination?
A: Only matters asked during the re-cross examination
Q: if the matter is not asked during the cross-
examination, can you still ask such questions?
A: Yes, upon the judges’ discretion
Q: After the prosecution presented its evidence, can
they present rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidences?
A: Yes.
Sec. 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.
Q: What is the rule in recalling a witness? What to do?
A: You should file a motion for leave of court
Q: What do you mean by leave of court?
A: Permission of the court
Q: What is the parameter that the judge will grant
leave of court?
A: It is upon the interest of justice
Sec. 10 Leading and misleading questions
A question which suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires is a leading question.
It is not allowed, except:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant,
or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a
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.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
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.
Q: What is a leading question?
A: A question which suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires
Q: What is a misleading question?
A: A question which assumes as true a fact not yet
testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he
has previously stated.
Q: What should objections to objectionable questions
be raised?
A: When the objectionable grounds becomes apparent
Q: What are the buzz words in leading questions?
A: Was the, Did you, You did not, Have you not, Isn’t a
fact, As a matter of fact, The facts are, That is true, Isn’t,
Don’t you know, Do you mean to say, You don’t know of
course, By that answer of yours, Whether
Q: How will you counter argue that the objection of
leading should be overruled?
A: “Your honor that is not a leading question. The
question is merely suggestive of the subject matter and
not the answer.”
Q: What is a preliminary matter?
A: These are preliminary facts that are not relevant to
the issue
Q: When is a witness an unwilling or a hostile witness?
A: 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. (Sec 12 (2))
Q: What is an Adverse Witness?
A: The opposing party who become your witness
Q: Direct Examination on an ordinary witness. The
question is, “even though you knew you were at fault,
you still did not stop your vehicle.” Is this
objectionable?
A: Yes: (a) leading and (b) question calls for a
conclusion.
Q: Direct examination question on a hostile witness.
The question is, “even though you knew you were at
 Evidence
fault, you still did not stop your vehicle.” Objection:
leading and question calls for a conclusion.
A: As to leading – it should be overruled since a hostile
witness may be asked leading questions. As to the
ground that the question calls for a conclusion – it
should be sustained.
Q: Direct examination question on a hostile witness.
The question is, “even though you knew you were
driving at the right side of the road, you still stopped
your vehicle.” Objection: leading and question calls for
a conclusion. Rule
A: The question is no longer objectionable since: (a) a
hostile witness can be asked leading questions and (b)
the question no longer calls for a conclusion; you are
merely stating a fact.
Q: “State whether the defendant passed through a red
light in the intersection” – is the question
objectionable?
A: Yes, on the ground of leading. – The question may be
rephrased as follows: “What was the color of the traffic
light when you passed through the intersection?”
Sec. 11 Impeachment of adverse party's witness
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom
he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence
that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or
integrity is bad, or 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.
Q: What is impeachment?
A: It is the destruction of the testimony of a witness
Q: What is the purpose of impeachment?
A: To prove to the court that the witness’ testimony is
unworthy of belief
Q: What are the 4 modes of impeachment?
A:
1. Contradictory Evidence
2. Evidence that his general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity is bad
3. Prior Inconsistent Statement
4. Record of Prior Conviction
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
Q: How are you going to impeach by contradictory
evidence?
A: To present evidence that will contradict prior
evidence presented by your adversary (indirect
impeachment – if A is telling the truth, B is telling a lie;
and vice versa); it requires the calling of another
witness to contradict what the other witness
Q: What do you mean by “general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity is bad?”
A: It means that this witness has a bad reputation for
lack of veracity
Note: Evidence of General Immorality, Bad
Character, Particular Wrongful Act, and Particular
Crime is not allowed
Q: Can you impeach a witness under the second mode
on the ground of lack of morality (evidence of bad
character)?
A:
GR: No, this is not allowed
XPN:
1. If the person on the witness stand is the
accused himself and you ask him about his
record of prior conviction
2. If what you’re going to ask the COC of the Judge
who convicted him is about the person’s record
of prior conviction (the competent person)
Q: What is not allowed evidence of Bad Reputation vs.
Bad Character?
A: Bad Character
Q: Impeachment of the reputation of an ordinary
witness vs. Impeachment of the reputation of an
Accused Witness
A: For an Ordinary Witness, what is important is his
reputation at the time that he is called to testify. For an
Accused Witness, it is as to his reputation when he
committed the crime
Q: Two kinds of prior inconsistent statement?
A:
a. Oral
b. Written
Q: How do you impeach a witness on the ground of
prior inconsistent statement?
A:
a. Written Inconsistent Statement (S-R-A)
i. Show the sworn statement
 Evidence
ii. Read the statement
iii. Ask the witness of the contents of the
document – make him admit the contents
of the document (if he denies, charge him
with perjury; if he admits, there is now an
inconsistent statement)
Note: If the witness refuses to answer,
make a manifestation of his refusal to
answer
b. Oral Inconsistent Statement (M-C-U)
i. Ask the witness if he Made such statement
ii. Ask him about the Contents
iii. Understand – did the witness understand
about the inconsistency
Note: You cannot contradict by a prior inconsistent
statement if the issue is a collateral matter – you
can only contradict on issues that are material or
germane to the main case. You now object on the
ground of improper impeachment. But if the case is
perjury, any PIS showing dishonesty may be used
since in perjury, you are to prove the dishonesty of
the witness.
Q: Plaintiff vs. Defendant (Recovery of Parcel of Land).
Plaintiff presented W who said that the real owner of
the land is the plaintiff. Can the defendant, through Y,
present evidence that the reputation of W is bad?
A: Yes.
Q: Plaintiff vs. Defendant (Recovery of Parcel of Land).
Plaintiff presented W who said that the real owner of
the land is the plaintiff. Can the defendant, through Y,
present evidence that the bad character of W?
A: No.
Q: Plaintiff vs. Defendant (Recovery of Parcel of Land).
Plaintiff presented W who said that the real owner of
the land is the defendant (hostile witness). The court
declared W a hostile witness. Can Y present evidence
of the bad reputation of W? Can Y present evidence of
the bad character of W?
A: As to bad reputation, Yes; as to bad character, No.
Sec. 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
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
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.
Q: Sec. 11 talks of Bad Reputation – Sec. 12 talks of
Bad Character. Is there a difference between their
applications?
A: None.
Q: Can a party impeach his own witness?
A: No.
Q: What is the effect on the party of the testimony of a
witness who was not declared hostile but testified
adversely on your claim?
A: It is binding on the party who presented that witness.
Q: When can one be considered an unwilling or a
hostile witness?
A: 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.
Q: Can a party call his opponent as his own witness?
A: Yes (because you can now ask leading questions)
Q: Plaintiff vs. Defendant (Damages arising on
Vehicular Accident). P presented W who is supposed
to testify that the P is not negligent on the accident
BUT W went against the P and said that D is not the
one driving the car; the lawyer of P did not declare W a
hostile witness. P presented another witness, Y, who
testified that (1) the real one driving the car is D,
contrary to what W said that D is not the one driving. Y
said that (2) W has a bad reputation, that he is a liar. Y
went further and told the judge that (3) prior to
testifying, W whispered to him that D is the one
driving the car. All of Y’s testimony is objected to, rule
on the objection.
A: Sustained. A Party may not impeach his own witness.
 Evidence
Q: On the above problem, W was declared a hostile
witness; Rule on the objections.
A: Overruled. As an exception to Sec. 12, a party may
impeach his witness if such has become a hostile
witness.
Q: In the above problems, what if Y is the witness of
the defendant; can he testify against the statements of
W?
A: Yes (Sec. 11 – Impeachment of Adverse Party’s
Statement)
Sec. 13 How witness impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he
has made at other times statements inconsistent with
his present testimony, the statements must be related
to him, with the circumstances of the times and places
and the persons present, and he must be asked whether
he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain
them. If the statements be in writing they must be
shown to the witness before any question is put to him
concerning them.
Sec. 14 Evidence of good character of witness
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been impeached.
Q: What is the reason for the rule?
A: The law presumes every person to be reputedly
truthful until the evidence shall be produced to the
contrary
Q: Sec. 14, Rule 132 vs. Sec. 51, Rule 130
A:
a. Sec. 14, Rule 132 – the witness whose character
is involved is not a party to the case
b. Sec. 51, Rule 130 – the witness whose character
is involved is a party to the case
Q: P is claiming insurance proceeds for his burned
house. D does not want to pay on the ground that P’s
son deliberately burned the house. The Son testified
that he did not do such. P testified to prove the good
character of his son; D objected on the ground that P
can’t do such, Rule.
A: Sustained. There is yet an impeachment of P’s Sons
Character.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
Q: In the above problem, what if D testified that P’s
Son has a bad reputation? Can P now prove to the
Judge his son’s good character?
A: Yes. The Sons reputation is now being impeached.
Sec. 15 Exclusion and separation of witnesses
On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude from the
court any witness not at the time under examination, so
that he may not hear the testimony of other 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.
Q: What is the reason for the rule?
A: To avoid influencing the testimony of the witness
Q: Is there a difference between exclusion from other
witness from exclusion from the public?
A: If there is somebody testifying in the witness stand,
the next possible witness can be excluded and
separated from the public.
Q: P vs. D. The plaintiff’s witness are X, Y and P
(plaintiff himself). X is now testifying, the counsel for
the defendant moved to exclude Y and P on the
ground that they are the next witnesses, can they be
both sent out of the court?
A: Only Y may be excluded and not P (the plaintiff) due
to his Constitutional right to be present at every stages
of the proceeding and the right to hear the accusations
against him because the Constitution is supreme over
the Rules of Court.
Sec. 16 When witness may refer to memorandum
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by
himself or under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or 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.
 Evidence
Q: What are the 2 parts of Section 16?
A:
1. Present Recollection Revived – 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; in here, the evidence is the
testimony – the writing being a mere memory
aid
Note: The evidence is still testimonial in
character. The memorandum will not be
considered as documentary evidence
2. Past Recollection Recorded – 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; in
here, the evidence is the writing itself, having
been attested to as correct by the witness
Note: Since there is a complete loss of
recollection or memory on the part of the
witness, then it is the memorandum itself that
will serve as evidence. It will now be considered
as documentary evidence.
Q: What is admissible between the two parts?
A: Only the Past Recollection Recorded
Q: Why is it that Present Recollection inadmissible and
the past recollection recorded admissible?
A: In the Present Recollection Recorded, the character
of the evidence is still testimonial – the memorandum
or notes is inadmissible because that memorandum
cannot corroborate the testimony of the witness who
prepared that memorandum. In the Past Recollection
Revived, it is admissible since in here, it is the
memorandum itself which serves as evidence – it is now
considered as documentary evidence.
Q: With respect to the time frame when the
memorandum was made, what is the difference?
A: In Present Recollection Revived, the note is made at
the time when the fact occurred, or immediately
thereafter, or at any other time. On the other hand, the
Past Recollection Recorded, the time frame is
immaterial.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
Sec. 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.
Q: Does the word “part” include 2 separate documents
but forming one document, but not in a series of
pagination?
A: Yes, it is a part of the whole or totality of the pages,
transaction, declaration, etc.
Sec. 18 Right to inspect writing shown to witness
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be
inspected by the adverse party.
Q: Relate Sec. 8, Rule 130 (Party who calls for
Document not bound to offer it) to Sec. 18, Rule 132
(Right to inspect writing shown to witness)
A: Whenever a writing is shown before the court, the
adverse party may examine that writing. But the person
who called for the production of that document is not
obliged to present it in evidence.
Q: What is the purpose?
A: To be able to inspect if it is genuine.
B. Authentication and Proof of Documents
Sec. 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.
 Evidence
Q: What is a document?
A: A document is any deed, instrument, or any duly
authorized paper by which something is proved,
evidenced or set forth.
Q: What do you mean by documentary evidence?
A: It consists of writings or any material containing
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expressions offered as proof of their
contents.
Q: What are the classes of documents?
A: Public and Private Documents
Q: Under the RPC, how many classes of documents are
there? What are they?
A:
1. Official
2. Public
3. Commercial
4. Private
Q: What is the importance of distinguishing public
from private documents?
A: For the purpose of their presentation in evidence
Q: What are Public Documents?
A: Any document issued by an officer made in
accordance with law; Documents issued with the
solemnities required by law
Q: What are the classes of Public documents?
A:
(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.
Q: Is a last will and testament a public document?
A: No, because under the law on Succession, wills, even
though notarized, their due execution and authenticity
should still be proved by the 3 witnesses
Q: What do you mean by due execution?
A: Nothing more than that the instrument is not
spurious, counterfeit or of a different import on its face
from the one executed
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
Q: What are private documents?
A: Any deed or instrument, by which something is
proved, evidenced or set forth.
Q: How would you compare a public document from a
private document?
A:
1. As to authenticity
a. Public – no need to present proof of its due
execution and authenticity, before it may
be received in evidence
b. Private – you need to prove its due
execution and authenticity, before it may
be received in evidence
2. As to persons bound
a. Public – evidence even against 3rd persons,
of the fact which gave rise to its due
execution and to the date of the document
b. Private – binds only the parties who
executed it or their
Q: Is an SPA executed abroad acknowledged before a
notary public abroad admissible in evidence as public
documents in our courts?
A: Yes (Sec. 19 (a))
Note: Any foreign document to be admissible in our
courts must have a “red ribbon”
Q: What is the evidentiary value of public documents?
A: It must be sustained in the absence of strong,
complete proof of its nullity or falsity. It means that
mere presentation thereof is prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated.
Sec. 20 Proof of private document
Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as
that which it is claimed to be.
Note: Sec. 21-23 are the rules on the authentication
and proof of private documents
 Evidence
Q: How do you prove the due execution and Q: What is an Ancient Document?
authenticity of a private document? A: Documents which have been in existence for 30
A: years or more.
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or Q: What is the reason why an ancient document need
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature not be proved of its due execution and authenticity?
or handwriting of the maker. A: Because of the difficulty of getting witnesses to
testify as to the due execution of the document.
Q: How are you going to prove or establish the
genuineness of the signature of the maker? (Sec. 22) Sec. 22 How genuineness of handwriting proved
A:
a. By anyone who saw The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
b. Testimony of a witness purporting to show that witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
the signature is the signature of the maker person because he has seen the person write, or has
c. By the comparison of the handwriting of the seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
witness by the court has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
d. By Expert Witness knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
Q: What are the self-authenticating documents? comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
A: writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
1. Public Documents against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
2. Ancient Documents (Sec. 21, Rule 132) genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
3. Notarized Documents
4. Documents whose authenticity has been Sec. 23 Public documents as evidence
admitted under the Rules on Actionable
Documents (Rule 8, Section 8) – if you fail to
Documents consisting of entries in public records made
verify your answer, anything attached to the
in the performance of a duty by a public officer
document is deemed admitted
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All
5. Reply to the Letter Rule – confirmation made the
other public documents are evidence, even against a
counsel that demand letter has been received
third person, of the fact which gave rise to their
execution and of the date of the latter.
Q: How will you temporarily have a photocopied
document temporarily marked?
Q: Between a public document and a bare allegation,
A: You say, “Your Honor, may I move that this
which shall prevail?
document be temporarily marked.” Then the next
A: Public Document
hearing, you now ask the court to transfer the mark to
the original document.
Sec. 24 Proof of official record
Sec. 21 When evidence of authenticity of private
The record of public documents referred to in paragraph
document not necessary
(a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may
be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a
Where a private document is more than thirty years old,
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of
is produced from the custody in which it would naturally
the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the
be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any
record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate
alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other
that such officer has the custody. If the office in which
evidence of its authenticity need be given.
the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate
may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
Q: Do ancient documents cover public documents?
consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or
How about Private Documents?
by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
A: Private Documents
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
 Evidence
Q: Does Section 24 cover both local and foreign official 3. Certification of the Clerk of Court – public
records? 4. Receipt of the Treasurer’s Office – public
A: Yes. 5. Un-Notarized Sealed Title of a Land – public
6. Certification from Biñan, Laguna – public
Q: How can you prove official records? 7. Articles of Incorporation – public (issued by the
A: SEC)
a. Local Official Records
1. By Official Copy Sec. 25 What attestation of copy must state
2. By Official Publication
3. By Certified True Copy Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for
b. Foreign Official Records the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in
1. By Official Copy substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original,
2. By Official Publication or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
3. By Certified True Copy attestation must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a
Q: How do you prove Certified True Copies; court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
requirements?
A: Sec. 26 Irremovability of public record
a. Local Official Records
1. Attestation
Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible
2. Authentication
in evidence, must not be removed from the office in
3. Documentary Stamp (w/o such, it is
which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the
inadmissible in evidence); provided under
inspection of the record is essential to the just
the NIRC
determination of a pending case.
b. Foreign Official Records
1. Attestation – a statement that this is a
Q: What is the reason behind the rule?
certified true copy
A: To enable others to use the record
2. Certification – a statement that the original
copy is in the custody of a public officer
Q: Are there exceptions to the rule?
3. Authentication – proof of due execution
A:
1. Order of the Court (Rule 136, Section 26)
Note: Certification is used only for certified true
2. Rule 136, Section 14 (Taking of record from the
copies while Acknowledgment is for an Original;
clerk’s office
although they are used interchangeably
Q: What if a public officer violates Section 26, is he
Q: How do you prove an Original Document?
criminally liable?
A:
A: Yes. Under Section 2, Chapter 5, RPC (Infidelity in the
a. Local Official Records
custody of documents) – Articles 226, 227, 228
- No more need for any attestation,
acknowledgement, and authentication
Sec. 27 Public record of a private document
b. Foreign Official Records
1. By an Acknowledgement – that the
document is duly executed before a public An authorized public record of a private document may
officer be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof,
2. By an Authentication – that the document is attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
sealed appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.

Q: Are the following public or private documents? Q: Is a public record of a private document proof of its
1. Application for registration of a TIN in BIR – contents, due execution and authenticity; does the
public (Sec. 19a) private document acquire the status of a public
2. Sealed Original Stock Certificate – private (a document under Sec. 27?
private individual caused the seal)
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
 Evidence
A: No, the writings remain private – it will only acquire
the character of a public document BUT it remains to be
private documents which due execution, contents and
authenticity must be prove.
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.
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.
Q: What to do when your adversary presented an
altered document?
A: Make a manifestation to the Judge saying that the
document is altered so that when you object, the court
will remember that the document is an altered one

Note: A classic example of this is the NDI – No Note: An altered document cannot be cured
Derogatory Record
Q: If you are the presenter of the altered document,
Sec. 29 How judicial record impeached what are you supposed to do in order for it to be
admissible in evidence?
A: He may show that:
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
1. The alteration was made by another, without
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b)
his concurrence, or
collusion between the parties, or (c) fraud in the party
2. The alteration was made with the consent of
offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
the parties affected by it, or
3. The alteration was properly or innocently made,
Q: How are judicial records impeached?
or
A: By evidence of:
4. The alteration did not change the meaning or
(a) Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
language of the instrument.
officer
(b) Collusion between the parties
(c) Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect Sec. 32 Seal
to the proceedings.
There shall be no difference between sealed and
Sec. 30 Proof of notarial documents unsealed private documents insofar as their
admissibility as evidence is concerned.
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
Q: Do you still need to prove the due execution and
certified as provided by law, may be presented in
authenticity of a Sealed Private Document?
evidence without further proof, the certificate of
A: Yes, for it still remains a Private Document
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved.
Q; How do you prove the due execution and
authenticity of a Private Document?
Q: Why are documents notarized by the Notary Public
A: By asking these two questions:
given the statues of a public document?
1. What is your evidence? ( a general question to
A: Because Notary Publics, as officers of the law, are
prove due execution and authenticity of a
given a certain degree of respect and a certain degree
Private Document)
of confidence
2. Whose signature is this? (Proving due
execution) How did you know whose signature
Sec. 31 Alteration in document, how to explain
this is? (Proving Authenticity)

The party producing a document as genuine which has

been altered and appears to have been altered after its
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
 Evidence
Sec. 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.
Q: What if X killed Y. X admitted guilt in a Cebuano
dialect, is his admission admissible in evidence?
A: Yes, since these local dialects are considered as
auxiliary official languages – they are no longer needed
to be translated. (Pp v. Tomaquin; 435 SCRA 23)
Q: What if X killed Y. X admitted guilt in a Russian
language, is his admission admissible in evidence?
A: No, foreign languages must be translated.
C. Offer and Objection
Sec. 34 Offer of evidence
The court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified.
Sec. 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.
Q: When should you make an offer?
A:
a. Documentary and Object evidence – the offer
must be made after the party’s presentation of
the testimonial evidence
b. Testimonial Evidence – the offer shall be made
at the time the witness is called to testify
Q: Why should evidence be formally offered; purpose?
A: No evidence shall be considered unless formally
offered in court.
Q: What are the types of Evidence?
A:
1. Testimonial
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
2. Object/Real
3. Documentary
Q: Before asking the witness on stand, what should
the lawyer state first?
A: The purpose of the testimony – after this, you can
now ask the witness
Note:
You cannot ask questions, if you did not state
the purpose of the testimony – thus, if you are
an adversary, you can object
After the last witness underwent the q&a, the
lawyer now shall make a formal offer of
evidence within 3 days from the statement of
the last witness – which shall consist of the
different documentary exhibits (from this time,
the other party may now object)
Q: If the document, which was attached to the
complaint but not identified nor marked but formally
offered; is it admissible or inadmissible?
A: Admissible
Q: If the document is not attached to the complaint
but was identified and marked but not formally
offered; admissible or inadmissible?
A: Inadmissible
Q: If the document is attached to the complaint,
identified, marked and lost but formally offered;
admissible or inadmissible?
A: Inadmissible, since a lost document cannot be
offered
REGALADO: (sir do not agree)
GR: Evidence not formally offered is inadmissible
XPN: Though not formally offered, as long as it is
marked and identified as borne by the stenographic
notes, it is admissible
Q: Should the offer be specific?
A: Because of the doctrine of the Multiple Admissibility
of Evidence
Q: Can a party withdraw his evidence?
A: No.
Q: Identification of Evidence vs. Formal Offer of
Evidence
 Evidence
A: Identification of Evidence is made during the course
of the trial while formal offer of evidence is made after
the party’s presentation of testimonial evidence
Sec. 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 offer unless a
different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be
specified.
Q: What should the party do if he wants the evidence
of the adverse party not be accepted by the court?
A: Object
Q: Give me 10 kinds of Objection
A:
1. Question is Ambiguous
2. Question is Argumentative
3. Question is violative of the BER
4. Question is Compound
5. Question calls for Conclusion
6. Question is too General
7. Question is Hypothetical
8. Question is Leading
9. Question is Misleading
10. Question Misquotes a witness
Q: What happened on July 13, 2001? – is it this
objectionable?
A: Yes.
1. Leading
2. Misleading
3. Narrative
Note: In order to obviate the objection, add “if any”
after the question, the objection can no longer be
sustained
Q: When to make an objection?
A:
a. Oral Testimony – after the offer of the evidence
is made (also after the purpose was stated)
b. In Writing (Documentary Evidence) – within 3
days after the formal offer
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
c. Question Propounded in the course of the oral
examination – when the objectionable portion
becomes apparent (during the trial stage)
Sec. 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. (Continuing Objection)
Q: What is your remedy for same kinds of question
propounded to your witness?
A: Objection, the question is repetitive; and if such was
still done, now ask the court to make a record of your
continuing objection
Q: What if, when you objected first, the objection was
overruled. And then on the second time, your
objection was sustained. Can you move for a record of
your continuing objection?
A: Yes, Sec. 37 said “whether such objection was
sustained or overruled”
Sec. 38 Ruling
The ruling of the court must be given immediately
after the objection is made, unless the court desires to
take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented; but the ruling shall always be made during
the trial and at such time as will give the party against
whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation
presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection
need not be stated. However, if the objection is based
on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the
objection on one or some of them must specify the
ground or grounds relied upon.
Q: If the objection was based on 2 or more grounds,
must the judge state his basis of his ruling, if he will
overrule all the objections?
A: No.
Q: If the objection was based on 2 or more grounds,
must the judge state his basis of his ruling, if he will
sustain one of the 2 or more objections?
 Evidence
A: Yes.
Sec. 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.
Q: What to do when the answer was made so quickly?
A: 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.
Q: What are the other grounds for you to move for a
motion to strike out?
A: If the answer is otherwise improper, irrelevant or
immaterial.
Q: What are the 3 ways to object?
A:
1. Object on the Purpose
2. Objection during the Formal Offer
3. Objection during the course of the examination
Q: What if the objection against you was sustained by
the Judge so that you were not able to present your
witness’ oral or testimonial evidence; what is your
remedy?
A: Say, “Your honor, may I be allowed to make a proffer
of evidence” (or tender of excluded evidence or offer of
proof). Then present such:
a. The name of my witness is Ms. X
b. Her personal circumstances are the following:
x x x (also state the purpose of the testimony)
c. And that if I were to be allowed to continue
with my questioning, I will be able to prove the
following x x x and that will be the supposed
testimony of my witness.
Q: What is the purpose of the above?
A: It will be recorded already – then the Judge will be
able to read it when making hi decision

Sec. 40 Tender of excluded evidence Q: What if the objection against you was sustained by
the Judge so that you were not able to present your
witness’ written or object or real evidence; what is
If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded
your remedy?
by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to
A: The offeror may have the same attached to or made
or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is
part of the record; how:
oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and
Make a manifestation in writing that you will be
other personal circumstances of the witness and the
making a proffer of evidence to have the document
substance of the proposed testimony.
for part of the whole record of the case
Q: What is offer of proof, tender of excluded evidence,
Q: What if the value of the proffer of evidence?
or proffer of evidence?
A: So that the appellate court may be able to read the
A: This is the offer of evidence excluded by the trial
records of excluded evidence
court for the consideration by the appellate court (Sec.
40)

Q: What is offer of evidence?

A: Offer of evidence for the consideration of the trial
court – this is the one that may be objected to within 3
days (Sec. 34)

Q: What are the kinds of evidence?

A:
1. Object/Real – you object during the Formal
Offer (3 days after the offer)
2. Testimonial/Oral – you object during the course
of the examination

Ampuan, Kevin John DL.

2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad