EVIDENCE reviewer

Judge JFA Caringal


Block D 2018 | 1st Sem, AY 2016-2017

WITH NOTES FROM: Regalado’s Commentary on Evidence, Tiu Reviewer and some Francisco
Commentary. Credit goes to those sources.


! of 164
1 !
I. Introduction and Admissibility of course of the action, unless modified before trial
to prevent manifest injustice.

Evidence
RULE 30

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 SEC. 6. Agreed statement of facts—The parties to
any action may agree, in writing, upon the facts
AGREEMENTS AND STIPULATIONS OF FACT involved in the litigation, and submit the case for
judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the
RULE 128
 introduction of evidence.

SECTION 1. Evidence defined.— Evidence is the

means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining RULE 118 - Pre-Trial
in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a SECTION 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal
matter of fact.(1)
cases.—In all criminal cases cognizable by the
SEC. 2. Scope.—The rules of evidence shall be Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan
the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
except as otherwise provided by law or these Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial
rules.(2a)
Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within
SEC. 3. Admissibility of evidence.—Evidence is thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless
not excluded by the law or these rules.(3a)
a shorter period is provided for in special laws or
SEC. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters.—Evidence circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial
must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to conference to consider the following:

induce belief in its existence or non-existence. (b) stipulation of facts;

Evidence on collateral matters shall not be

allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable 

degree to establish the probability or improbability CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
of the fact in issue.(4a)
RULE 131 - Burden of Proof and Presumptions

SEC. 2. Conclusive presumptions.—The following
are instances of conclusive presumptions:

RULE 18
 (a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration,

SEC. 2. Nature and purpose.—The pre-trial is act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
mandatory. The court shall consider:
 another to believe a particular thing true, and to
(d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
admissions of facts and of documents to avoid arising out of such declaration, act or omission,
unnecessary proof
 be permitted to falsify it:

SEC. 6. Pre-trial brief.—The parties shall file with (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of
the court and serve on the adverse party, in such his landlord at the time of the commencement of
manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial,
their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, 

among others:
 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed RULE 34 - Judgment on the Pleadings

stipulation of facts;
 SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings.—Where
SEC. 7. Record of pre-trial.—The proceedings in an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise
the pretrial shall be recorded. Upon the admits the material allegations of the adverse
termination thereof, the court shall issue an order party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that
which shall recite in detail the matters taken up in party, direct judgment on such pleading. However,
the conference; the action taken thereon, the in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of
amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the marriage or for legal separation, the material facts
agreements or admissions made by the parties as alleged in the complaint shall always be proved.

to any of the matters considered. Should the

action proceed to trial, the order shall explicitly
define and limit the issues to be tried. The JUDICIAL NOTICE AND ADMISSIONS
contents of the order shall control the subsequent RULE 129 - What need not be proved

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.—A

! of 164
2 !
court shall take judicial notice, without the d) It ascertains the truth respecting a matter of
introduction of evidence, of the existence and fact.
territorial extent of states, their political history, We establish the truth as a matter of fact for party-
forms of government and symbols of nationality, litigants through evidence.

the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the
official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of
There is a difference between the judicial truth and
the actual truth. As much as possible, in that
utopian and ideal world, we want the actual truth
to be the same as the judicial truth. But because
of certain factors, that is not always the case.

nature, the measure of time, and the geographical Sometimes there is an incongruence between the
divisions.(1a)
 judicial truth and the actual truth because of the
SEC. 4. Judicial admissions.—An admission, exclusionary rule, or a lawyer messed up.

verbal or written, made by a party in the course of Judges can only consider what is presented by
the proceedings in the same case, does not the party-litigants.

require proof. The admission may be contradicted There is always a question of fact involved (factual
only by showing that it was made through issue) in order for evidence to be presented.

palpable mistake or that no such admission was As a general rule, matters of fact require you to
made. present evidence.


 Difference between question of law and question

RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE of fact: In question of law, it is generally judicial.
On questions of fact, that’s what lawyers must be
SECTION 2. Cases covered. - These Rules shall able to present. So if it involves a question of fact
apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well in general, we must present evidence.

as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.

However, there are certain matters where you
don’t need to present evidence anymore.

Class Notes If a matter of fact is capable of judicial notice, it

From the definition of evidence, we can ascertain doesn’t need to be presented anymore because
4 things:
the fact is so notorious that the court takes

 judicial notice of that fact. (Buzzword is
a) It's a means.
“notoriety”) So you don’t present evidence on that
Distinguish between means and proof
anymore lest you waste the time of the Court.

Once you overcome the necessary quantum of

evidence required, then you have proof. You have Are the rules of evidence a right or a privilege? It’s
proven a certain fact.
a statutory privilege, because you can waive your
presentation of evidence or your objection.

b) It has to be sanctioned by the rules. Under the rules of evidence, although they are
Not all evidence presented by a party litigant is generally in format, there might be a different
accepted.
treatment in civil cases and criminal cases. Ex.
Framework: In a utopian or ideal world, party Quantum of evidence required

litigants should be able to present any proof that

they want to defend their cause. In reality, rules Isapuso ang Sec. 3, Rule 128!

are necessary which limit the evidence we want to Admissible = Relevant + Competent
present.
- Relevance depends on the situation

Evidence is a system of exclusionary rules. More

than anything, evidence is there to exclude.
 When is admissibility of evidence determined?
When it is offered in court. 

c) It is applicable in a judicial proceeding. In general, before a court can look int the
Why is it applicable in a judicial proceeding and evidence or consider the evidence, it has to be
only suppletory in a quasi-judicial proceeding? formally offered. 

Because in a judicial proceeding, what is You offer evidence:

oftentimes involved are conflicting claims that If testimonial = At the time the witness is called to
may result in the deprivation of life, liberty and the stand.

property. This is different from a quasi-judicial If object = Normally after the party has already
proceeding. It’s stricter in a judicial proceeding rest their case.

because a lot is at stake.

! of 164
3 !
When you object to evidence, it has to be specific. 
 facts relative to those issues. Modes of discovery

 under the Rules of Court are meant to afford the
Can you object to evidence on the irrelevance and parties fullest possible knowledge of the issues
incompetence at the same time? 
 and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that
As to incompetence, NO because it’s not clear said trials are carried on in the dark. The inquiry
WHY it’s incompetent.
 extends to all facts which are relevant, whether
As to it being irrelevant and immaterial, YES they be ultimate or evidentiary, excepting only
because it is specific enough.
those matters which are privileged.

W h a t i s t h e d i ff e re n c e b e t w e e n f a c t u m Dela Llano v. Biong (2013)

probandum and factum probans?
 SUMMARY: Dra. Dela Llana was in a car accident
Factum probandum = ultimate fact sought to be involving a truck. Doctors said she suffered from
established
whiplash injury. She was incapacitated to work.
Factum probans = evidentiary fact or the fact by She claimed damages from the owner of the
which the “Factum probandum” is to be truck, claiming the driver’s negligence was the
established
 proximate cause of her whiplash injury. HELD:

 Reckless driving was not the proximate cause of
EXAMPLES
her whiplash injury. Dra. dela Llana failed to
- In a civil case, the factum probandum is the establish her case by preponderance of evidence.
cause of action, like a sum of money. For the She failed to show the chain of causation between
defense, it’s proof like a receipt of paying the sum Joel's reckless driving and her whiplash injury.
of money.
 The evidence she presented, mainly pictures of
- In a criminal case, the factum probandum is the the accident, a medical certificate, and her
elements for the prosecution. For the defense, it’s testimony, did not show the causal relation
the absence of the elements.
 between the vehicular accident and the whiplash
- In special proceedings, the factum probandum is injury.
the status.
DOCTRINE: In order to establish liability for a

 quasi-delict, a preponderance of evidence
“It’s that fucking bat.” - Sir Jat
showing the 3 elements must be shown, mainly: 1)
damage to the plaintiff, 2) negligence, and 3) the
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (1999)
connection of cause and effect between such
SUMMARY: PCGG charged Tantoco, Jr. and negligence and the damages. The pictures of her
Santiago, along with Ferdinand E. Marcos and damaged car only demonstrate the massive
Imelda R. Marcos before the Sandiganbayan in an impact of the collision, but it is a farfetched
action for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, assumption that the whiplash injury can also be
restitution and damages related to the Marcos’ inferred from the pictures. The medical certificate
alleged ill-gotten wealth. Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago cannot be admitted because it is hearsay. Despite
move to avail of deposition-discovery the fact that she is a doctor, Dela Llana's
mechanisms, i.e., interrogatories to parties, testimony has no probative value because she
production and inspection of documents and was not presented as an expert witness.

things, which the Sandiganbayan granted. SC

affirmed.
Prats v. Phoenix Insurance (1929)
DOCTRINE: "Evidentiary matters" may be
inquired into and learned by the parties before the
trial. It is the purpose and policy of the law that
the parties — before the trial, if not indeed even
before the pre-trial — should discover or inform
themselves of all the facts relevant to the action,
not only those known to them individually, but
also those known to adversaries; the Rules of
Court make this ideal possible through the
deposition-discovery mechanism. Such
mechanism is meant to serve (1) as a device,
SUMMARY: Prats & Co., a mercantile partnership,
instituted an action in the RTC for recovery of a
sum of money from Phoenix Insurance Co. for a
loss alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff
from a fire. Phoenix Insurance admitted the
insurance, but by way of special defense, alleged
that the fire in question had been set by the
plaintiff, or with its connivance, and that plaintiff
had submitted under oath to the defendant a
fraudulent claim of loss in contravention of the
express terms of the policy.

along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 20, to HELD: Prats & Co. caused the fire to be set, or
narrow and clarify the basic issues between the had connived therein, and submitted fraudulent
parties, and (2) as a device for ascertaining the proof.


! of 164
4 !
DOCTRINE: In the Philippine system of
procedure, the court is judge both of law and
facts, and in it is necessary for the court to know
what the proof is before it rules upon the propriety
of receiving it.
 promoting the ends of justice, one of which is to
Justice is most effectively and expeditiously
administered in the courts where trivial objections
to the admission of proof are received with least
favor.
What is evidence-in-chief?
A. In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of
first instance, in the early stages of the development
of the proof, to know with any certainty whether
testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no
indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney
offering the evidence, the court may as a rule safely
accept the testimony upon the statement of the
attorney that the proof offered will be connected later
B. In the heat of the battle over which he presides, a
judge of first instance may possibly fall into error in
judging of the relevancy of proof where a fair and
logical connection is in fact shown. When such a
mistake is made and the proof is erroneously ruled
out, the SC, upon appeal, often finds itself
embarrassed and possibly unable to correct the
effects of error without returning the case for a new
trial, a step which this court is always very loath to
take.
C. On the other hand, the admission of proof in a court of
first instance, even if the question as to its form,
materiality, or relevancy is doubtful, can never result in
much harm to either litigant, because the trial judge is
supposed to know the law; and it is its duty, upon final
consideration of the case, to distinguish the relevant
and material from the irrelevant and immaterial. If this
course is followed and the cause is prosecuted to the
SC upon appeal, this court then has all the material
before it necessary to make a correct judgment.
private respondents (De La Cruz). Petitioners were
People v. Abalos (1969)
dispute and denied that they interfered in the
SUMMARY: In the trial for double murder with
multiple frustrated murder, the defendant testified
that another person shot the victims, not him. In
rebuttal, the prosecution presented another
witness who witnessed the occurrence, testifying
to seeing the defendant shoot the victims. The
defense objected to such presentation saying that
the rebuttal witness should have been presented
as part of evidence in chief. Judge Abalos
sustained the objection and ordered the testimony
stricken from the record. HELD: Judge committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction when it issued the order. The
prosecution, as a matter of legal right, may
present evidence on a new matter (i.e. another
person committing the crime) raised in court. The
Judge should not have stricken such testimony
from the record.
SUMMARY: Turco was convicted of rape. He
DOCTRINE: Trial courts have ample discretion to
determine WON the parties should be allowed to
introduce evidence in rebuttal. Judicial discretion
must be exercised reasonably, with a view to
ascertain the truth.
Notes


Evidence is said to be in chief when it is given in
support of the case opened by the leading
counsel. The term is used to distinguish evidence
of this nature from evidence obtained on a cross-
examination. (By It is sometimes meant that
evidence, which is given in contradistinction to
evidence which is obtained on the witness voir
dire. Evidence in chief should be confined to such
matters as the pleadings and the opening warrant,
and a departure from this rule, will be sometimes
highly inconvenient, if not fatal. Suppose, for
example, that two assaults have been committed,
one in January and the other. in February, and the
plaintiff prove his cause of action to have been the
assault in January, he cannot abandon that, and
afterwards prove another committed in February
unless the pleadings and openings extend to
both.
(Source: A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the
Constitution and Laws of the United States. By
John Bouvier. Published 1856.)


Reyes v. CA (1992)

SUMMARY: There was a property and agrarian
dispute between a third party (Mendoza) and
the barangay captains who were involved in the
tenancy relationship. CA ruled for the private
respondents, and the petitioners appealed the
case, asking for a re-examination of the evidence
presented in the case. HELD: Only questions of
law will be entertained in R45 and distinguished
the quantum of evidence required in agrarian
cases.
DOCTRINE: In agrarian cases, the quantum of
evidence required is no more than substantial
evidence. Its absence is not shown by stressing
that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or
circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot
substitute its own judgment or criteria for that of
the TC in determining wherein lies the weight of
evidence.
People v. Turco (2000)

appealed and argued that the court erred in
! of 164
5 !
finding him guilty based only on testimony. HELD: The sworn statement had no probative
Although a medical certificate was presented, the value and that private respondents, as plaintiffs,
medico-legal officer was not present at the trial. failed to discharge their burden of proof.

HELD: Guilty. In cases of rape, due to its intimate DOCTRINE: The admissibility of evidence
nature, the primary consideration is the credibility depends on its relevance and competence while
of complainant’s testimony, which standing alone, the weight of evidence pertains to evidence
even without medical examination, is sufficient to already admitted and its tendency to convince
convict.
and persuade. A particular item of evidence may
DOCTRINE: The court places significance on the be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends
distinction between admissibility of evidence and on judicial evaluation within the guidelines
its probative value. Since admissibility is provided by the rules of evidence.

determined by relevance and competence,

admissibility is an affair of logic and law. Probative Class Notes
value or weight given to evidence, once admitted, Evidence was admitted but given no weight. They
depends on judicial evaluation guided by R133 could no longer present the lola because she was
and jurisprudence.
dead. Even if it was already admitted, it was given
no weight at all.
Knapp v. State (1907)

SUMMARY: Knapp was convicted of murder in B. RELEVANCE
the first degree by the Circuit Court. He contested (See Rule 128 Secs. 3 & 4)

the admission of the testimony of a physician who

testified on behalf of the State on a collateral Class Notes
matter. SC upheld his conviction, as well as the Relates to fact in issue, depends on the probative
admission of the testimony.
value logic and experience of the JUDGE.

DOCTRINE: The competency of a collateral fact In terms of relevance, there’s leeway. In

to be used as the basis of legitimate argument is competence, there’s no leeway.

not to be determined by the conclusiveness of the It is a matter of logic and expertise, a matter of
inferences it may afford in reference to the inference, not law.

litigated fact. It is enough if these may tend in a When a fact is not in issue, evidence presented as
slight degree to elucidate the inquiry or to assist, to that fact is not relevant.

though remotely, to a determination probably The immediate evidence must have a connection
found in truth.
to the ultimate fact.

It has to relate to the proposition that you want to

Class Notes: prove and there must be some probative value.

Doesn’t have to be full connection between matter In the Pedro v. Jill rape example, although
to be proved and fact as long as fact helps to evidence #5 and #6 are seemingly irrelevant, they
prove. The Court still considered the fact because can be used/later be proved to have some
it still helped prove a certain fact. When you talk connection, it attains relevance.

about relevance, it is tested based on logic and During court proceedings, relevance is determined
experience. But whose logic and experience? The during pre-trial; this is the first instance where the
judge's! For relevance, there’s room for leeway judge/parties frames the issues and the
and discretion. Competence does not have evidentiary matter.

leeway at all. Parties stipulate as to facts, pieces of evidence,

so and so.

Tating v. Marcella (2007)
 In practice, during pretrial, Judge Jat asks the
SUMMARY: Daniela sold her land to Nena parties' theory of the case. If you present
through a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. evidence beyond their theory, tangina that's
Daniela claimed in a sworn statement that she excluded. That's a waste of time.

had no intention of selling the land and the true Collateral matters: GR is that it shall not be
agreement was to transfer the title to Nena so that allowed.

she could obtain a loan. Daniela died and nearly 9 Is the credibility of witnesses always, sometimes
years later, her heirs (private respondents) or never relevant? Always relevant because it has
discovered the sworn statement. They sought to a tendency to prove or disprove the evidence.

nullify the Deed of Absolute Sale, cancel the TCT Evidence must always be credible in itself and
issued in Nena’s name, and have new ones issued must come from a credible source.

in their names.

! of 164
6 !
The relevance of witness is so important that there EVIDENCE is a set of exclusionary rules.
is a specific procedure in trial to test it: cross-
examination.
State v. Ball (1960)


 SUMMARY: A jewelry store was robbed by two
At what stage does the relevance of evidence first men at gunpoint after the robbers fled the owner
come up?
 reported the crime to the police and was able to
PRE-TRIAL is first instance where relevance of identify the robbers from pictures shown to him.
the evidence comes up, because it’s the instance Ball was arrested. Among the evidence presented
where parties frame issues, and evidentiary by the prosecution was money found on the
matters are presented. (Sir asks the two opposing person of Ball when he was arrested. Ball
parties in his sala: What’s your theory of the case? objected to the presentation of this particular
What’s your theory for your evidence?)
piece of evidence on the ground that it was
irrelevant to the issue/s being tried. The lower
“They’ll probably sustain me, ‘cause I’m a trier of court rejected Ball’s objection and considered the
fact.” - Sir Jat evidence and ultimately found Ball guilty. A motion
for new trial was filed by Ball with the Missouri SC
Lopez v. Heesen (1961)
 with the state court ultimately granting the motion
SUMMARY: Jesse G. Lopez filed suit against holding that the money found on Ball was not
appellee, Robert Heesen, alleging that on October relevant evidence and was prejudicial to his cause
15, 1958, Heesen unlawfully assaulted and shot since it cannot be established that the money
appellant with a shotgun, inflicting upon him found on Ball’s possession was connected to the
dangerous and painful wounds,
robbery and the jury may have inferred that the he
DOCTRINE: In trials by jury it is their province to was guilty of another robbery. HELD: Elements of
determine the ultimate facts, and the general rule robbery established. Money was not relevant
is that witnesses are permitted to testify to the evidence. Remanded to lower court.

primary facts within their knowledge, but not to
their opinions. This has at times led to the
statement that witnesses may not give their
opinions upon the ultimate facts which the jury are
to decide, because that would supplant their
DOCTRINE: Evidence is relevant if it tends to
prove or disprove any of the issues involved in the
case.
People v. Galleno (1998)

judgment and usurp their province. But such a
statement is not to be taken literally. The tendency
of modern decisions is not only to give as wide a
scope as is reasonably possible to the
investigation of such questions, but also to accord
to the trial judge a certain discretion in
determining what testimony has a tendency to
SUMMARY: A 5 y/o girl was raped by a 19 y/o.
The accused alleged that he was just throwing her
up and down but upon lifting up the child, his left
ring finger was accidentally inserted into the her
vagina since his fingernail was long and the child
was not wearing any underwear. SC found the
accused guilty of Statutory Rape.

establish the ultimate facts, and to disturb his
decision admitting testimony of that character
only when it plainly appears that the testimony
had no legitimate bearing upon the questions at
issue and was calculated to prejudice the minds
of the jurors.
particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the
Class Notes
The conduct of others in testimony is relevant
DOCTRINE: Section 4, Rule 128. This simply
means that relevancy is determinable by the rules
of logic and human experience. There is no
precise and universal test of relevancy provided
by law. However, the determination of whether
discretion of the court, which must be exercised
according to the teachings of logic and everyday
experience.

evidence.

What is the difference between a competent People v. Calumpang (2005)

witness and competent evidence? For the SUMMARY: Alicia and Santiago Catipay were
competence of a witness, what is being judged is murdered one night when they were on their way
the expertise of said witness in his/her testimony. home after having a round of beers. They were
For the competence of evidence, what is being stabbed multiple times with bolos. Now the
judged is whether or not it has weight.
 question is: Who murdered them? Magno Gomez,
Is the CREDIBILITY of witnesses always relevant? a prosecution witness, testified and said that
YES. Procedure testing it: Cross-examination Calumpang and Omatang had committed the
during trial.
murders. The issue here is whether the RTC

! of 164
7 !
should have given credence to Magno’s
testimony. HELD: No, the RTC shouldn’t have
because serious discrepancies existed between
the contents of the affidavit he had executed
during the preliminary examination and his
testimony in court, making his eyewitness account
questionable. In addition, several parts of his
testimony were unworthy of belief. Magno had not
acted the way a person seeking to avoid peril to
his life would have acted. His testimony stating
the reason for why appellants harbored a grudge
against the victims defied logic as well.
Calumpang and Omatang were thus acquitted on
reasonable doubt.
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of
DOCTRINE: Well settled is the rule that evidence
to be believed must not only proceed from the
mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible
in itself such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable
under the circumstances.
SUMMARY: Petitioners were subpoenaed to
C. COMPETENCE
(See Rule 128 Sec. 3)
applied for an order compelling the petitioners to
1. EXCLUSIONARY RULES UNDER THE 1987
CONSTITUTION
1987 Consti (Bill of Rights) - Art. 3
 use immunity, because the immunity granted is
a. SECTION 2. The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
SEC. 3.
1. The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
respondents were summoned to testify in the
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
 testimonies, alleging that such violate their rights
b. SEC. 12.
to be witness against themselves and to remain
1. Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to
beinformed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation,
or any other means which vitiate the free will
shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
3. Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this Section as well as
torture or similar practices, and their families.

c. Section 17. No person shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself.
Kastigar v. US (1972)
appear before a US grand jury, after which they
invoked the Fifth Amendment. The government
answer questions but at the same time granting
immunity to them pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§
6002-6003. HELD: Testimony may be compelled
even if the statute only grants use and derivative
coextensive with the scope of the privilege against
self-incrimination.
Class Notes
Transactional immunity means you are immune
forever (not included in right to self-incrimination),
while in derivative immunity, person is immune but
subject to suit if they present evidence other than
person’s testimony.
Dissent: The Fifth Amendment should include
transactional immunity.
Galman v. Pamaran (1985)
SUMMARY: An ad hoc Fact Finding Board was
formed for the exhaustive investigation on the
killing of Ninoy Aquino and Ronaldo Galman. The
course of investigation. The respondents sought
to exclude from the evidence their respective
silent. HELD: SC excluded the respondents’
testimonies, ruling that a contrary view violates
the latter’s constitutional rights and right to due
process.
DOCTRINE: Pleadings, annexes, oral arguments,
manifestations and admissions, to be admissible
in evidence must meet the standards under the
! of 164
8 !
Due Process Clause and under the Exclusionary
Rule in Sec. 20, Article IV of the Constitution.
or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
2. STATUTORY RULES OF EXCLUSION
a. Section 201, Tax Reform Act of 1997
SECTION 201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable
Document. - An instrument, document or paper
which is required by law to be stamped and which
has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred
without being duly stamped, shall not be
recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any
record of transfer of the same be admitted or used
in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp
or stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled.
are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
b. Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, Republic
Act No.1405, as amended
AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR
INQUIRY INTO, DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING
INSTITUTION AND PROVIDING PENALTY
THEREFOR
SECTION 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy
of the Government to give encouragement to the
people to deposit their money in banking
institutions and to discourage private hoarding so
that the same may be properly utilized by banks in
authorized loans to
THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR
assist in the economic development of the
country.
SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person,
SEC. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with
banks or banking institutions in the Philippines
including investments in bonds issued by the
Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby
considered as of an absolutely confidential nature
and may not be examined, inquired or looked into
by any person, government official, bureau or
office, except when the examination is made in
the course of a special or general examination of a
bank and is specifically authorized by the
Monetary Board after being satisfied that there is
reasonable ground to believe that a bank fraud or
serious irregularity has been or is being
committed and that it is necessary to look into the
deposit to establish such fraud or irregularity, or
when the examination is made by an independent
auditor hired by the bank to conduct its regular
audit provided that the examination is for audit
purposes only and the results thereof shall be for
the exclusive use of the bank, or upon written
permission of the depositor, or in cases of
impeachment, or upon order of a competent court
in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public
officials, or in cases where the money deposited
(As amended by PD No.1792, January 16, 1981)
SEC. 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or
employee of a bank to disclose to any person
other than those mentioned in Section
Two hereof, or for an independent auditor hired by
a bank to conduct its regular audit to disclose to
any person other than a bank director, official or
employee authorized by the bank, any information
concerning said deposits. (As amended by PD No.
1792)
SEC. 4. All acts or parts of Acts, Special Charters,
Executive Orders, Rules and Regulations which
hereby repealed.
SEC. 5. Any violation of this law will subject the
offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of
not more than five years or a fine of not more than
twenty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion
of the court.
SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its
approval. APPROVED, September 9, 1955.
c. RA 4200, Wiretapping Act
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE
TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF
OTHER PURPOSES.
not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word, to tap any
wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or
record such communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as a dictaphone
or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or
tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a
participant or not in the act or acts penalized in
the next preceding sentence, to knowingly
possess any tape record, wire record, disc record,
or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured either
before or after the effective date of this Act in the
manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the
same for any other person or persons; or to
communicate the contents thereof, either verbally
or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof,
whether complete or partial, to any other person:
Provided, That the use of such record or any
copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in
section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this
prohibition.

! of 164
9 !
SEC. 2. Any person who willfully or knowingly
does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the
preceding section or who violates the provisions
of the following section or of any order issued
thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such
violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be
punished by imprisonment for not less than six
months or more than six years and with the
accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification from public office if the offender
be a public official at the time of the commission
of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he
shall be subject to deportation proceedings.
shall, within forty-eight hours after the expiration
SEC. 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however,
shall render it unlawful or punishable for any
peace officer, who is authorized by a written order
of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared
to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in
cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to
commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping
as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and
violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616,
punishing espionage and other offenses against
national security: Provided , That such written
order shall only be issued or granted upon written
application and the examination under oath or
affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he
may produce and a showing: (1) that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that any of the
crimes enumerated hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is about to be
committed: Provided, however, That in cases
involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and
proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion,
sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and
inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted
only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of
sedition, as the case may be, have actually been
or are being committed; (2) that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will
be obtained essential to the conviction of any
person for, or to the solution of, or to the
prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3) that
there are no other means readily available for
obtaining such evidence.
SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its
The order granted or issued shall specify: (1) the
identity of the person or persons whose
communications, conversations, discussions, or
spoken words are to be overheard, intercepted, or
recorded and, in the case of telegraphic or
telephonic communications, the telegraph line or
the telephone number involved and its location; (2)
the identity of the peace officer authorized to
overhear, intercept, or record the communications,
conversations, discussions, or spoken words; (3)
the offense or offenses committed or sought to be
prevented; and (4) the period of the authorization.
The authorization shall be effective for the period
specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty
(60) days from the date of issuance of the order,
unless extended or renewed by the court upon
being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in
the public interest.
All recordings made under court authorization
of the period fixed in the order, be deposited with
the court in a sealed envelope or sealed package,
and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the
peace officer granted such authority stating the
number of recordings made, the dates and times
covered by each recording, the number of tapes,
discs, or records included in the deposit, and
certifying that no duplicates or copies of the
whole or any part thereof have been made, or if
made, that all such duplicates or copies are
included in the envelope or package deposited
with the court. The envelope or package so
deposited shall not be opened, or the recordings
replayed, or used in evidence, or their contents
revealed, except upon order of the court, which
shall not be granted except upon motion, with due
notice and opportunity to be heard to the person
or persons whose conversation or
communications have been recorded.
The court referred to in this section shall be
understood to mean the Court of First Instance
within whose territorial jurisdiction the acts for
which authority is applied for are to be executed.
SEC. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or
the existence, contents, substance, purport,
effect, or meaning of the same or
any part thereof, or any information therein
contained obtained or secured by any person in
violation of the preceding sections of
this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any
judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation.
SEC. 5. All laws inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act are hereby repealed or accordingly
amended.
approval. Approved: June 19, 1965
! of 164
10 !

d. RA 7438.
SECTION 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained
or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public
Officers . – (d) Any extrajudicial confession made
by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by
such person in the presence of his counsel or in
the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in
the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers
and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the
municipal judge, district school supervisor, or
priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him;
otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be
inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
Gaanan v. IAC (1986)
 authorized representatives of banks as well as
DOCTRINE: To violate Sec. 1, RA No. 4200, there
must be either a physical interruption through a
wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or
arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or
record spoken word. The use of an extension
phone to overhear a conversation falls outside the
ambit of of Sec. 1, RA No. 4200 since it was not
deliberately installed to overhear, intercept, or
record spoken word.
Deposits Law). HELD: SC dismissed the petition
Ramirez v. CA (1995)
 subpoenas because petitioner’s accounts fall
S U M M A RY: R a m i re z a n d G a rc i a h a d a
disagreement which Ramirez made a recording
and transcript of. Upon filing a civil case against
Garcia, she presented the transcript. Garcia, upon
finding out that a recording had been made, filed
a criminal case against Ramirez. Ramirez sought
the quash the information through a motion
initially granted by the RTC but annulled by the
CA. Ramirez filed the petition to question the
decision of the CA. HELD: Recording the
confrontation constituted a violation of RA 4200,
despite Ramirez being party to the conversation.
litigation.  Exception (1) applies since the plunder
DOCTRINE: Even a person privy to a
communication who records his private
conversation with another without the knowledge
of the latter qualifies as a violation of RA 4200.
 deposited in petitioners bank accounts is said to
Mamba v. Garcia (2001)
SUMMARY: Police Inspector Salvador asked
Bulatao to give him P6,000 in exchange for the
withdrawal of a complaint for illegal possession of
firearms filed against the latter. The case was
raffled to Judge Garcia. Bulatao reported to this to
the NBI. NBI set out to entrap Salvador and Judge
Garcia, and gave Bulatao a tape recorder. During
the entrapment, it was discovered that Judge
Garcia allowed representatives of Salvador and
Bulatao to fulfill their “settlement” inside his
chambers. HELD: Although the tape-recorded
conversation is not admissible in evidence, the
NBI report and testimonies of MTC personnel
prove that Judge Garcia cooperated with Salvador
and the 2 police officers in the consummation of
the crime of bribery.
DOCTRINE: Violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law
renders evidence inadmissible.

Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan (2006)

SUMMARY: Several requests were filed by the
Special Prosecution Panel before the
Sandiganbayan in the plunder case against
President Joseph Estrada. They pray that
subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad
testificandum be issued against officials and
PDIC to compel them to present documents and
t e s t i f y re g a rd i n g p e t i t i o n e r ’s a c c o u n t s .
Sandiganbayan granted these requests and
issued the corresponding subpoenas, prompting
petitioner to file an Urgent Motion to Quash
Subpoenae Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum on the
ground that his accounts are covered by the
protection of RA 1405 (The Secrecy of Bank
and upheld the Sandiganbayan’s issuance of
within certain exceptions provided by the same
law.
DOCTRINE: Account No. 858 and Savings
Account No. 0116-17345-9 are no longer
protected by the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law,
there being two exceptions to the said law
applicable in this case, namely: (1) the
examination of bank accounts is upon order of a
competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction
of duty of public officials, and (2) the money
deposited or invested is the subject matter of the
case pending against former President Estrada is
analogous to bribery or dereliction of duty, while
exception (2) applies because the money
form part of the subject matter of the same
plunder case.
D. OTHER MATTERS
COMPETENCE AND CREDIBILITY
Serra v. Mumar (2012)

SUMMARY: A vehicular accident resulted in the
death of Mumar. His wife filed a complaint against
Serra for Damages by Reason of Reckless
Imprudence resulting to Homicide and Attachment
before RTC. RTC and CA ruled in favor of resp.
! of 164
11 !
giving credence to the evidence presented before
trial as against the testimony of Serra and
awarded actual damages. HELD: SC upheld the
uniform factual findings of RTC and CA that Pet.
Serra is liable on the basis of the traffic
investigator’s report. SC modified the award of
damages by deleting actual damages for lack of
documentary evidence to serve as basis.
cash in addition to the fund transfer of
DOCTRINE: Evidence to be worthy must not only
proceed from a credible source must, in addition,
be credible in itself. The evidence must be natural,
reasonable and probable as to make it easy to
believe. No better test has yet been found to
determine the value of the testimony of a witness
than its conformity to the knowledge and common
experience of mankind.
People v. Sabadlab (2012)
 testimonies of respondent Jesusa and her
SUMMARY: AAA was raped by 3 men while
blindfolded. The accused appeals and attacks the
credibility of AAA as witness.
DOCTRINE: Great respect is accorded to the
findings of the trial judge with regard to the
demeanor of witnesses which he sees firsthand.
part of physical evidence.
Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a
witness will not discredit him. The only
inconsistencies that might have discredited the
victims credible testimony were those that
affected or related to the elements of the crime.  accused Bastian. He was charged with murder,
BPI v. Reyes (2008)
 CA. Bastian assails his conviction by questioning
SUMMARY: The respondents had an existing
saving account with BPI. Respondent Jesusa
went to BPI to open a new ATM account because
of a raffle promo BPI Zapote had for new
depositors. According to her testimony, she told
the BPI employee that she will deposit P200,000
to the new ATM account. P100,000 will be
withdrawn from her existing savings account and
she will make an additional P100,000 deposit in
cash. P100,000 in cash was withdrawn from her
existing savings account and was handed to
Jesusa. Capati then prepared a deposit slip for
P200,000. She received the duplicate copy of the
deposit slip for P200,000 which was validated.
Almost a month after, Jesusa received a letter
from BPI showing the statement of account. It
showed that she only has P100,000 in the new
ATM account. Jesusa sent a demand letter to BPI.
BPI claims that no P100,000 additional cash
deposit was made by Jesusa based on physical
evidence.
testimony in court. Accused-appellants and
DOCTRINE: Physical evidence is a mute but
eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high
in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. We have,
on many occasions, relied principally upon
physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. Where
the physical evidence on record runs counter to
the testimonial evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, we consistently rule that the physical
evidence should prevail. Respondent Jesusa's
bare claim, although corroborated by her
daughter, that the former deposited P100,000.00
P100,000.00, is not established by physical
evidence. While the duplicate copy of the deposit
slip was in the amount of P200,000.00 and bore
the stamp mark of teller Torneros, such duplicate
copy failed to show that there was a cash deposit
of P100,000.00. An examination of the deposit slip
shows that it did not contain any entry in the
breakdown portion for the specific denominations
of the cash deposit. This demolishes the
daughter Joan.
Class Notes
The testimony of a witness presented vis-a-vis
physical evidence will have more weight on the
Bastian v. CA (2008)

SUMMARY: Victim Ronquillo was shot dead
outside of a school after a dance party by
then convicted of homicide, later affirmed by the
the credibility of the witnesses and by saying the
inference upon which the conviction was
premised was not proved beyond reasonable
doubt. HELD: SC affirmed the conviction.
DOCTRINES: When a trial judge makes his
findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings
bear great weight, at times even finality, on the
appellate court.
The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that
in determining the value and credibility of
evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not
numbered. The testimony of only one witness, if
credible and positive, is sufficient to convict.
People v. Camat (2012)

SUMMARY: There was a robbery of 2 men by 2
men. 1 victim died. An anonymous vendor pointed
out 1 suspect to police. Police claim the 2
accused-appellants extrajudicially confessed. The
surviving victim gave positive identification in
relatives gave testimonies for alibi. Confession
inadmissible, but conviction sustained. 

DOCTRINE: SC scrupulously examined the lone
witness and upheld credibility for being CANDID
! of 164
12 !
a n d U N TA I N T E D b y i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s ,
contradictions, or evasion. There was also no
evidence of ulterior motive. Meanwhile, alibi was
found to be less plausible for having been
established by accused and immediate relatives.
evidence depending on the purpose for which the
People v. Mangundayao (2012)
 ‣ If offered to prove its existence, condition or for
SUMMARY: The defendant was arrested in a buy-
bust operation for selling shabu and for
possession of the same. One of her defenses was
that she was framed up by the police because
they barged into her house an ransacked it, then
tried to extort money from her in the jail. However,
she did not present any evidence. Also, the
testimonies of Memoracion and Arago were
inconsistent, particularly because Arago said the
informant came to the police station and gave the
tip to the policemen, who then relayed the
information to P/Chief Insp. Paat, while
Memoracion’s testimony said the informant
directly gave the tip to the Chief. HELD: The
factual findings of the TC were adequately
supported by the evidence. The testimonies of
Memoracion and Arago were sufficient, plus the
evidence gathered during the buy-bust operation.
time it is offered, but the relevance of which will
DOCTRINE: Credibility of witnesses are accorded
respect when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts and speculative,
arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be
gathered from such findings.
Tiu Notes
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
1. WHEN EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE FOR TWO
OR MORE PURPOSES.
the adverse party, strike out from the record
Depending upon the circumstances, the
declaration of a dying person may be admissible
for several purposes. It may be offered as a dying
declaration (Sec. 37, Rule 130, part of the res
gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130), or declaration against
interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130). 
 is the owner of the property. During the trial,
The statement by a bus driver immediately after
the collision that he dozed off in the wheel while
driving may be admissible as an admission under
Sec. 26 of Rule 130 or as part of the res gestae
pursuant to Sec. 42 of Rule 130 
 ground that the evidence is irrelevant to
The purpose for which the evidence is offered
must be specified because such evidence may be
admissible for several purposes under the
doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be
admissible for one purpose but not for another.
Otherwise, the adverse party cannot interpose the
proper objection.
said connecting evidence later in the trial. Mr.
‣ Such as, if testimony is offered to prove that the
project was completed pursuant to the contract, it
cannot be offered to prove that the project was
delayed.
A private document may be offered and admitted
in evidence both as documentary and object
document is offered.

any purpose other than the contents of a
document, the same is considered as an object
evidence. When the private document is offered
as proof of its contents, the same is considered as
a documentary evidence.
2. WHEN EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST
ONE PARTY BUT NOT AGAINST ANOTHER.
An extrajudicial statement of a robbery suspect is
not admissible against his co-accused under the
res inter alios acta rule but may be admissible
against the declarant himself as an admission
pursuant to Sec. 26 of Rule 130. 

CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
‣ It happens frequently enough that the relevance
of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the
readily be seen when connected to other pieces
of evidence not yet offered.
‣ The proponent of the evidence may ask the
court that the evidence be conditionally
admitted in the meantime, subject to the
condition that he is going to establish its
relevancy and competency at a later time.
- If the connection is not shown as
promised, the court may, upon motion of
the evidence that was previously
conditionally admitted.
‣ Example: For instance, Mr. P files an action for
recovery of ownership of a parcel of land
against Mr. D. The complaint alleges that Mr. P
Mr. P testifies and adduces evidence that
sometime in 1995, the property subject of the
action was bought by Mr. O from a certain Mr.
M. The defendant, Mr. D, objects on the
support the claim of ownership of Mr. P. 

The problem presented in such a situation is
whether or not to interrupt the examination of
the witness to first present the connecting
evidence or to admit the testimony
conditionally, subject to presentation of the
P may ask the court to conditionally allow the
testimony with the undertaking to show later
that he bought the property from Mr. O who, in
! of 164
13 !
 turn, bought it from Mr. M. 
 inadmissible evidence not objected to
becomes admissible. For instance, where a
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY party failed to object to hearsay evidence,
‣ The doctrine of curative admissibility allows a then the same becomes admissible. 

party to introduce otherwise inadmissible - An objection to an otherwise inadmissible
evidence to answer the opposing party’s previous evidence is not merely suggested but
introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would required by the Rules of Court. The tenor of
remove any unfair prejudice caused by the the rule is clear: Objections to evidence
admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence.
 offered orally must be made immediately
‣ Thus, a party who first introduces either after the offer is made and objections to
irrelevant or incompetent evidence into the trial questions propounded in the course of the
cannot complain of the subsequent admission of oral examination of the witness shall be
similar evidence from the adverse party relating to made as soon as the grounds therefor shall
the same subject matter.
 become apparent (Sec. 36, Rule 132, Rules
of Court). 

‣ Conversely, the doctrine should not be invoked - It is likewise submitted that it is only where
where evidence was properly admitted. 
 the objection was incorrectly overruled that
‣  Example:
the court should allow the other party to
- In an action for damages arising from a introduce evidence to contradict the
car accident, the plaintiff, despite objection evidence improperly admitted in order to
by the defendant, introduced evidence to cure the prejudice caused to the other party
show that on several occasions the against whom the offered evidence was
d e f e n d a n t i n t h e p a s t h a d i n j u re d erroneously admitted. Common reason
pedestrians because of his negligence. The suggests that where there is a waiver, there
evidence was offered to prove the is no defect to cure 

defendant’s propensity for negligence. Of - While a TC generally has discretion in
course, under the rules, this kind of ruling on the admissibility of evidence, it is
evidence is inadmissible because evidence opined that a TC should be without
that a person did a certain thing at one time discretion to apply the doctrine of curative
is not admissible to prove that he did the admissibility if it appears that the party
same or a similar thing at another time (Sec. seeking to invoke it intentionally or
34, Rule 130). 
 negligently failed to object to the
- If we were to follow the concept of inadmissible evidence in order to gain
curative admissibility, the court may be admission later of his inadmissible
asked to give the defendant the chance to evidence. If no limitations are placed on the
contradict or explain his alleged past acts doctrine of curative admissibility, the
and to show evidence of his past acts of doctrine will predictably be open to abuse
diligence to counteract the prejudice which and will encourage the counsel not to object
the improperly admitted evidence may have to inadmissible evidence to “open the door”
caused. 
 for him to introduce inadmissible evidence.
- Also, if hearsay evidence prejudicial to the The more logical rule should be one which
defendant is erroneously admitted despite will not allow a party to be heard through
objection, under the principle of curative the offering of inadmissible evidence if he
admissibility, the court should allow hearsay declines or fails to timely object to the other
evidence favorable to the same defendant.
party’s inadmissible evidence. 

‣ Does the concept of curative admissibility refer - One American case puts it: “A breach of
to a situation where incompetent evidence was the rules of evidence by one party does not
erroneously received by the court despite suspend those rules with respect to the
absence of objection from the other party?
other party

- RIANO: It is submitted that in our 


jurisdiction, the principle of curative D I R E C T A N D C I R C U M S TA N T I A L
admissibility should not be made to apply EVIDENCE
where the evidence was admitted without
objection because the failure to object People v. Matito (2004)

constitutes a waiver of the inadmissibility of SUMMARY: Mariano was shot near the shoulder/
the evidence. In our jurisdiction, neck which caused his death. Freddie was the
! of 164
14 !
accused. The prosecution presented the
testimony of Mariano’s wife and daughter to show
that there was an ongoing quarrel between
Mariano and Freddie. Prosecution also presented
evidence that powder nitrates were found on
Freddie’s right arm cast during forensic
investigation. The defense countered with denial
and alibi. RTC found Freddie guilty based on the
circumstantial evidence presented. HELD: SC
affirmed RTC.
guilty verdict. Mr Lara argues that the TC erred in
DOCTRINE: Circumstantial evidence, when
demonstrated with clarity and forcefulness, may
be the sole basis of a criminal conviction. It
robbery with homicide for committing a “holdup”
against a pick-up, killing Mr Bautista, one of the
passengers therein, and taking away a bag of
money. Mr Lara argued that he was at home
during the incident. Mr Sumulong, one of the
passengers in the pick-up, testified that he saw
the accused Mr Lara fire his gun at the victim Mr
Bautista. TC relied on Mr Sumulong’s testimony to
identify Mr Lara as the perpetrator and rendered a
convicting him without direct evidence that he is
indeed the perpetrator, and that conviction cannot
be based on circumstantial evidence alone.

cannot be overturned by bare denials or DOCTRINE: Not all convictions need to be

hackneyed alibis.
supported by direct evidence. Circumstantial
1. Circumstantial evidence is defined as that evidence suffices if the requisites listed in Rule
evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue 133, Section 4 are present.
through an inference which the fact finder draws
from the evidence established. Resort thereto is People v. Ochate (2002)

essential when the lack of direct testimony would SUMMARY: Ochate was convicted of the crime of
result in setting a felon free. It is not a weaker form rape with homicide committed against 8 y/o
of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence.
Rowena Albiso by the RTC and was sentenced to
2. To warrant a conviction based on circumstantial suffer the death penalty, hence this automatic
evidence, the following requisites must concur:
review by the SC.

(1) there is more than one circumstance;

HELD: SC reversed and set aside the RTC ruling
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived after it found that the RTC erred in convicting the
are proven; and
accused based on circumstantial evidence and
(3) the combination of all the circumstances is that the RTC erred in taking against the accused
such as to produce conviction beyond admissions made in custodial investigation
reasonable doubt. The totality of the evidence without the presence of lawyer.

must constitute an unbroken chain showing DOCTRINE: In the appreciation of circumstantial

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable evidence, there are four basic guidelines:

doubt.
(1) it should be acted upon with caution;

3. The combination of the circumstances (2) all the essential facts must be consistent with
comprising such evidence forms an unbroken the hypothesis of guilt;

chain that points to Freddie, to the exclusion of all (3) the facts must exclude every other theory but
others, as the perpetrator. These evidences are that of guilt; and

the following:
(4) the facts must establish such a certainty of
a. Filomena’s testimony on how Mariano died guilt of the accused as to convince the
and her explanation that she did not reveal judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the
Freddie’s name during the wake so that accused is the one who committed the
Freddie will not escape.
offense. Where the circumstances obtaining in
b. Mariano’s daughter’s narration on how Freddie a case are capable of two inferences, one of
asked her where her father was and made which is consistent with the presumption of
cursing remarks during the night Mariano was innocence while the other may be compatible
shot.
with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit
c. The bitter quarrel which ensued between the accused because the evidence does not
Mariano and Freddie regarding cutting the fulfil the test of moral certainty and, therefore,
water supply and moving the fence to widen is insufficient to support a judgment of
the walk path.
conviction.
d. The quarrel between their daughters.

e. Nitrate powder found in the right arm cast of

Freddie after the forensic investigation.

People v. Lara (2013)


SUMMARY: The accused Lara was charged with

! of 164
15 !
CUMULATIVE AND CORROBORATIVE DOCTRINE: Corroborative evidence is necessary
EVIDENCE only when there are reasons to suspect that the
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE
witness falsified or that his observations are
Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the inaccurate.
same kind and character as that already given and
that tends to prove the same proposition.
Tiu Notes
Such as:
 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
‣ When a witness testifies that he saw the event These categories of evidence have been normally
testified to and two other witnesses testify having associated with testimonial evidence but there is
seen the same event which the first witness no rule which precludes their application to other
claimed he saw, the subsequent testimonies forms of evidence.

constitute cumulative evidence.

POSITIVE EVIDENCE

CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
Evidence is said to be positive when a witness
Corroborative evidence is one that is affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts
supplementary to that already given tending to does exist or that a certain event happened.

strengthen or confirm it.
 ‣ Such as: the testimony of W that he saw P fire a
It is additional evidence of a different character to gun at the victim is a positive evidence.

the same point. It is usually of a different type Positive and negative evidence may likewise refer
from that previously offered but which tends to to the presence or absence of something.

prove the same fact.

‣ Such as: the presence of fingerprints of a person
As commonly used, the term connotes evidence in a particular place is positive evidence of his
which tends to confirm, validate, or strengthen having been present in said place although
evidence already presented.
 absence of his fingerprints does not necessarily
Although traditionally, this type of evidence is of a mean he was not in the same place. 

different type from the one it corroborates, the ‣ A negative finding in a paraffin test is not a
meaning of corroborative evidence has been conclusive evidence that one has not fired a gun
loosely used in local courts so as to cover also because it is possible for a person to fire a gun
evidence of the same kind as that already and yet bear no traces of nitrates or gunpowder,
proffered as long as it affirms the previous as when the culprit washes his hands or wears
evidence.
gloves 

Such as:
Positive evidence is, as a general rule, more
‣  If W testifies that the gun marked as Exhibit “A” credible than negative evidence. The reason for
was the weapon used in the shooting of the this rule is that the witness who testifies to a
victim, the findings of the crime laboratory that the negative may have forgotten what actually
gun bears only the fingerprints of the accused occurred, while it is impossible to remember what
corroborates the testimony of W. 
 never existed.

‣ A witness claims that he saw Mr. X sign the 


document subject of the action. Mr. X denies the NEGATIVE EVIDENCE 

authenticity of his signature. Evidence by a It is negative when the witness states that an
handwriting expert that the signature is indeed event did not occur or that the state of facts
that of Mr. X is corroborative evidence. 
 alleged to exist does not actually exist.

Here, we have a testimonial evidence from an ‣ Such as: the testimony of W that he could not
eyewitness, and a testimony from an expert who have fired the gun because he was not armed
did not personally witness the signing of the during the incident is a negative evidence.

document. 
 A denial is a negative evidence. It is considered by

the Court to be a very weak form of defense and
Maganey v. Sandiganbayan (2008)
 can never overcome an affirmative or positive
SUMMARY: A Certificate of Inspection and testimony particularly when the latter comes from
Acceptance attesting to the completion of a road the mouth of a credible witness.

project was allegedly falsified. The petitioners, ‣ It is negative and self-serving which cannot be
charged with Estafa thru Falsification of Public given greater weight than the testimony of
Documents, contend that various statements credible witnesses who testified on affirmative
cannot be used as evidence due to not being matters.

corroborated.
‣ A mere denial does not overturn the relative
weight and probative value of an affirmative

! of 164
16 !
assertion. Denial is inherently a weak defense. To committed, but he must also demonstrate by clear
be believed, it must be buttressed by strong and convincing evidence that it was physically
evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such impossible for him to have been at the scene of
denial is purely self-serving and is with no the crime at the time the same was committed.

evidentiary value. 
 ‣ Alibi is not always false and without merit. To be
‣ Like the defense of alibi, denial crumbles in the exonerating, the defense of alibi must be so
light of positive declarations. Denial cannot prevail airtight that it would admit of no exception. It must
over the positive identification of the accused by be demonstrated that the person charged with the
the witnesses who had no ill-motive to testify crime was not only somewhere else when the
falsely 
 offense was committed, but was so far away that
‣  Greater probative value is given to evidence that it would be physically impossible to be at the
is positive in nature than that which is accorded to place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the
evidence that is negative in character. Denial is a time of its commission. The reason is that no
self-serving negative evidence that cannot be person can be in two places at the same time.

given greater weight than the declaration of

credible witness who testified on affirmative FRAME-UP
matters.
 ‣ Allegations of frame-up by police officers are
common and standard defenses in most
ALIBI dangerous drugs cases. For this claim to prosper,
It is a settled doctrine that the defense of alibi is the defense must adduce clear and convincing
inherently weak and must be rejected when the evidence to overcome the presumption that
identity of the accused is satisfactorily and government officials have performed their duties
categorically established by the eyewitnesses to in a regular and proper manner. 

the offense, especially when such eyewitnesses ‣ Thus, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely
have no ill-motive to testify falsely.
impute such a serious crime against the accused,
‣ Alibi crumbles in the light of positive the presumption of regularity in the performance
identification by truthful witnesses. The positive of official duty shall prevail.

identification of the accused, when categorical ‣ The defense of frame-up is not looked upon with
and consistent, and without any ill-motive on the favor due to its being conveniently concocted.

part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, 
 ‣  It is commonly used as a defense in most
prevails over alibi and denial 
 prosecutions arising from the violations of the
‣ Note that there are two types of positive Dangerous Drugs Act. The legal presumption that
identification, namely: (a) that by direct evidence, official duty has been regularly performed exists 

through an eyewitness to the very commission of ‣  The rule requiring a claim of frame-up to be
the act; and (b) that by circumstantial evidence, supported by clear and convincing evidence was
such as where the accused is last seen with the never intended to shift to the accused the burden
victim immediately before or after the crime
 of proof in a criminal case. The claim of frame-up
Denial, which is the usual refuge of offenders, is assumes importance when faced with the rather
an inherently weak defense, and must be shaky nature of the prosecution evidence

buttressed by other persuasive evidence of non-

culpability to merit credibility.
DELAY IN REPORTING
‣ The defense of denial fails even more when the ‣ Delayed reporting by witnesses of what they
assailant, as in this case, was positively identified know about a crime does not render their
by credible witnesses, against whom no ulterior testimonies false or incredible, for the delay may
motive could be ascribed.
 be explained by the natural reticence of most
Denial and alibi are self- serving negative people and their abhorrence to get involved in a
e v i d e n c e ; t h e y c a n n o t p re v a i l o v e r t h e criminal case.

spontaneous, positive, and credible testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses who pointed to and
i d e n t i fi e d t h e a c c u s e d - a p p e l l a n t a s t h e
malefactor. “Indeed, alibi is easy to concoct and
difficult to disprove.”
 ‣ The natural reluctance of a witness to get
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the
requirements of time and place must be strictly
met. It is not enough to prove that the accused
was somewhere else when the crime was
‣  But more than this, there is always the inherent
fear of reprisal, which is quite understandable,
especially if the accused is a man of power and
influence in the community. 

involved in a criminal case, as well as to give
information to the authorities is a matter of judicial
notice.

Delay in revealing the commission of a crime, like
! of 164
17 !
rape, does not necessarily render such charge presence of the court aide. Pacuribot then forced
unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may her to let him rent a room in her house, where he
choose to keep quiet rather than expose her continued to violate her. Villafranca likewise claims
defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. that Pacuribot persistently asked her have dinner
Only when the delay is unreasonable or with him. When she reluctantly said yes, they did
unexplained may it work to discredit the not go to her restaurant of choice. Instead, she
complainant (People v. Navarette) 
 was brought to a motel where Pacubirot raped
It is common for a witness to prefer momentary her. After the incident, he invited her to his
silence for fear of reprisal from the accused. In the chambers and also raped her. He forced her to
absence of other circumstances that would show write him text messages and love letters, which he
that the charge was a mere concoction, delay in used as defense. He claims Villafranca was fatally
testifying is insufficient to discredit a testimony attracted to him and that she filed the complaint
(People v. Cabtalan) 
 as revenge for ingnoring her. He also forced her to
file an annulment and to file a rape charge against
People v. Mendoza (2005)
 her husband. Pacuribot denied all the charges and
SUMMARY: Two criminal cases have been filed used an alibi claiming he could not have gone out
against the accused-appellant in relation to at night because he is on the NPA hit list and he
allegations that he raped his minor daughter.
fears his safety. He also claims that the allegations
For the finding of attempted rape, he argues that against him are a plot by a certain Waniwan, who
at the most he could only be convicted of acts of wants to oust him from office.

lasciviousness since the earlier Decision did not
establish his intent to have carnal knowledge with
the alleged victim. HELD: In sustaining its
previous Decision, SC held that the fundamental
difference between rape and acts of
lasciviousness is that in rape, there is intent to lie
with a woman whereas this element is absent in
acts of lasciviousness. SC ruled that the overt
acts stated by the victim in her testimony
establish beyond doubt that there was such
intent. It also noted that the accused merely
denied the accusations against him.
testify on affirmative matters. As between a
For the finding of incestuous rape of a minor,
accused-appellant argues that there have been
inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim
which then should be appreciated as the
prosecution’s failure to establish guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. SC held that inconsistencies on
matters of minor details do not detract from the
actual fact of rape.
declarations. Denial cannot prevail over the
DOCTRINE: Denial is essentially the weakest form
of defense and it can never overcome an
DOCTRINE: Pacuribot and his witnesses failed to
overcome the evidence presented by the
complainants. Already beyond cavil is the
evidentiary rule that mere denial does not overturn
the relative weight and probative value of an
affirmative assertion. Denial is inherently a weak
defense. Mere denial cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial, like
alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence, which
cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight
than the declaration of credible witnesses who
categorical testimony that rings of truth on one
hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is
generally held to prevail.To be believed, it must be
buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability;
otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is
with no evidentiary value. Like the defense of
alibi, denial crumbles in the light of positive
positive identification of the accused by the
witnesses who had no ill motive to testify falsely.

affirmative testimony particularly when it comes

from the mouth of a credible witness.
People v. Nueva (2008)
Minor inconsistencies in testimonies strengthen SUMMARY: Revollido was murdered by Nueva,
rather than weaken the witness' credibility for they Poripirio, and another person. The accused-
eliminate the impression of a rehearsed appellant was positively identified by eyewitness
testimony.  Alfonso Bacar, Jr., but Nueva denied this and set
up the defense of alibi that at the time of the
Tan v. Pacuribot (2007) - aka the weirdest case crime, he was working at Yellow Submarine…
EVER.
 which was only 30-40 meters away from the said
SUMMARY: Two women filed a complaint for scene of the crime. HELD: SC denied Nueva’s
sexual harassment against Judge Pacuribot. Tan appeal.

claims she was brought to a motel, raped, brought DOCTRINE: Alibi is not only inherently weak, but
to another hotel and raped again. The sexual also cannot prevail over the positive identification
assault continued in the office, even in the made by Alfonso, as almost always, categorical &

! of 164
18 !
consistent positive identification prevails over alibi and extortion allegedly committed.

and denial.

People v. Navarro (1998)

People v. Baro (2002)
SUMMARY: Ferdinand Rabadon was shot by
SUMMARY: The appellant was being tried for 3 Navarro. Jose Rabago was the only witness. After
counts of rape. The RTC found him guilty after the incident, he immediately reported to SPO2
giving credence to the testimony of the Itlog Rabadon that Rabadon was shot and killed
complainant and disregarding the defense of alibi without naming the assailants. When he was
of the accused. HELD: SC reversed the decision, interrogated a day later by Lando Rabadon, he
finding discrepancies in the testimony of the claimed that he did not see anything. 3 years later,
complainant and ruling that the defense of alibi of he told the NBI that Navarro and Basila as the
the accused was credible enough to cast killers. During trial he testified as prosecution
reasonable doubt to his guilt. Acquitted.
witness. He later recanted his previous testimony.
[Delay in filing the Complaint] The delay must Appeal was filed by Navarro due to the
be adequately and satisfactorily explained; inconsistencies in the testimony of the sole
otherwise, it would generate doubt as to the guilt witness. HELD: Recantation does not necessarily
of the accused.
a ff e c t o r i g i n a l t e s t i m o n y. R e a s o n f o r
[Alibi] Alibi, the plea of having been somewhere inconsistencies was witness’s fear for his life.
other than that at the scene of the crime at the Delay does not render a witnesses’s testimony as
time of its commission, is not always a weak false or incredible.

defense. For it to be valid for purposes of DOCTRINE: The delay may be explained by
exoneration, the defense must be so airtight that it natural reticence of most people and their
would admit of no exception. It must be abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case.
demonstrated that the person charged with the
crime was not only somewhere else when the
crime was committed but was so far away that it
would have been physically impossible to have
been at the place of the crime or its immediate
vicinity at the time of its commission.

People v. Bautista (2012)

SUMMARY: Bautista was the subject of an
entrapment operation by the Caloocan police via
a tip from an informant. Bautista was found to be
in possession of shabu and was caught in the act
of selling shabu because of the police operation.
RTC and CA found Bautista guilty. Bautista
appealed the case to the SC, stating that he was
framed. HELD: Bautista was not the subject of a
frame-up because his defense was self-serving
and uncorroborated.

DOCTRINE: Defenses of frame-up and extortion

are not looked upon with favor due to their being
conveniently concoted and usually asserted by
culprits arrested for violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act. | In this case, the frame-up contended
by the respondent and accused Bautista was not
established, since this defense was self-serving
and uncorroborated. (1) He did not present his
wife to corroborate his claim that he was being
framed. (2) He did not adduce competent
evidence to substantiate his story of being falsely
incriminated. (3) He was not even sincere in
claiming his frame-up, because he did not
formally charge the policemen for the frame-up

! of 164
19 !

II. What Need Not Be Proved
A. Judicial Notice
RULE 129
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. —
A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and
fulfill. Hence, it makes evidence unnecessary 

‣ While the court has the power to dispense with
proof of judicially cognizable adjudicative facts
when the principles of judicial notice are properly
invoked, judicial notice cannot, however, be used
to fill in the gaps in the party’s evidence but
judicial notice should not be used to deprive an
adverse party of the opportunity to prove a
disputed fact

territorial extent of states, their political history, 


forms of government and symbols of nationality, KINDS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE UNDER THE
the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime RULES

courts of the world and their seals, the political 1. Mandatory, or

constitution and history of the Philippines, the 2. Discretionary
official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, Manufacturers Hanover Trust v. Guerrero (2003)
the measure of time, and the geographical SUMMARY: Rafael Guerrero filed a complaint for
divisions. (1a)
damages against Manufacturers Hanover Trust
SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A Co. The bank’s Answer alleged that New York Law
court may take judicial notice of matters which are governs by stipulation. Under New York Law, all
of public knowledge, or are capable to Guerrero’s claims except for actual damages are
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be barred. The Bank filed a Motion for Partial
known to judges because of their judicial Summary Judgment, supported by an affidavit of
functions. (1a)
a certain Atty. Walden. HELD: This affidavit did not
SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. comply with Sec. 24, Rule 132 on how to prove a
— During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, foreign law and decisions of foreign courts.

or on request of a party, may announce its
intention to take judicial notice of any matter and
allow the parties to be heard thereon.
Tiu Notes
WHAT IS JUDICIAL NOTICE?
‣ These are matters in a litigation which must be
admitted without need for evidence.
notice. Like any other fact, they must be alleged
‣  There is no need to adduce evidence to prove
DOCTRINE: There can be no summary judgment
where questions of fact are in issue or where
material allegations of the pleadings are in
dispute. The resolution of whether a foreign law
allows only the recovery of actual damages is a
question of fact as far as the TC is concerned
since foreign laws do not prove themselves in our
courts. Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial
and proven.

that there are twenty-four (24) hours in a day or

that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. People v. Rullepa (2003)
The fact that Cebu lies in the Visayan region SUMMARY: Ronnie, the houseboy of the
needs no further evidence. 
 Buenafes, raped 3 y/o Cyra Mae Buenafe. Ronnie
‣ To require evidence for such obvious facts would admitted to raping her when they brought him to
be to indulge in utter absurdity.
 Camp Caringal. RTC found him guilty of rape.
Judicial notice is based on the maxim, “what is HELD: he committed the crime of statutory rape.
known need not be proved,” hence, when the rule What’s relevant in this case is the issue on
is invoked, the court may dispense with the whether or not a judge may take judicial notice of
presentation of evidence on judicially cognizable a victim’s age in statutory rape cases.

facts 
 DOCTRINE: When the trier of facts observes the

appearance of a person to ascertain his or her
PURPOSE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
age, he is not taking  judicial notice of such fact;
‣ The function of judicial notice is to abbreviate rather, he is conducting an  examination of the
litigation by the admission of matters that need no evidence, the evidence being the appearance of
evidence because judicial notice is a substitute for the person.  Such a process militates against the
formal proof of a matter by evidence
very concept of judicial notice, the object of which
‣ Judicial notice takes the place of proof and is of is to do away with the presentation of evidence.

equal force. It displaces evidence and fulfills the

purpose for which the evidence is designed to

! of 164
20 !
BPI Family Savings Bank v. CTA (2000)
SUMMARY: The case involves a claim for tax
refund on the amount of P112,491 representing
BPI’s tax withheld for 1989. This was initially filed
with the CIR alleging that the company did not
apply the 1989 refundable amount to its 1990
Annual Income Tax Return or other tax liabilities
due to the alleged business losses it incurred for
the same year. But, without waiting for CIR, it filed
a petition for review with the CTA which dismissed
the petition.
that which has been formally offered. If petitioners
DOCTRINE: As a rule, courts are not authorized
to take judicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases, even when such cases
have been tried or are pending in the same court,
and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may
have been heard or are actually pending before
the same judge. Be that as it may, Sec. 2, Rule
129 provides that courts may take judicial notice
of matters ought to be known to judges because
of their judicial functions. In this case, the Court
notes that a copy of the Decision in CTA Case No.
4897 was attached to the Petition for Review filed
before this Court. Significantly, respondents do
not claim at all that the said Decision was
fraudulent or nonexistent. Indeed, they do not
even dispute the contents of the said Decision,
claiming merely that the Court cannot take judicial
notice thereof.
against Imelda Marcos for violation of Central
Landbank of the Philippines v. Banal (2004)
SUMMARY: Respondents are owners of 19 has.
of agricultural land that was subjected to CARP.
They challenged the valuation made by the LBP
as affirmed by the DAR, with the RTC. RTC
dispensed with a trial and gave a higher valuation
plus compounded interest on the basis of
memoranda submitted by the parties and after
taking judicial notice of a different case pending
before the it. LBP appealed before the CA who in
turn affirmed the decision of the lower court.
HELD: SC reversed the decision of the lower
courts and remanded the case to the RTC. The
decision of the SC was based on the lack of trial,
improper use of the judicial notice rule and
misapplication of formulas for the determination of
land value.
based on his personal knowledge and is not
DOCTRINE: Sect. 3, Rule 129 is explicit on the
necessity of a hearing before a court takes judicial
notice of a certain matter. Courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents
of the records of other cases even when said
cases have been tried or are pending in the same
court or before the same judge. They may only do
so in the absence of objection and with the
knowledge of the opposing party.
1st marriage filed petitions for the issuance of
Pigao v. Rabanillo (2006)
SUMMARY: Eusebio Pigao applied for purchase
of a lot from PHHC. While pending approval, he
assigned his rights over the lot to Samuel
Rabanillo. The heirs of Pigao sought to prove to
the SC that this assignment of rights was null and
void using a document they have failed to submit
to court neither during trial nor appeal. HELD: The
document should not be admitted as evidence.
DOCTRINE: Courts will only consider as evidence
neglected to offer any document in evidence,
however vital it may be, they only have
themselves to blame, not respondent who was
not even given a chance to object as the
documents were never offered in evidence.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2011)
DOCTRINE: The Rules of Court does not prohibit
a party from requesting the court to allow it to
present additional evidence even after it has
rested its case.
State Prosecutors v. Muro (1994)
SUMMARY: State prosecutors charged Judge
Muro of MNL RTC with ignorance of the law,
grave misconduct, and violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct by dismissing complaints
Bank Foreign Exchange Restrictions. Judge did
so based on newspaper reports announcing the
lifting by the government of all foreign exchange
restrictions. Judge Manuel T. Muro was declared
guilty of gross ignorance of the law. He was
dismissed from service and was hereby ordered to
cease and desist from immediately from rendering
any judgment or order, or continuing any judicial
action or proceeding whatsoever.
DOCTRINE: It is a mandatory requirement that a
new law should be published for 15 days in a
newspaper of general circulation before its
effectivity. When the President’s statement was
published in the newspaper, the respondent
admitted of not having seen the official text of CB
circular 1353 thus it was premature for him to take
judicial notice on this matter which is merely
based on the public knowledge that the law
requires for the court to take judicial notice of.
Vda. De Catalan v. Catalan-Lee (2012)
SUMMARY: Orlando Lee, an American citizen,
divorced wife no. 1 in the US. He married
petitioner Merope in the Phils. He died intestate,
so both Merope and his daughter Louella from his
! of 164
21 !
letters of administration over his estate. RTC
didn’t ask the parties to submit evidence to prove
the fact of Orlando’s divorce abroad. It merely
granted Louella’s petition and dismissed Merope’s
(on the ground that Merope was guilty of bigamy).
HELD: Case remanded to RTC by SC, so that the
former could determine the validity of the divorce
abroad and and ascertain the rightful party.
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are
DOCTRINE: (citing Garcia vs. Recio) Our courts
cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like
any other facts, they must be alleged and proved.
Foreign marital laws are not among those matters
that judges are supposed to know by reason of
their judicial function.
action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute
Calamba Steel Center v. Commissioner (2005)
SUMMARY: Petitioner is a corporation engaged in
manufacture of steel blanks. In 1995, several of its
clients withheld taxes from income payments and
remitted the same to the BIR. However, due to
income/loss positions in 1996, petitioner was
unable to use the excess tax paid by the agents,
prompting it to file for a refund. HELD: Petitioner
was entitled to the refund. CA and CTA could have
taken judicial notice of the 1996 final adjustment
return attached in another case pending before it,
involving the same subject matter, parties, and
causes of action.
DOCTRINE: As a general rule, courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents
of records in other cases tried or pending in the
same court, even when those cases were heard or
are actually pending before the same judge.
However, this rule admits of exceptions, as when
reference to such records is sufficiently made
without objection from the opposing parties.
motion, the party to whom the request is directed
B. Judicial Admissions
RULE 129
SECTION 4. Judicial admissions. — An
admission, verbal or written, made by the 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. (2a)
therewith shall be deferred until such objections
RULE 10
SECTION 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An
amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it
amends. However, admissions in superseded
pleadings may be received in evidence against the
pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein
not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be
deemed waived. (n)
RULE 9
SECTION 1. Defenses and objections not
pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded
deemed waived. However, when it appears from
the pleadings or the evidence on record that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
that there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or that the
of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
(2a)
RULE 26
SECTION 1. Request for admission. — At any
time after issues have been joined, a party may
file and serve upon any other party may file and
serve upon any other party a written request for
the admission by the latter of the genuineness of
any material and relevant document described in
and exhibited with the request or of the truth of
any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in
the request. Copies of the documents shall be
delivered with the request unless copy have
already been furnished. (1a)
SEC. 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters
of which an admission is requested shall be
deemed admitted unless, within a period
designated in the request, which shall not be less
than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or
within such further time as the court may allow on
files and serves upon the party requesting the
admission a sworn statement either denying
specifically the matters of which an admission is
requested or setting forth in detail the reasons
why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny
those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be
submitted to the court by the party requested
within the period for and prior to the filing of his
sworn statement as contemplated in the
preceding paragraph and his compliance
are resolved, which resolution shall be made as
early as practicable. (2a)
SEC. 3. Effect of admission. — Any admission
made by a party pursuant to such request is for
the purpose of the pending action only and shall
not constitute an admission by him for any other
purpose nor may the same be used against him in
any other proceeding. (3)
! of 164
22 !

SEC. 4. Withdrawal. — The court may allow the
party making an admission under the Rule,
whether express or implied, to withdraw or amend
it upon such terms as may be just. (4)
the accused
RULE 118
SECTION 2. P r e - t r i a l a g r e e m e n t . — A l l
agreements or admissions made or entered during
the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing
and signed by the accused and counsel,
otherwise, they cannot be used against the
accused. The agreements covering the matters
referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be
approved by the court. (sec. 4, cir. 38-98)
was not made.

NEW CIVIL CODE
ARTICLE 12. A custom must be proved as a fact,
according to the rules of evidence. (n)
ART. 2035. No compromise upon the following
questions shall be valid:
if they are made either in the:
(1) The civil status of persons;
1. Pleadings
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
- Admissions made in the pleadings of a party are
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
deemed judicial admissions.

(4) Future support;
- The admission includes those made in a
(5) The jurisdiction of courts;
complaint, motion, answer

(6) Future legitime. (1814a)
- BUT, an admission made in a document drafted
FAMILY CODE
ARTICLE 48. In all cases of annulment or
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the
Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to
take steps to prevent collusion between the
parties and to take care that evidence is not
fabricated or suppressed.
filed with the court (Jackson v. Schine Lexington
In the cases referred to in the preceding
paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a
stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.
(88a)
- When a pleading is amended, the amended
ART. 60. No decree of legal separation shall be
based upon a stipulation of facts or a confession
of judgment.
may be received in evidence against the pleader
In any case, the Court shall order the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal assigned to it to take steps to
prevent collusion between the parties and to take
care that the evidence is not fabricated or
suppressed. (101a)
Tiu Notes
NATURE OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
‣ An admission, verbal or written, made by the
party in the course of the proceedings in the
same case, does not require proof.
ELEMENTS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
1. THE SAME MUST BE MADE BY A PARTY TO
THE CASE
- It must be made by a party to the case, such as
- Admissions of a non-party do not fall within the
definition of Sec. 4 of Rule 129.
2. THE ADMISSION, TO BE JUDICIAL, MUST BE
MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
IN THE SAME CASE
- Thus, an admission made in another judicial
proceeding will not be deemed a judicial
admission in another case where the admission
- Instead, it will be considered an extrajudicial
admission for purposes of the other proceeding
where such admission is offered.
Admissions are “in the course of the proceedings”
for purposes of filing a pleading but never filed, is
not a judicial admission. If signed by the party, it is
deemed an extrajudicial admission. If signed by
the attorney, it is not even an admission by the
party. The authority of the attorney to make
statements for the client extends only to
statements made in open court or in pleadings


Corp)


What about admissions in amended pleadings?
pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends
and the admissions in the superseded pleading
(See. 8, Rule 10) 

- It has been held that the admissions in a
superseded pleading are to be considered as
extrajudicial admissions which must be proven. 

- Pleadings that have been amended disappear
from the record, lose their status as pleadings,
and cease to be judicial admissions, and to be
utilized as extrajudicial admissions, they must, in
order to have such effect, be formally offered in
evidence
What about admissions in dismissed pleadings?
‣ Admissions made in pleadings that have been
dismissed are merely extrajudicial admissions
! of 164
23 !
Is a Motion to Dismiss a Judicial Admission of the be reduced in writing and signed by the accused
Allegations of the Complaint? and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used
‣ NO, the filing of a motion to dismiss does not against the accused.

amount to an actual admission of the material 


allegations of the complaint. The admission is Is this requirement required for admissions made
NOT the judicial admission contemplated in Sec. during trial in criminal cases? 

4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. As the A stipulation of facts entered into by the
jurisprudence cited above puts it, the admission is prosecution and defense counsel during trial in
merely “hypothetical.” 
 open court is automatically reduced in writing and
‣ A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the contained in the official transcript of 

truth of the allegations of the complaint (Magno v. proceedings had in court. An attorney who is
CA). 
 employed to manage a party’s conduct of a
‣ It partakes of a demurrer which hypothetically lawsuit... has prima facie authority to make
admits the truth of the factual allegations made in relevant admissions by pleadings, by oral or
the complaint. 
 written stipulation, which, unless allowed to be
‣ However, the admission extends only to such withdrawn are conclusive and binds the client.
matters of fact that have been sufficiently pleaded (People v. Hernandez) 

and not to mere epithets charging fraud, ‣ An offer of compromise by the accused in the
allegations of legal conclusions or erroneous pre-trial is a judicial admission, since the offer was
statements of law, inferences from facts not made in the course of a pre-trial which is a part of
stated, matters of evidence or irrelevant matters. a judicial proceeding.

Only deemed hypothetically admitted are material ‣ Under Sec. 27 of Rule 130, the offer of
allegations, not conclusions 
 compromise by the accused could be
considered as an implied admission of guilt.
2. During the trial
 (Programme, Inc. v. Province of Bataan)

3. In other stages of the judicial proceeding, such c. Modes of Discovery

as: 
 Admissions obtained through depositions, written

a. Pre-trial of Civil Cases 
 interrogatories or requests for admission are also

‣ The stipulation of facts at the pre-trial of a case considered judicial admissions

constitutes judicial admissions. 
 ‣ But note that under Sec. 3 of Rule 26, any
‣ One of the purposes of a pre-trial in a civil case admission made pursuant to the request for
is for the court to consider the possibility of admission is for the purpose of the pending action
obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts (Sec. only. The admission shall not be considered as
2[d], Rule 18). A pre-trial is mandatory and one for any other purpose nor may the same be
because it is mandatory, it is an important part of used against him in any other proceeding.

a civil proceeding. Admissions therefore, in the
pre- trial, as well as those made during the
depositions, interrogatories or requests for
admission, are all deemed judicial admissions
because they are made in the course of the
‣ Thus, generally while judicial admissions in a
case are deemed extra-judicial admissions in
another case, an exception is where if the
admission is the result of a request for
admission, it cannot be used in another cases.

proceedings of the case.

‣ Also, admissions in pre-trial briefs are judicial HOW JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS ARE MADE
admissions, its submission is mandatory in a 1. EXPRESS/ACTUAL ADMISSIONS

pre-trial of a civil case. Submission of the pre- An admission made in a pleading may be an
trial briefs is part of the judicial proceedings.
actual admission as when a party categorically

 admits a material allegation made by the adverse
b. Pre-trial of Criminal Cases 
 party.

‣ Athough an admission made during the pre-trial What about admissions by Counsel?

is deemed to have been made in the course of a ‣ Admissions by a counsel are generally
judicial proceeding and is necessarily a judicial conclusive upon a client. Even the negligence of
admission, an admission made by the accused in counsel binds the client. Acts of the counsel are
the pre-trial of a criminal case is not necessarily acts of the client. 

admissible against him. 
 ‣  EXCEPT: Where reckless or gross negligence of
‣ To be admissible, the conditions set forth by counsel deprives the client of due process of law,
Sec. 2, Rule 118 must be complied with. It must or when its application will result in outright

! of 164
24 !
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or
when the interests of justice so require, relief is
accorded the client who suffered by reason of the
lawyer’s gross or palpable mistake or negligence
the truth of any material and relevant matter of


the genuineness of any material and relevant
document described in and exhibited with the
request. The request for admission may also be of
fact set forth in the request.

2. IMPLIED ADMISSIONS (BY THE FAILURE TO - The party to whom the request is directed must
SPECIFICALLY DENY ALLEGATIONS) 
 file and serve upon the party requesting the
An admission may likewise be inferred from the admission, a sworn statement either denying
failure to specifically deny the material allegations specifically the matters of which an admission is
in the other party’s pleadings.
requested or setting forth in detail the reasons
But remember that you only need to specifically why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny
deny the “ultimate facts”, not conclusions of law
 those matters. The sworn statement must be filed
The rules of civil procedure for example, require a and served within the period designated in the
party to specifically deny allegations in the request which shall not be less than fifteen (15)
following cases otherwise they are deemed days after service thereof, or within such further
admitted.
time as the court may allow on motion. If the
sworn statement required is not filed and served,
a. Material averments in the complaint (Sec. 11, each of the matters of which an admission is
Rule 8)
 requested shall be deemed admitted (Sec. 2, Rule
The defendant must specifically deny material 26, Rules of Court).

allegations in the complaint through his answer
 - Note that under Sec. 3 of Rule 26, any
EXCEPT: There are averments in the pleadings admission made pursuant to the request for
which are not deemed admitted even if the admission is for the purpose of the pending action
adverse party fails to make a specific denial of the only. The admission shall not be considered as
same, these are:
one for any other purpose nor may the same be
1. Immaterial allegations
 used against him in any other proceeding.

2. Conclusions, non-ultimate facts in the

pleading
Now, time for cases!
3. Amount of unliquidated damages

Herrera-Felix v. CA (2004)
b. Allegations of Usury (Sec. 11, Rule 8)
 SUMMARY: Respondent St. Joseph Resourced
If the complaint makes an allegation of usury to Development filed a case for a collection of sum
recover usurious interest, the defendant must not of money against petitioner for the latter’s
only specifically deny the same but must likewise purchase of fish from them. The service of
do so under oath.
summons was made on Ofelia’s sister at the
Failure to make the proper denial under oath residence of the spouses Ofelia and Restituto, as
would involve an implied admission of the the spouses were outside the country. Then
allegation of usury.
counsel of petitioner appeared in court to file a
motion for extension of time within which to file an
c. Actions or defenses founded upon written answer, but the spouses failed file the same. They
instruments (Sec. 8, Rule 8)
were declared in default. The case became final
When an action or defense is founded upon a and executory. Petitioner then asked that the
written instrument, the genuineness and due decision of the TC in favor of the respondent be
execution of the same instrument shall be nullified, on the ground that the service of
deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under summons to her sister was defective. HELD: The
oath, specifically denies them and sets forth what lower court acquired jurisdiction over the person
he claims to be the facts.
of petitioners through a valid service of summons.
She admitted in the motion for extension that she
d. In a written request for the admission by the was served with a copy of the complaint as well
latter of the genuineness of any material and as the summons.

relevant document described in and exhibited DOCTRINE: The admissions made in a motion are
with the request (Sec. 1, 2, 3, Rule 26)
judicial admissions which are binding on the party
- Under Sec. 1 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, a who made them. Such party is precluded from
party may, at any time after the issues have been denying the same unless there is proof of palpable
joined, file and serve upon any other party a mistake or that no such admission was made.

written request for the admission by the latter of

! of 164
25 !
Heirs of Clemeña v. Heirs of Bien (2006)
SUMMARY: Action for Compensatory Damages
filed by respondents against petitioners. It is an
offshoot of a previous case concerning disputes
on ownership of three parcels of land. The land
subject of the instant controversy was declared by
the Court to be owned by respondents in the said
previous case; consequently, respondents sought
damages for farm yields which they would
otherwise have earned had they not been
deprived of possession by petitioners. Petitioners,
to escape culpability, proffered the theory that
they cannot be held liable for compensatory
damages since they never took possession of TD
No. 5299. HELD: Petitioners are bound by the
admission made by their predecessor, Pedro
Clemena y Zurbano, in his answer to the
complaint filed by respondent’s predecessor, Irene
B. Bien. In the aforementioned answer, Pedro
Clemena y Zurbano admitted to having had
exclusive possession of the subject property.
accused committed palpable mistake, his or her
DOCTRINE: A judicial admission conclusively
binds the party making it and he cannot thereafter
contradict it. The exception is found only in those
rare instances when the TC, in the exercise of its
discretion and because of strong reasons to
support its stand, may relieve a party from the
consequences of his admission.
school building. DPCC posted three bonds to
Tan v. Rodil (2006)
SUMMARY: An unlawful detainer case was filed
by Rodil Enterprises against Tan for refusal to pay
rentals and to vacate the leased unit despite
repeated demands. Tan made an offer of
compromise in open court as to the amount of
unpaid rentals. No settlement was reached but the
MeTC and CA, subsequently, held that such an
offer constituted an implied admission of Tan’s
liability to pay rent to Rodil Ent. HELD: SC
affirmed CA decision, ruling that Tan’s admission
was an exception to the general rule of
inadmissibility.
bonds, a complaint was filed in the Construction
DOCTRINE: To determine the admissibility or
non-admissibility of an offer to compromise, the
circumstances of the case and the intent of the
party making the offer should be considered.
Thus, if a party denies the existence of a debt but
offers to pay the same for the purpose of buying
peace and avoiding litigation, the offer of
settlement is inadmissible. If in the course thereof,
the party making the offer admits the existence of
an indebtedness combined with a proposal to
settle the claim amicably, then, the admission is
admissible to prove such indebtedness.
No. PCIC-46172.
People v. Lacson (2003)
SUMMARY: Lacson was charged with multiple
murder related to the Kuratong Baleleng incident.
RTC initially dismissed the case because several
witnesses backed out and signed affidavits of
desistance. When new affidavits were indorsed by
PNP, new informations were filed against Lacson,
which prompted him to file a petition for certiorari
in the CA. CA ruled that the first dismissal of case
constituted “provisional dismissal”, and the new
informations can be received as revivals of the
first cases filed. Lacson now questions the
applicability of Rule 117, Section 8 on Provisional
Dismissal, since the Revised Rules of Court took
effect only after the first dismissal. He asserts that
his judicial admissions in the CA (primarily, that he
did not give express consent to the provisional
dismissal of the case) cannot be received as
evidence in the trial of the newly-filed cases.
DOCTRINE: Absent any showing that the
judicial admissions are binding.
Philippine Charter Insurance v. Central
Colleges (2012)
SUMMARY: CCP contracted DPCC to be its
general contractor for the construction of its
guarantee the fulfilment of the obligation. All of
which were issued by petitioner. Because of the
delay in the Phase 2 of the project, CCP informed
DPCC and petitioner that it will file an action on
the surety and performance bonds. CCP sent a
formal request to remit the bond after declaring
the occurrence of default against DPCC.
Eventually, CCP informed petitioner that it would
be terminating the contract and reiterated its claim
against the bonds. CCP sent petitioner a final
demand for payment when the negotiations
between CCP and DPCC reached a dead end.
Since petitioner denied CCP’s claim against the
Industry Arbitration Commission against petitioner
and DPCC. CIAC ruled that CCP is entitled to the
bonds. CA did not give weight to petitioner’s
defense that Performance Bond No. PCIC-46172
was already released because it was never raised
before the CIAC and was raised for the first time
on appeal. HELD: SC found said argument of the
petitioner meritorious. A portion of the transcript
of the arbitral tribunal’s hearing was reproduced in
the decision to bolster the ruling of the Court that
CCP is no longer entitled to Performance Bond
DOCTRINE: It is clear from the testimony of
Crispino P. Reyes, CCPs President, that the
! of 164
26 !
school no longer wants to collect on Performance
Bond PCIC 46172.  This statement before the
arbitral tribunal is a judicial admission effectively
settling the issue with respect to that bond. Since
CCP, through its President, judicially admitted that
it is no longer interested in pursuing PCIC-46172,
the scope of its claim will just be confined to  the
Surety Bond and other Performance Bond.
interest in the matter because she is the surviving
Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex
(2009)
SUMMARY: Pet. leased Resp.’s complex for the
operation of a cockpit. Upon expiry and awarding
to new lessee, Pet. demanded return of deposit.
RTC granted the petition and directed Resp. to
return the full deposit plus interest. CA reversed
RTC. SC granted pet. for review on certiorari and
directed Resp. to return amount of deposit after
deducting amount of 2 months arrears in rentals.
Both parties filed MR. Pet. denies overstaying for
2 months and Resp. avers that expenses incurred
for the repair should be deducted. HELD: SC
denied both MRs.
DOCTRINE: Ateniso Coronado testified that
petitioner continued to hold cockfights for 2
months beyond expiration of lease contract. It
was neither questioned nor denied by Pet. during
trial in RTC and on appeal before CA. Witness
Ateniso Coronado’s credibility has not been
impeached, and his testimony has neither been
overthrown by contradictory evidence. The finding
of the CA is binding as a factual matter.
marriage between Josefina Halasan and Jose K.
Ching v. CA (2000)
SUMMARY: Ching was criminally charged with
estafa in relation to the Trust Receipts Law. He
filed a civil case, with Philippine Blooming Mills
Co, Inc., for declaration of nullity of documents
and damages against Allied Bank. In his original
complaint, he alleged that the trust receipts was
executed as security for a loan agreement (which
was an admission). He amended his complaint
and alleged instead that they were only side
documents.
DOCTRINE: Amended or superseded pleadings
disappear from the record, lose their status as
pleadings, and cease to be judicial admissions.
Admissions therein may still be used against the
pleader as extrajudicial admissions, but should be
formally offered in evidence. If not offered in
evidence, the admission contained will not be
considered.
Alfelor v. Hanasan (2006)
SUMMARY: The children and heirs of late
spouses Telesforo and Cecilia Alfelor filed a
Complaint for Partition. One of their children is
Jose Alfelor. Among those who filed said
complaint were Teresita Sorongon and her two
children Joshua and Maria Katrina, who claims to
be the spouse and children of Jose Alfelor,
respectively. Later, Josefina Halasan filed a
Complaint-in-Intervention claiming she has a legal
spouse and primary compulsory heir of Jose
Alfelor. Petitioners opposed the motion and the
motion was set for hearing. Josefina did not
appear but presented the Reply-in-Intervention
where Teresita declared that she knew "of the
previous marriage of the late Jose K. Alfelor with
that of the herein intervenor" on February 1, 1956.
Moreover, Teresita in her testimony said she knew
that her husband had been previously married to
Josefina and that the two did not live together as
husband and wife. RTC dismissed the Complaint-
in-Intervention stating that e intervenor failed to
appear to testify in court to substantiate her claim.
CA set aside the decision of RTC ruling that
Teresita had already admitted (both verbally and in
writing) that Josefina had been married to the
deceased, and under Section 4, Rule 129 of the
Revised Rules of Evidence, a judicial admission
no longer requires proof. HELD: SC agreed with
CA and ruled that Josefina Halasan has a right to
intervene in the case because as admitted by
plaintiff Teresita Alfelor in her Reply in-Intervention
and in her testimony, there exist a previous
Alfelor. Thus, Josefina Halasan being a surviving
spouse of Jose Alfelor is a legal heir and has
interest in the case.
DOCTRINE: A party who judicially admits a fact
cannot later challenge that fact as judicial
admissions are a waiver of proof; production of
evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission
also removes an admitted fact from the field of
controversy. Consequently, an admission made in
the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party
making such admission and are conclusive as to
such party, and all proofs to the contrary or
inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether
objection is interposed by the party or not. The
allegations, statements or admissions contained
in a pleading are conclusive as against the
pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a
position contrary of or inconsistent with what was
pleaded.
Atillo III v. CA (1997)
SUMMARY: Atillo owned and controlled
AMANCOR Inc. AMANCOR contracted a loan with
the bank. Lhullier joined AMANCOR and became
! of 164
27 !
part owner. He invested more capital, and signed
a MOA. Atillo paid off AMANCOR’s debt to bank
and now wants to be reimbursed by AMANCOR
and Lhullier, pursuant to the MOA signed. RTC
and CA found that AMANCOR was liable, but
Lhullier was NOT personally liable to pay. Atillo
argued that Lhullier made a judicial admission of
personal liability in his Answer. HELD: This was
NOT an admission because the alleged admission
was merely a statement taken out of context.

DOCTRINE: As provided for in Sec. 4, Rule 129 of

the Rules of Court, the general rule that a judicial
admission is conclusive upon the party making it
and does not require proof admits of two
exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the admission
was made through palpable mistake, and 2) when
it is shown that no such admission was in fact
made.  The latter exception allows one to
contradict an admission by denying that he made
such an admission.

! of 164
28 !
III. Rules of Admissibility
A. Real / Object and Demonstrative
Evidence
RULE 130
SECTION 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as
evidence are those addressed to the senses of the
court. When an object is relevant to the fact in
issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed
by the court.
party examined waives any privilege he may have
SEC. 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.
physical examination
RULE 135
SECTION 2. Publicity of proceedings and records.
— The sitting of every court of justice shall be
public, but any court may, in its discretion,
exclude the public when the evidence to be
adduced is of such nature as to require their
exclusion in the interest of morality or decency.
The records of every court of justice shall be
public records and shall be available for the
inspection of any interested person, at all proper
business hours, under the supervision of the clerk
having custody of such records, unless the court
shall, in any special case, have forbidden their
publicity, in the interest of morality or decency.
Rule: THE EVIDENCE MUST SUFFICIENTLY AND
RULE 28.
SEEKS TO DEMONSTRATE OR REPRESENT
SECTION. 1. When examination may be ordered.
— In an action in which the mental or physical
condition of a party is in controversy, the court in
which the action is pending may in its discretion
order him to submit to a physical or mental
examination by a physician.
4. X-ray pictures
SEC. 2. Order for examination. — The order for
examination may be made only on motion for
good cause shown and upon notice to the party
to be examined and to all other parties, and shall
specify the time, place, manner, conditions and
scope of the examination and the person or
persons by whom it is to be made.
2. Objects Made Unique - readily identifiable
SEC. 3. Report of findings. — If requested by the
party examined, the party causing the
examination to be made shall deliver to him a
copy of a detailed written report of the examining
physician setting out his findings and conclusions.
After such request and delivery, the party causing
the examination to be made shall be entitled upon
request to receive from the party examined a like
report of any examination, previously or thereafter
made, of the same mental or physical condition. If
the party examined refuses to deliver such report,
the court on motion and notice may make an
order requiring delivery on such terms as are just,
and if a physician fails or refuses to make such a
report the court may exclude his testimony if
offered at the trial.
SEC. 4. Waiver of privilege. — By requesting and
obtaining a report of the examination so ordered
or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the
in that action or any other involving the same
controversy, regarding the testimony of every
other person who has examined or may thereafter
examine him in respect of the same mental or
Tiu Notes
Admissibility of Object Evidence
1. The evidence must be relevant and competent
2. The evidence must be authenticated
3. The authentication must be made by a
competent witness
4. The object must be formally offered in
evidence
Admissibility of Demonstrative Evidence
What is demonstrative evidence? Represents or
demonstrates the real thing; classified as object
evidence as well
ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE OBJECT IT
Notable Kinds of Demonstrative Evidence
1. Photographs
2. Motion pictures & recordings
3. Diagrams, models & maps
5. Scientific tests, demonstrations & experiments
Categories of Object Evidence, Acc. to Means
of Authentication
1. Unique Objects - have readily identifiable
marks (i.e., serial number of a pistol)
(witness can testify that he made a non-unique
object unique by placing marks on it)
3. Non-Unique Objects - have no identifying
marks and cannot be marked; here, proponent
of evidence must establish a chain of custody
! of 164
29 !
People v. Bardaje (1980)
SUMMARY: 14 y/o girl eloped with 18 y/o boy.
When found by father 3 days later, girl cried rape
with illegal detention. Medical examination about
3 days after she was found revealed old healed
lacerations in the hymen which could have been
caused by sex 2 weeks to 1 month prior. CFI
sentenced boy to death penalty for forcible
abduction with rape. HELD: Boy acquitted. SC
gave credence to sweetheart theory.
Sison v. People (1995)
DOCTRINE: Physical evidence is of the highest
order and speaks more eloquently than witnesses
put together.
Loyalist, in a mauling incident that happened in
BPI v. Reyes (2008), supra
SUMMARY: Jesusa wanted to open an ATM
account with P200k. The balance in her savings
account was insufficient so she withdrew P100k
to transfer to the ATM account. She claims to
have given an additional P100k in cash to make
the total contents of the ATM account P200k. The
ATM contains P100k. She sued BPI for the
“missing” P100k. HELD: There is no proof of
additional P100k. Teller tapes were given much
weight
DOCTRINE: The correctness of a photograph as
DOCTRINE: Physical evidence is but an eloquent
manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. Where the
physical evidence on record runs counter to the
testimonial evidence of the prosecution witness,
physical evidence should prevail.
P h o t o g r a p h s c a n b e i d e n t i fi e d b y t h e
People v. Larrañaga (2005) - The Bring On
Tomorrow case!
SUMMARY: 2 sisters disappeared in Cebu. 2 days
later the body of one was found. 10 months later,
a witness came forward admitting his participation
in the crime and the identity of the accused
appellants.
RPC, TC sentenced him to death. HELD: SC
DOCTRINE: The testimony of the witness was
considered worthy of belief because of its striking
compatibility with the physical evidence. Physical
evidence is one of the highest degrees of proof. It
speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put
together
is admissible as object evidence to prove his age.
Dela Cruz v. People (2014)
SUMMARY: Dela Cruz was arrested by police for
extortion after they took Ariel Escobido and asked
money in exchange for his release. When he was
caught, police made him take a urine test, which
was positive for dangerous drugs. He is being
charged for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
HELD: The urine test was illegal because there
was no reason to have a urine sample taken for a
charge of extortion.
DOCTRINE: Constitutional right of accused
against self-incrimination proscribes use of
physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from the accused and not the
inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be
material. But in this case, the inclusion of the
accused’s body in evidence is immaterial to the
charge.
SUMMARY: The petitioners, known to be Marcos
Loyalists, were accused of killing Salcedo, a Cory
Luneta. Eyewitnesses were presented in court and
their testimony were corroborated by photographs
taken during the incident and various newspaper
accounts. RTC found the petitioners guilty of
murder. CA affirmed. The petitioners contend that
the CA erroneously admitted the photographs for
lack of proper identification by the persons who
took them. HELD: The photographs are
admissible as they can be identified not only by
the photographers who took them but by any
competent witness.
a faithful representation of the object portrayed
can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony
of the person who made it or by other competent
witnesses, after which the court can admit it
subject to impeachment as to its accuracy.
photographer or by any other competent witness
who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.
People v. Rellupa (2003) - TAKE NOTE!
SUMMARY: TC convicted Mr Rullepa of statutory
rape. Finding the victim to be below 7 y/o, which
is a qualifying circumstance under Art. 335 of the
affirmed the conviction, sustaining the TC’s
finding that the victim was below 12 y/o. However,
SC reduced the sentence to reclusion perpetua,
overruling the TC’s finding that the victim was
below 7 y/o. SC held that a person’s appearance
On the other hand, the probative weight to accord
the person’s appearance is determined by the
guidelines in the Pruna case. Since the victim’s
mother testified that her daughter was only 3 y/o
at the time of the rape, in accordance with Pruna
guidelines, the victim’s appearance is sufficient
evidence to prove that she was below 12 years
old at the time of the rape but insufficient
evidence to prove that she was below 7 years old
at the time of the rape.
! of 164
30 !
DOCTRINE: A person’s appearance, where
relevant, is admissible as object evidence. As to
the weight to accord such appearance, especially
in rape cases, follow the guidelines in Pruna:
certain irregularities, such as being asked to step
If the certificate of live birth or authentic document
is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and
credible, of the victims mother or a member of the
family either by affinity or consanguinity who is
qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree
such as the exact age or date of birth of the
offended party pursuant to Sec. 40, Rule 130 shall
be sufficient under the following circumstances:
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of
age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less than 7 years old;
received, where it was and what happened to it
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of
age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less than 12 years old;
was delivered to the next link in the chain.  The
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of
age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less than 18 years old.
the same is advertent or otherwise dictates the
In such cases, the disparity between the
allegation and the proof of age is so great that the
court can easily determine from the appearance of
the victim the veracity of the testimony. The
appearance corroborates the relative’s testimony.
As the alleged age approaches the age sought to
be proved, the person’s appearance, as object
evidence of her age, loses probative value. Doubt
as to her true age becomes greater, and such
doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
COMPETENT

People v. Yatar (2004)
SUMMARY: Defendant Joel Yatar was charged
with and convicted of rape and homicide of 17 y/o
Kathylyn Uba, committed in the house of the
victim’s lola where she was left alone. Defendant’s
conviction relied on circumstantial evidence and
on the semen found in victim’s vaginal canal
which when tested, matched Defendant’s DNA
obtained through blood sampling done in open
court. Defendant alleges that blood sampling was
a violation of his right to remain silent as well as
his right against self-incrimination. HELD:
Contention is untenable. Conviction affirmed.
tampered with to make it appear they were
DOCTRINE: The right is not against all
compulsion but against testimonial compulsion.
They do not apply where evidence sought to be
excluded is not an incrimination but part of object
evidence. A person may thus be compelled to
submit to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin,
blood and DNA test as there are no testimonial
compulsions involved.
Malilin v. People (2008)
SUMMARY: Search and seizure related to an
alleged violation of RA 9165. Petitioner testified on
outside of the house to buy cigarettes while the
search was ongoing.
DOCTRINE: The chain of custody rule requires
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it
to be. It would include testimony about every link
in the chain, from the moment the item was
such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
while in the witness possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which it
exhibits’ level of susceptibility to  fungibility,
alteration or tampering without regard to whether
level of strictness in the application of the chain of
custody rule.
B. Documentary Evidence
Tiu Notes
Basic Requisites For The Admissibility Of
Documentary Evidence:
1. The document must be RELEVANT AND
2. The evidence must be AUTHENTICATED 

3. The document must be authenticated by a
COMPETENT WITNESS 

4. The document must be FORMALLY OFFERED
IN EVIDENCE 

Yap v. Yponiquez, Jr. (2003)
SUMMARY: Complainant police officer Yap seeks
to have respondent Judge sanctioned for alleged
abuse of authority and acts unbecoming of a
judge. A person arrested by the complainant was
released on bail without the requisite bond.
Receipts of a bond later filed were allegedly
accomplished much earlier. HELD: The receipts
were indeed tampered with. As against the
testimonies of the Judge and his cohorts, the
documentary evidence carried more weight.
DOCTRINE: It is a basic rule of evidence that
between documentary and oral evidence, the
former carries more weight.
! of 164
31 !
1. Best Evidence Rule
RULE 130
SECTION 2. Documentary evidence. —
Documents as evidence consist of writing or any
material containing letters, words, numbers,
produced in court. Such photocopies must be
disregarded, being inadmissible evidence and
barren of probative weight 

Rule: Best evidence rule may be WAIVED if not
raised at trial.

figures, symbols or other modes of written

expression offered as proof of their contents.
Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence:

SEC. 3. Original document must be ‣ Sec. 1: Original of an electronic document. “An

produced;  exceptions. — When the subject of electronic document shall be regarded as the
inquiry is the contents of a document, no equivalent of an original document under the Best
evidence shall be admissible other than the Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable
original document itself, except in the following by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
cases:
accurately” 

(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, ‣ Sec. 2: Copies as equivalent of the originals.
or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith “When a document is in two or more copies
on the part of the offeror;
executed at or about the same time with identical
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the contents, or is a counterpart produced by the
control of the party against whom the evidence is same impression as the original, or from the same
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-
reasonable notice;
recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by
(c) When the original consists of numerous other equivalent techniques which accurately
accounts or other documents which cannot be reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates
examined in court without great loss of time and shall be regarded as the equivalent of the
the fact sought to be established from them is original.” 

only the general result of the whole; and

(d) When the original is a public record in the APPLICATION

custody of a public officer or is recorded in a 1. Does it fall under Best Evidence Rule? If it
public office.
does, apply the rule. Present the original.

SEC. 4. Original of document. —

2. If original can’t be presented:

(a) The original of the document is one the a. Find an adequate legal excuse for failure to
contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
present the original (Sec. 3, Rule 130)

(b) When a document is in two or more copies b. Present secondary evidence (Secs. 5-8, Rule
executed at or about the same time, with identical 130, infra)

contents, all such copies are equally regarded as

originals.
2. Secondary Evidence

(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course

of business, one being copied from another at or RULE 130

near the time of the transaction, all the entries are
likewise equally regarded as originals.
unavailable. — When the original document has
Tiu Notes
Rationale: A purpose of the rule requiring the
production by the offeror of the best evidence is
the prevention of fraud, because if a party is in
possession of such evidence and withholds it and
SECTION 5. When original document is
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.

presents inferior or secondary evidence in its
place, the presumption is that the latter evidence
is withheld from the court and the adverse party
for a fraudulent or devious purpose which its
production would expose and defeat. As long as
the original evidence can be had, the court should
not receive in evidence that which is
substitutionary in nature, such as photocopies, in
SEC. 6. When original document is in adverse
party's custody or control. — If the document is in
the custody or under the control of adverse party,
he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If
after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its
existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the
case of its loss.

the absence of any clear showing that the original

writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be
! of 164
32 !
SEC. 7. Evidence admissible when original in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
document is a public record. — When the original must be proved either:

of document is in the custody of public officer or (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
is recorded in a public office, its contents may be written; or

proved by a certified copy issued by the public (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the
officer in custody thereof.
signature or handwriting of the maker.

SEC. 8. Party who calls for document not bound Any other private document need only be
to offer it. — A party who calls for the production identified as that which it is claimed to be.

of a document and inspects the same is not SEC. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private
obliged to offer it as evidence.
document not necessary.  —  Where a private
document is more than thirty years old, is
RULE 132 produced from the custody in which it would
SECTION 16. When witness may refer to naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished
memorandum.  —  A witness may be allowed to by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion,
refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything no other evidence of its authenticity need be
written or recorded by himself or under his given.

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.
judge.
SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved.
— The handwriting of a person may be proved by
any witness who believes it to be the handwriting
of such person 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

SEC. 18. Right to respect writing shown to
witness.  —  Whenever a writing is shown to a
witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party.
public records made in the performance of a duty
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS
RULE 132
SEC. 23. Public documents as
evidence.  —  Documents consisting of entries in
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.

SECTION 19. Classes of Documents.  —  For the SEC. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of
purpose of their presentation evidence, public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
documents are either public or private.
Section 19, when admissible for any purpose,
Public documents are:
may be evidenced by an official publication
(a) The written official acts, or records of the thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having
official acts of the sovereign authority, official the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy,
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary the custody. If the office in which the record is
public except last wills and testaments; and
kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
private documents required by law to the entered consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular
therein.
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
All other writings are private.
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in
SEC. 20. Proof of private document. — Before any which the record is kept, and authenticated by the
private document offered as authentic is received seal of his office.

SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must

state.  —  Whenever a copy of a document or
! of 164
33 !
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.
language shall not be admitted as evidence,
SEC. 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.
SEC. 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.
judgment. (115)
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.
other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
SEC. 29. How judicial record impeached.  —  Any
judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or (c)
fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to
the proceedings.
SEC. 30. Proof of notarial documents.  —  Every
instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law, may be presented in
evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being  prima facie  evidence of
the execution of the instrument or document
involved.
SEC. 31. Alteration in document, how to
explain.  —  The party producing a document as
genuine which has been altered and appears to
have been altered after its execution, in a part
material to the question in dispute, must account
for the alteration. He may show that the alteration
was made by another, without his concurrence, or
was made with the consent of the parties affected
by it, or was otherwise properly or 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.
SEC. 32. Seal.  —  There shall be no difference
between sealed and unsealed private documents
insofar as their admissibility as evidence is
concerned.
SEC. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial
language.  —  Documents written in an unofficial
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.
CIVIL CODE - Proof of Filiation of Legitimate
Children
ARTICLE 265. The filiation of legitimate children is
proved by the record of birth appearing in the Civil
Register, or by an authentic document or a final
ART. 266. In the absence of the titles indicated in
the preceding article, the filiation shall be proved
by the continuous possession of status of a
legitimate child. (116)
ART. 267.  In the absence of a record of birth,
authentic document, final judgment or possession
of status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any
special laws.
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (R.A.
8792)
SECTION 5.  Definition of Terms  - For the
purposes of this Act, the following terms are
defined, as follows:
(a) "Addressee" refers to a person who is intended
by the originator to receive the electronic data
message or electronic document. The term does
not include a person acting as an intermediary
with respect to that electronic data message or
electronic data document.
(b) "Computer" refers to any device or apparatus
which, by electronic, electro-mechanical, or
magnetic impulse, or by other means, is capable
of receiving, recording, transmitting, storing,
processing, retrieving, or producing information,
data, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression according to mathematical and logical
rules or of performing any one or more of these
functions.
(c) "Electronic Data Message" refers to
information generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means.
! of 164
34 !
(d) "Information and Communications System"
refers to a system intended for and capable of
generating, sending, receiving, storing, or
otherwise processing electronic data messages or
electronic documents and includes the computer
system or other similar device by or in which data
is recorded or stored and any procedures related
to the recording or storage of electronic data
message or electronic document.
(e) "Electronic Signature" refers to any distinctive
mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic
form, representing the identity of a person and
attached to or logically associated with the
electronic data message or electronic document
or any methodology or procedures employed or
adopted by a person and executed or adopted by
such person with the intention of authenticating or
approving an electronic data message or
electronic document.
SEC. 7.  Legal Recognition of Electronic
(f) "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 extinguished,
or by which a fact may be prove and affirmed,
which is receive, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent
(g) "Electronic Key" refers to a secret code which
secures and defends sensitive information that
cross over public channels into a form
decipherable only with a matching electronic key.
addition of any endorsement and any
(h) "Intermediary" refers to a person who in behalf
of another person and with respect to a particular
electronic document sends, receives and/or
stores provides other services in respect of that
electronic data message or electronic document.
light of the purpose for which it was generated
(i) "Originator" refers to a person by whom, or on
whose behalf, the electronic document purports
to have been created, generated and/or sent. The
term does not include a person acting as an
intermediary with respect to that electronic
document.
original from.
(j) "Service provider" refers to a provider of -
(c) Where the law requires that a document be
i. On-line services or network access or the
operator of facilities therefor, including entities
offering the transmission, routing, or providing
of connections for online communications,
digital or otherwise, between or among points
specified by a user, of electronic documents of
the user's choosing; or
to the person to whom it is to be presented:
ii. The necessary technical means by which
electronic documents of an originator may be
stored and made accessible to designated or
undesignated third party.
execution of documents for their validity.
Such service providers shall have no authority
to modify or alter the content of the electronic
data message or electronic document received
or to make any entry therein on behalf of the
originator, addressee or any third party unless
specifically authorized to do so, and who shall
retain the electronic document in accordance
with the specific request or as necessary for
the purpose of performing the services it was
engaged to perform.
CHAPTER II: LEGAL RECOGNITION OF
ELECTRONIC WRITING OR DOCUMENT AND
DATA MESSAGES
SEC. 6.  Legal Recognition of Electronic Data
Messages  - Information shall not be denied legal
effect, validity or enforceability solely on the
grounds that it is in the data message purporting
to give rise to such legal effect, or that it is merely
referred to in that electronic data message.
Documents - Electronic documents shall have the
legal effect, validity or enforceability as any other
document or legal writing, and -
(a) Where the law requires a document to be in
writing, that requirement is met by an electronic
document if the said electronic document
maintains its integrity and reliability and can be
reference, in that -
i. The electronic document has remained
complete and unaltered, apart from the
authorized change, or any change which arises
in the normal course of communication,
storage and display; and
ii. The electronic document is reliable in the
and in the light of all relevant circumstances.
(b) Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement
therein is in the form of an obligation or whether
the law simply provides consequences for the
document not being presented or retained in its
presented or retained in its original form, that
requirement is met by an electronic document if -
i. There exists a reliable assurance as to the
integrity of the document from the time when it
was first generated in its final form; and
ii. That document is capable of being displayed
Provided, That no provision of this Act shall
apply to vary any and all requirements of
existing laws on formalities required in the
! of 164
35 !
For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document being displayed to the person to whom it is to
shall be the functional equivalent of a written be presented.

document under existing laws.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement
This Act does not modify any statutory rule therein is in the form of an obligation or whether
relating to admissibility of electronic data the law simply provides consequences for the
massages or electronic documents, except the information not being presented or retained in its
rules relating to authentication and best evidence.
original form.

SEC. 8.  Legal Recognition of Electronic (3) For the purpose of subparagraph (a) of
Signatures.  - An electronic signature on the paragraph (1):

electronic document shall be equivalent to the (a) the criteria for assessing integrity shall be
signature of a person on a written document if whether the information has remained
that signature is proved by showing that a complete and unaltered, apart from the
prescribed procedure, not alterable by the parties addition of any endorsement and any change
interested in the electronic document, existed which arises in the normal course of
under which
communication, storage and display ; and

(a) A method is used to identify the party sought
to be bound and to indicate said party's access to
the electronic document necessary for his consent
or approval through the electronic signature;
the relevant circumstances.
(b) the standard of reliability required shall be
assessed in the light of purposed for which the
information was generated and in the light of all

(b) Said method is reliable and appropriate for the
purpose for which the electronic document was
generated or communicated, in the light of all
circumstances, including any relevant agreement;
provided, electronic documents, electronic data
(c) It is necessary for the party sought to be
bound, in or order to proceed further with the
transaction, to have executed or provided the
electronic signature; and
or another entity is an information or
(d) The other party is authorized and enabled to
verify the electronic signature and to make the
SEC. 11.  Authentication of Electronic Data
Messages and Electronic Documents.  - Until the
Supreme Court by appropriate rules shall have so
messages and electronic signatures, shall be
authenticated by demonstrating, substantiating
and validating a claimed identity of a user, device,
communication system, among other ways, as
follows;

decision to proceed with the transaction (a) The electronic signature shall be authenticated
authenticated by the same.
by proof than a letter , character, number or other
SEC. 9.  Presumption Relating to Electronic symbol in electronic form representing the
Signatures  - In any proceedings involving an persons named in and attached to or logically
electronic signature, it shall be presumed that -
associated with an electronic data message,
(a) The electronic signature is the signature of the electronic document, or that the appropriate
person to whom it correlates; and
methodology or security procedures, when
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that applicable, were employed or adopted by such
person with the intention of signing or approving person, with the intention of authenticating or
the electronic document unless the person relying approving in an electronic data message or
on the electronically signed electronic document electronic document;

knows or has noticed of defects in or unreliability (b) The electronic data message or electronic
of the signature or reliance on the electronic document shall be authenticated by proof that an
signature is not reasonable under the appropriate security procedure, when applicable
circumstances.
was adopted and employed for the purpose of
SEC. 10. Original Documents. -
verifying the originator of an electronic data
(1) Where the law requires information to be message and/or electronic document, or
presented or retained in its original form, that detecting error or alteration in the communication,
requirement is met by an electronic data message content or storage of an electronic document or
or electronic document if;
electronic data message from a specific point,
(a) the integrity of the information from the time which, using algorithm or codes, identifying words
when it was first generated in its final form, as or numbers, encryptions, answers back or
an electronic data message or electronic acknowledgement procedures, or similar security
document is shown by evidence aliunde or devices.

otherwise; and
The supreme court may adopt such other
(b) where it is required that information be authentication procedures, including the use of
resented, that the information is capable of electronic notarization systems as necessary and
! of 164
36 !
advisable, as well as the certificate of SEC. 13. Retention of Electronic Data Message or
authentication on printed or hard copies of the Electronic Document.  - Notwithstanding any
electronic document or electronic data messages provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary -

by electronic notaries, service providers and other (a) The requirement in any provision of law that
duly recognized or appointed certification certain documents be retained in their original
authorities.
form is satisfied by retaining them in the form of
The person seeking to introduce an electronic an electronic data message or electronic
data message or electronic document in any legal document which -

proceeding has the burden of proving its (i) Remains accessible so as to be usable for
authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a subsequent reference;

finding that the electronic data message or (ii) Is retained in the format in which it was
electronic document is what the person claims it generated, sent or received, or in a format
be.
which can be demonstrated to accurately
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the represent the electronic data message or
integrity of the information and communication electronic document generated, sent or
system in which an electronic data message or received;

electronic document is recorded or stored may be (iii) Enables the identification of its originator
established in any legal proceeding -
and addressee, as well as the determination of
a.) By evidence that at all material times the the date and the time it was sent or received.

information and communication system or other
similar device was operating in a manner that did
not affect the integrity of the electronic data
message and/or electronic document, and there
are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the
(b) The requirement referred to in paragraph (a) is
satisfied by using the services of a third party,
provided that the conditions set fourth in
subparagraph s (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (a) are
met.

integrity of the information and communication SEC. 14. Proof by Affidavit. - The matters referred
system,
to in Section 12, on admissibility and Section 9,
b.) By showing that the electronic data message on the presumption of integrity, may be presumed
and/or electronic document was recorded or to have been established by an affidavit given to
stored by a party to the proceedings who is the best of the deponent's knowledge subject to
adverse in interest to the party using it; or
the rights of parties in interest as defined in the
c.) By showing that the electronic data message following section.

and/or electronic document was recorded or SEC. 15. Cross - Examination.

stored in the usual and ordinary course of (1) A deponent of an affidavit referred to in Section
business by a person who is not a party to the 14 that has been introduced in evidence may be
proceedings and who did not act under the cross-examined as of right by a party to the
control of the party using the record.
proceedings who is adverse in interest to the
SEC. 12.  Admissibility and Evidential Weight of party who has introduced the affidavit or has
Electronic Data Message or Electronic caused the affidavit to be introduced.

Document.  - In any legal proceedings, nothing in (2) Any party to the proceedings has the right to
the application of the rules on evidence shall deny cross-examine a person referred to in section 11,
the admissibility of an electronic data message or paragraph 4, sub paragraph c.

electronic document in evidence -

(a) On the sole ground that it is in electronic form;

or
Rules on Electronic Evidence
(b) On the ground that it is not in the standard A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC

written form, and the electronic data message or RULE 2

electronic document meeting, and complying with SECTION 1. Definition of terms. – For purposes of
the requirements under Sections 6 or 7 hereof these Rules, the following terms are defined, as
shall be the best evidence of the agreement and follows:

transaction contained therein.

(a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem" means a
In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic system capable of generating a secure key pair,
data message or electronic document, the consisting of a private key for creating a digital
reliability of the manner in which it was generated, signature, and a public key for verifying the digital
stored or communicated, the reliability of the signature.

manner in which its originator was identified, and

other relevant factors shall be given due regard.

! of 164
37 !
(b) "Business records" include records of any (i) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which
business, institution, association, profession, secures and defends sensitive information that
occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or crosses over public channels into a form
not conducted for profit, or for legitimate or decipherable only with a matching electronic key.

illegitimate purposes.
(j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive
(c) "Certificate" means an electronic document mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic
issued to support a digital signature which form, representing the identity of a person and
purports to confirm the identity or other significant attached to or logically associated with the
characteristics of the person who holds a electronic data message or electronic document
particular key pair.
or any methodology or procedure employed or
( d ) " C o m p u t e r " re f e r s t o a n y s i n g l e o r adopted by a person and executed or adopted by
interconnected device or apparatus, which, by such person with the intention of authenticating,
electronic, electro-mechanical or magnetic signing or approving an electronic data message
impulse, or by other means with the same or electronic document. For purposes of these
function, can receive, record, transmit, store, Rules, an electronic signature includes digital
process, correlate, analyze, project, retrieve and/ signatures.

or produce information, data, text, graphics, (k) "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers
figures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of to telephone conversations, text messages,
expression or perform any one or more of these chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming
functions.
video, and other electronic forms of
(e) "Digital signature" refers to an electronic communication the evidence of which is not
signature consisting of a transformation of an recorded or retained.

electronic document or an electronic data (l) "Information and communication system" refers
message using an asymmetric or public to a system for generating, sending, receiving,
cryptosystem such that a person having the initial storing or otherwise processing electronic data
untransformed electronic document and the messages or electronic documents and includes
signer's public key can accurately determine:
the computer system or other similar devices by
i. whether the transformation was created or in which data are recorded or stored and any
using the private key that corresponds to the procedure related to the recording or storage of
signer's public key; and
e l e c t ro n i c d a t a m e s s a g e s o r e l e c t ro n i c
ii. whether the initial electronic document had documents.

been altered after the transformation was (m) "Key pair" in an asymmetric cryptosystem
made.
refers to the private key and its mathematically
(f) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic related public key such that the latter can verify
document or electronic data message bearing a the digital signature that the former creates.

digital signature verified by the public key listed in (n) "Private key" refers to the key of a key pair
a certificate.
used to create a digital signature.

(g) "Electronic data message" refers to information (o) "Public key" refers to the key of a key pair used
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, to verify a digital signature.

optical or similar means.

(h) "Electronic document" refers to information or RULE 3 - Electronic Documents

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 extinguished,
or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed,
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It
SECTION 1.  Electronic documents as functional
equivalent of paper-based documents.  –
Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term
writing, document, record, instrument,
memorandum or any other form of writing, such
term shall be deemed to include an electronic
document as defined in these Rules.

includes digitally signed documents and any print-
out or output, readable by sight or other means,
which accurately reflects the electronic data
message or electronic document. For purposes of
these Rules, the term "electronic document" may
SEC. 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is
admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules
on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court
and related laws and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by these Rules.

be used interchangeably with "electronic data SEC. 3.  Privileged communication.  – The
message".
c o n fi d e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r o f a p r i v i l e g e d

! of 164
38 !
communication is not lost solely on the ground
that it is in the form of an electronic document.
matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-
Rule 4: Best Evidence Rule
SEC. 1.  Original of an electronic document.  – An
electronic document shall be regarded as the
same impression as the original, or from the same
recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by
other equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates
shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.

equivalent of an original document under the Best Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable duplicates shall not be admissible to the same
by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data extent as the original if:

accurately.
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the
SEC. 2.  Copies as equivalent of the originals.  – authenticity of the original; or

When a document is in two or more copies (b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or
executed at or about the same time with identical inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original.

contents, or is a counterpart produced by the

Prima Facie Evidence How to Prove and

Complete Definition
of What Present
The written official acts, 1. An official publication
or records of the official thereof; or

acts of the sovereign 2. By a copy of the
authority, official bodies document attested by
Official Acts of
and tribunals, and public the officer having legal
Sovereign Authority
officers, whether of the custody of the record or
Philippines, or of a by the attestation of his
foreign country (Sec. 19, deputy. (Sec. 24, Rule
Rule 132) 132)
It is prima facie
evidence of the
execution of the
instrument or document
involved (Sec. 30, Rule
It is proved and
132)
presented like any other
Documents
document but it must be
acknowledged before a As under “other public
with the certificate of
Notarized Documents notary public except last documents in Sec. 23,
acknowledgement,
wills and testaments the facts stated therein
except that it need not
(Sec. 19, Rule 132) constitute evidence of:
be authenticated
anymore
The facts that gave rise
to the execution of such
documents and

The date of the
execution of the same
1. The original record; or

Public records, kept in 2. A copy thereof,
the Philippines, of attested by the legal
Prima facie evidence of
Entries in Public private documents custodian of the record,
the facts therein stated.
Records required by law to be with an appropriate
(Sec. 23, Rule 132)
entered therein (Sec. certificate that such
19, Rule 132) officer has the custody
(Sec. 27, Rule 132)

! of 164
39 !
Vda. de Corpuz v. Brabangco (CA) (1963)
SUMMARY: Tiburcia Brabangco owned two
parcels of land that were subsequently sold to
German Corpus as evidenced by a deed of sale.
German and his family occupied the disputed
properties until they were forced to leave in 1951.
Defendants contended that the Corpuses’
occupation of the land were by mere
accommodation and for the sake of charity. The
Corpuses alleged that the document of sale was
lost during the war so instead they offered
Heraclea’s testimony, environmental facts
disclosed by the evidence, and the disinterested
testimony of Pablo Albeza (witness at the
execution of the deed of sale) in order to prove the
existence of the same to satisfy Sec 51, Rule 123
[now Sec 5, Rule 130]. Defendants argued that the
family failed to comply with the statutory
requirements as the witness “did not give or make
a recital of the contents of the document”.
originals were already missing, therefore, the
DOCTRINE: It is not necessary, in order to admit
evidence of the contents of a lost instrument, that
the witnesses should be able to testify with verbal
accuracy to its contents of a lost instrument, it is
sufficient if they are able to state it in substance. It
was sufficient if the witnesses can recollect and
testity to facts showing the presence of the
essential elements of a contract (consent, subject-
matter, consideration, and form in certain
instances). To insist on complete verbal accuracy
would be in effect to prohibit entirely the proof of
lost documents by recollection.
he denies having it in his possession.
People v. Tan (1959)
SUMMARY: When the prosecution presented to
the witnesses a booklet of triplicate receipts (in
the falsification case against Pacita, et al.), Hon.
Tan interrupted such and said that such was not
admissible unless it was first proven that the
originals were lost and cannot be produced. This
interlocutory matter was sent to the SC for review.
HELD: Such triplicates were admissible.
subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to
DOCTRINE: A carbon copy of the original bearing
as it does the signature of the appellant, is
admissible in evidence and possess all the
probative value of the original, and the same does
not require an accounting for the non-production
of the original.
Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers
Union (1977)
SUMMARY: Company and Union had a case in
the lower court for termination of their contract of
service. The lower court awarded actual damages
amounting to P450k to the company, to which the
union appealed. HELD: To support the award of
damages, it must be supported by records/
documents showing the loss. In this case, not
only were documents not presented, the
witnesses were also biased and their statements
hearsay.
DOCTRINE: An audit made by, or the testimony
of, a private auditor, if not supported by records
and documents, is inadmissible in evidence. It
cannot be used as proof of the original records,
books of accounts, reports or the like.
Villa Rey Transit Inc. v. Ferrer (1968)
DOCTRINE: Villarama has practically admitted the
second and fourth requisites. As to the third, he
admitted their previous existence in the files of the
Corporation and also that he had seen some of
them. Regarding the first element, Villarama's
theory is that since even at the time of the
issuance of the subpoena duces tecum, the
Corporation was no longer in possession of the
same. However, it is not necessary for a party
seeking to introduce secondary evidence to show
that the original is in the actual possession of his
adversary. It is enough that the circumstances are
such as to indicate that the writing is in his
possession or under his control. Neither is it
required that the party entitled to the custody of
the instrument should, on being notified to
produce it, admit having it in his possession.
Hence, secondary evidence is admissible where
People v. Tandoy (1990)
SUMMARY: Tandoy was arrested for selling
marijuana. In his appeal, he contests the
admission in evidence of only a Xerox copy of the
marked money used during the buy bust
operation.
DOCTRINE: The best evidence rule applies only
when the contents of the document are the
whether or not such document was actually
executed, or exists, or in the circumstances
relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best
evidence rule does not apply and testimonial
evidence is admissible.
Citibank N.A. Mastercard v. Teodoro (2003)
SUMMARY: Efren had a Citibank Mastercard.
Citibank claimed he had an outstanding balance,
but Efren refused to pay. Citibank filed a case
against him. At trial, Efren produced photocopies
of sales invoices. TC adjudged him to be liable,
based on the photocopies. The CA reversed the
! of 164
40 !
ruling on the ground that the photocopies were
inadmissible as evidence. HELD: SC affirmed CA.
collaterally involved.
DOCTRINE: 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.
authenticity and due execution of such document.
Tenebro v. CA (2004)
SUMMARY: Tenebro is accused of the crime of
bigamy. In order to free himself from liability, he
denies the existence of his first marriage with
Villareyes. HELD: SC disagrees as the prosecutor
has already presented the best evidence of such
marriage: the marriage contract.
the due execution and genuineness of a
DOCTRINE: The marriage contract presented by
the prosecution serves as positive evidence as to
the existence of the marriage between Tenebro
and Villareyes, which should be given greater
credence than documents testifying merely as to
absence of any record of the marriage.
SUMMARY: PCGG filed a Complaint for
Lee v. People (2004)
SUMMARY: Petitioner was the president of
Neugene Marketing, Inc. Other stockholders of
the company filed 3 counts of estafa against him
due to his refusal to turn over the proceeds of a
transaction undertaken by the corporation. During
trial, the prosecution was unable to present the
originals of documents necessary to establish the
case against Lee and used the testimony of an
employee of the company that transacted with
Neugneen to establish that the originals have
been destroyed during a flood. Petitioner opposed
to the admission of the photocopies. RTC and CA
allowed the admission. HELD: SC affirmed;
prosecution was able to prove by preponderance
of evidence that such photocopies are admissible.
presented in court, nor were they authenticated by
DOCTRINE: The offeror of secondary evidence is
burdened to prove the predicates thereof: (a) the
loss or destruction of the original without bad faith
on the part of the proponent/offeror which can be
shown by circumstantial evidence of routine
practices of destruction of documents;  (b) the
proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of
evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the
loss or destruction of the original copy; and (c) it
must be shown that a diligent and  bona fide  but
unsuccessful search has been made for the
document in the proper place or places.  It has
been held that where the missing document is the
foundation of the action, more strictness in proof
is required than where the document is only
The testimony of an eyewitness as to the
execution of a private document must be positive.
He must state that the document was actually
executed by the person whose name is
subscribed thereto.  The admission of that party
against whom the document is offered, of the
authenticity and due execution thereof, is
admissible in evidence to prove the existence,
Consolidated Bank v. Del Monte (2006)
DOCTRINE: Where defendant fails to deny
specifically the execution of the promissory note,
there is no need for the plaintiff to present the
original of the promissory note. When the
defendant fails to deny specifically and under oath
document copied in a complaint, the plaintiff need
not prove that fact as it is considered admitted by
the defendant.
Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc (2012)
Reversion, Reconveyance, Restitution,
Accounting and Damages against Ferdinand E.
Marcos, who was later substituted by his estate
upon his death. Petitioner presented and formally
offered its evidence against the Marcoses.
However, the latter objected on the ground that
the documents were unauthenticated and mere
photocopies. In 2002, the Sandiganbayan issued
a resolution admitting all the documentary exhibits
formally offered by the prosecution. The Marcoses
filed their respective Demurrers to Evidence. In
2005, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution,
granting all the demurrers to evidence except the
one filed by Imelda R. Marcos. HELD: All
presented evidence are hearsay, for being merely
photocopies and that the originals were not
the persons who executed them. Furthermore, the
court pointed out that petitioner failed to provide
any valid reason why it did not present the
originals in court.
DOCTRINE: Petitioner failed to observe the best
evidence rule. It is imperative, therefore, to submit
the original documents that could prove
petitioners allegations. Thus, the photocopied
documents are in violation Rule 130, Sec. 3 of the
Rules of Court, which mandates that the evidence
must be the original document itself. Petitioner did
not even attempt to provide a plausible reason
why the originals were not presented, or any
compelling ground why the court should admit
! of 164
41 !
these documents as secondary evidence absent
the testimony of the witnesses who had executed
them.
admissibility of the document, reasoning that a
Arceo v. People (2006)
petitioners’ possession and the same must be
SUMMARY: Petitioner Pacifico borrowed P150k
from Josefino Cenizal and issued a check to pay
for the loan. He made Josefino a promise to
replace the check with cash, but he never did. So
Cenizal encashed the check and it bounced.
During the trial for violation of BP 22, the check
wasn’t presented in evidence because it had been
lost in a fire near Cenizal’s home, together with the
return slip. HELD: The best evidence rule invoked
by petitioner didn’t apply, because Cenizal had
been able to establish the due execution and
existence of the check in his complaint-affidavit
and in his testimony during the trial.
fails to object tho the evidence being presented,
DOCTRINE: The best evidence rule 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. The gravamen of the offense is the act
of drawing and issuing a worthless check. Hence,
the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or
execution of the check, not its content.
between the parties and their successors in
Magdayao v. People (2004)
SUMMARY: Accused issued a check worth
P600K. Upon deposit, the check bounced. A case
for BP 22 was filed. Offering to repay the amount,
the accused received from the complainant the
original check and subsequently issued two other
checks, yet again failed to make good on his
promise. Prosecution submitted as evidence the
photocopy of the original check. HELD: The
photocopy is admissible as evidence inasmuch as
it was the accused who deliberately withheld the
original document.
parties or their successors in interest after the
DOCTRINE: Under Sect. 3(b), Rule 130 of the
said Rules, secondary evidence of a writing may
be admitted 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. Sec. 6, Rule 130 also
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.
to all provisions. — In the construction of an
Heirs of Dela Cruz v. CA (1998)
SUMMARY: In proving that there was a valid sale
between dela Cruz and the Madrids, the former
presented a photocopy of the deed of sale,
claiming that the original copy of the document
was lost. The lower court ruled against the
duplicate original carbon copy was still in the
accounted for. CA reversed, ruling that
respondents failed to interpose an objection to the
document on the ground of its incompetency for
not complying with the best evidence rule. HELD:
The document is admissible.
DOCTRINE: It is a well-settled principle that
before secondary evidence can be presented, all
duplicates and/or counterparts must be
accounted for, and no excuse for the non-
production of the original document itself can be
regarded as established until all its parts are
unavailable. Exception is when the opposing party
same becomes primary evidence.
2. Parole Evidence Rule
RULE 130
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,
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify,
explain or add to the terms of written agreement if
he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection
in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the
execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
4. Interpretation Of Documents
SEC. 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.
SEC. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect
instrument, where there are several provisions or
particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to
be adopted as will give effect to all.
SEC. 12. Interpretation according to
intention;  general and particular provisions. — In
! of 164
42 !
the construction of an instrument, the intention of
the parties is to be pursued; and when a general
and a particular provision are inconsistent, the
latter is paramount to the former. So a particular
intent will control a general one that is
inconsistent with it.
a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
SEC. 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.
SEC. 6. Conversion into ordinary action. — If
SEC. 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.
proper.
SEC. 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.
meeting of the minds of the parties to a contract,
SEC. 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.
has prevented a meeting of the minds of the
SEC. 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.
their real agreement, said instrument may be
SEC. 18. Construction in favor of natural right. —
When an instrument is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and
the other against it, the former is to be adopted.
way that the instrument does not show their true
SEC. 19. Interpretation according to usage. — An
instrument may be construed according to usage,
in order to determine its true character.
ART. 1363. When one party was mistaken and the
RULE 63
SECTION 1. Who may file petition. — Any person
interested under a deed, will, contract or other
written instrument, or whose rights are affected by
a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance,
or any other governmental regulation may, before
breach or violation thereof bring an action in the
appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any
question of construction or validity arising, and for
(Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998)
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to
quiet title to real property or remove clouds
therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under
Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought
under this Rule.
before the final termination of the case, a breach
or violation of an instrument or a statute,
executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any
other governmental regulation should take place,
the action may thereupon be converted into an
ordinary action, and the parties shall be allowed to
file such pleadings as may be necessary or
CIVIL CODE
ARTICLE 1359.  When, there having been a
their true intention is not expressed in the
instrument purporting to embody the agreement,
by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct
or accident, one of the parties may ask for the
reformation of the instrument to the end that such
true intention may be expressed.
If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident
parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of
the instrument but annulment of the contract.
ART. 1360.  The principles of the general law on
the reformation of instruments are hereby adopted
insofar as they are not in conflict with the
provisions of this Code.
ART. 1361. When a mutual mistake of the parties
causes the failure of the instrument to disclose
reformed.
ART. 1362.  If one party was mistaken and the
other acted fraudulently or inequitably in such a
intention, the former may ask for the reformation
of the instrument.
other knew or believed that the instrument did not
state their real agreement, but concealed that fact
from the former, the instrument may be reformed.
ART. 1364.  When through the ignorance, lack of
skill, negligence or bad faith on the part of the
person drafting the instrument or of the clerk or
! of 164
43 !
typist, the instrument does not express the true ART. 1377. The interpretation of obscure words or
intention of the parties, the courts may order that stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party
the instrument be reformed.
who caused the obscurity. (1288)

ART. 1365.  If two parties agree upon the ART. 1378.  When it is absolutely impossible to
mortgage or pledge of real or personal property, settle doubts by the rules established in the
but the instrument states that the property is sold preceding articles, and the doubts refer to
absolutely or with a right of repurchase, incidental circumstances of a gratuitous contract,
reformation of the instrument is proper.
the least transmission of rights and interests shall
ART. 1366.  There shall be no reformation in the prevail. If the contract is onerous, the doubt shall
following cases:
be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of
(1) Simple donations inter vivos wherein no interests.

condition is imposed;
If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of
(2) Wills;
the contract in such a way that it cannot be
(3) When the real agreement is void.
known what may have been the intention or will of
ART. 1367.  When one of the parties has brought the parties, the contract shall be null and void.
an action to enforce the instrument, he cannot (1289)

subsequently ask for its reformation.

ART. 1379.  The principles of interpretation stated
ART. 1368.  Reformation may be ordered at the in Rule 123 of the Rules of Court shall likewise be
instance of either party or his successors in observed in the construction of contracts.

interest, if the mistake was mutual; otherwise, ART. 1403.  The following contracts are
upon petition of the injured party, or his heirs and unenforceable, unless they are ratified:

assigns.
(1) Those entered into in the name of another
ART. 1370. If the terms of a contract are clear and person by one who has been given no authority or
leave no doubt upon the intention of the legal representation, or who has acted beyond his
contracting parties, the literal meaning of its powers;

stipulations shall control.

(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of
If the words appear to be contrary to the evident Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following
intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over cases an agreement hereafter made shall be
the former. (1281)
unenforceable by action, unless the same, or
ART. 1371.  In order to judge the intention of the some note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing,
contracting parties, their contemporaneous and and subscribed by the party charged, or by his
subsequent acts shall be principally considered. agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement
(1282)
cannot be received without the writing, or a
ART. 1372.  However general the terms of a secondary evidence of its contents:

contract may be, they shall not be understood to (a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be
comprehend things that are distinct and cases performed within a year from the making thereof;

that are different from those upon which the (b) A special promise to answer for the debt,
parties intended to agree. (1283)
default, or miscarriage of another;

ART. 1373.  If some stipulation of any contract (c) An agreement made in consideration of
should admit of several meanings, it shall be marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry;

understood as bearing that import which is most (d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or
adequate to render it effectual. (1284)
things in action, at a price not less than five
ART. 1374.  The various stipulations of a contract hundred pesos, unless the buyer accept and
shall be interpreted together, attributing to the receive part of such goods and chattels, or the
doubtful ones that sense which may result from all evidences, or some of them, of such things in
of them taken jointly. (1285)
action or pay at the time some part of the
ART. 1375.  Words which may have different purchase money; but when a sale is made by
significations shall be understood in that which is auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his
most in keeping with the nature and object of the sales book, at the time of the sale, of the amount
contract. (1286)
and kind of property sold, terms of sale, price,
ART. 1376. The usage or custom of the place shall names of the purchasers and person on whose
be borne in mind in the interpretation of the account the sale is made, it is a sufficient
ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the memorandum;

omission of stipulations which are ordinarily (e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer
established. (1287)
period than one year, or for the sale of real
property or of an interest therein;

! of 164
44 !
( f ) A representation as to the credit of a third and every person whose signature appears
person.
thereon to have become a party thereto for value.
(3) Those where both parties are incapable of
giving consent to a contract.

ART. 1405.  Contracts infringing the Statute of Enriquez v. Ramos (1962)

Frauds, referred to in No. 2 of article 1403, are SUMMARY: A Contract of Sale on Installments of
ratified by the failure to object to the presentation 20 parcels of land was entered into between
of oral evidence to prove the same, or by the Enriquez and Ramos. To secure the transaction, a
acceptance of benefit under them.
mortgage was instituted over the 20 parcels of
ART. 1443.  No express trusts concerning an land in favor of Enriquez should the defendant,
immovable or any interest therein may be proved Ramos, default in his obligation. Petitioner avers
by parol evidence.
that defendant had defaulted while the latter
asserts the defense that the action was premature
Negotiable Instruments Law for failure of the former to comply with a condition
SECTION 11.  Date, presumption as to.  - Where sina qua non for the fulfillment of the obligation.
the instrument or an acceptance or any Ramos states that he and petitioner had agreed
indorsement thereon is dated, such date is that the Enriquez must first build subdivision
deemed prima facie to be the true date of the roads; however, said agreement was not reflected
making, drawing, acceptance, or indorsement, as in the Contract of Sale on Installments.

the case may be.

DOCTRINE: As a general rule, when the terms of
SEC. 17.  Construction where instrument is the agreement had been reduced to writing it is
ambiguous.  - Where the language of the considered as containing all that has been a

instrument is ambiguous or there are omissions
therein, the following rules of construction apply:
terms thereof can be admitted by the parties. This
(a) Where the sum payable is expressed in words
and also in figures and there is a discrepancy
between the two, the sum denoted by the words
is the sum payable; but if the words are
ambiguous or uncertain, reference may be had to
greed upon and that no evidence other than the
rule, however, only holds if there is no allegation
that the agreement does not express the true
intent of the parties. If there is and this claim is put
in issue in the pleadings, the same may be the
subject of parole evidence.

the figures to fix the amount; 


(b) Where the instrument provides for the payment Canuto v. Mariano (1918)
of interest, without specifying the date from which SUMMARY: A deed of sale over a parcel of land
interest is to run, the interest runs from the date of was executed by Canuto in favor of Mariano with
the instrument, and if the instrument is undated, a reservation of the right to repurchase within a
from the issue thereof; 
 year. After the lapse of the period and without any
(c) Where the instrument is not dated, it will be exercise of the right to redeem, Mariano filed a
considered to be dated as of the time it was claim of ownership over the land. However,
issued; 
 Canuto claimed that she was given an extension,
(d) Where there is a conflict between the written 2 days before the expiration of such period.
and printed provisions of the instrument, the Mariano allegedly agreed to extend it until the end
written provisions prevail; 
 of December 1914. The SC allowed the parole
(e) Where the instrument is so ambiguous that evidence and ruled in favor of Canuto.

there is doubt whether it is a bill or note, the DOCTRINE: It makes no difference how soon
holder may treat it as either at his election; 
 after the execution of the written contract the
(f) Where a signature is so placed upon the parol one was made. If it was in fact subsequent
instrument that it is not clear in what capacity the and is otherwise unobjectionable it may be proved
person making the same intended to sign, he is to and enforced.

be deemed an indorser; 

(g) Where an instrument containing the word  "I
promise to pay" is signed by two or more persons,
they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable
thereon.
piculs of rice in exchange of P3,000 paid by Yu
SEC. 24. Presumption of consideration. - Every
negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to
have been issued for a valuable consideration;
Yu Tek & Co v. Gonzales (1915)
SUMMARY: Basilio and Yu Tek has a written
contract wherein Basilio will have to deliver 600
Tek. Sugar was not delivered and the money was
never returned, in accordance with the written
contract. The Court ruled that Yu Tek can recover
only the sum of P3,000. Basilio argued that the
! of 164
45 !
court erred in not admitting parole evidence. He
argued that it was Yu Tek’s responsibility to
provide for the crops. SC affirmed the former
judgment, and ruled that parole evidence could
not be admitted.
was false. CFI held that the execution of contract
DOCTRINE: While parole evidence is admissible
in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of
written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of
incorporating into the contract additional
contemporaneous conditions, which are not
mentioned at all in the writing, unless there has
been fraud or mistake.
DOCTRINE: This principle of integration of jural
LASEDECO vs. Garcia Plantation Co., Inc.
(1963)
SUMMARY: Petitioner filed a case for specific
performance against respondents to recover
purchase price of two tractors. Respondent
contended that an extension was granted to them
by petitioner through Exhibit L which made the
action premature. During the trial, the court ruled
out the testimony of petitioner's witness
presented to prove the true intention of the Exhibit
L, i.e., the extension granted was subject to the
condition that substantial downpayment be made
by respondents. HELD: Had the TC permitted the
petitioner to prove the condition precedent to the
extension of the payment it would have been able
to show that because the defendants had failed to
pay a substantial down payment, the agreement
was breached and the contract contained in
Exhibit L, never became effective and the
extension should be considered as not having
been given at all. Although the complaint was filed
on February 20, 1957, three months before the
deadline of the extension on May 31, 1957, there
would be no premature institution of the case.
DOCTRINE: The rule excluding parole evidence to
vary or contradict a writing, does not extend so far
as to preclude the admission of extrinsic
evidence, to show prior or contemporaneous
collateral parole agreements between the parties,
but such evidence may be received, regardless of
whether or not the written agreement contains
reference to such collateral agreement.
HELD: Parole evidence rule does not apply as the
Woodhouse vs. Halili (1953)
SUMMARY: Woodhouse and Halili entered on a
written agreement that they shall organize a
partnership for bottling and distribution of Mission
soft drinks and that Woodhouse was to secure the
Mission franchise for and in behalf of the
partnership. When operations already began,
Woodhouse instituted an action asking for the
execution of the contract of partnership,
accounting of profits and a share of the 30% net
profits + damages. Halili contends that consent to
the agreement was secured by representation that
Woodhouse was the owner or about to become
the owner of an exclusive bottling franchise, which
of partnership could not be enforced upon the
parties but also held that the defense of fraud was
not proved. HELD: Woodhouse did actually
represent that he was the holder of the exclusive
franchise. Halili was made to believe, and he
actually believed, thus, there is fraud.
acts is inapplicable since the purpose of
considering the prior draft is not to vary, alter, or
modify the agrement but to discover the intent of
the parties thereto and the circumstances
surrounding the execution of the contract. The act
or statement of Woodhouse was not sought to be
introduced to change or alter the terms of the
agreement, but to prove how he induced the
defendant to enter into it — to prove the
representations or inducements, or fraud, with
which or by which he secured the other party’s
consent thereto. These are expressly excluded
from the parole evidence rule. Fraud and false
representation are an incident to the creation of a
jural act, not to its integration, and are not
governed by the rules on integration. Were parties
prohibited from proving said representations or
inducements, on the ground that the agreement
had already been entered into, it would be
impossible to prove misrepresentation or fraud.
Furthermore, the parole evidence rule expressly
allows the evidence to be introduced when the
validity of an instrument is put in issue by the
pleadings.
Cruz vs. CA (1990)
SUMMARY: Cruz received money from Salonga.
Salonga claims it was a loan, Cruz claims that it
was for consideration of their pakyaw and
sublease agreement. During trial, Cruz and his
witness testified as to the nature of the
transaction between Exhibit D covering 35k. The
rule covers agreements. The receipt was not an
agreement.
DOCTRINE: The parole evidence rule only applies
to written agreements. Where the document
presented contains no agreement, parole
evidence may be received in evidence.
When a party fails to timely object (on the ground
of parole evidence), such objection is deemed to
be waived and the testimony will be received in
evidence.
! of 164
46 !
Edrada vs. Ramos (2005)
SUMMARY: Sps. Ramos are the owners of two
fishing vessels. Sps. Ramos and Sps. Edrada
executed an untitled handwritten document which
lies at the heart of the controversy. Sps. Edrada
then delivered 4 postdated checks to Sps Ramos.
The latter were able to encash only the first 3
checks. The last was dishonored due to “stop
payment order”. As a result, Sps. Ramos filed with
RTC complaint for specific performance with
damages praying that Sps. Edrada execute the
deed of sale and give the purchase price. Sps.
Edrada filed an Answer with Counterclaim saying
that there was no sale. They allege that they
extended a loan to Sps. Ramos and the latter in
turn, allowed them to manage and administer the
fishing vessels. RTC ruled in favor of Sps. Ramos
and said there was a perfected contract of sale as
evidenced by the document in contention. Sps.
Edrada appealed to the CA and CA affirmed RTC.
writing.
DOCTRINE: An examination of the document
reveals that there is no perfected contract of sale.
The agreement may confirm the receipt by
respondents of the two vessels and their purchase
price. However, there is no equivocal agreement
to transfer ownership of the vessel, but a mere
commitment that "documents pertaining to the
sale and agreement of payments'[are] to follow."
Evidently, the document or documents which
would formalize the transfer of ownership and
contain the terms of payment of the purchase
price, or the period when such would become due
and demandable, have yet to be executed. But no
such document was executed and no such terms
were stipulated upon. Contending parties offer
vastly differing accounts as to the true nature of
the agreement. Still, we need not look beyond the
document dated 1 April 1996 and the stipulations
therein in order to ascertain what obligations, if
any, have been contracted by the party. The parol
evidence rule forbids any addition to or
contradiction of the terms of a written agreement
by testimony or other evidence purporting to
show that different terms were agreed upon by the
parties, varying the purport of the written contract.
Whatever is not found in the writing is understood
to have been waived and abandoned.
agreements/conditions. HELD: These conditions
Lechugas vs. CA (1986)
SUMMARY: Lechugas claimed she bought a
parcel of land from a Leoncia Lasangue and tried
to eject private respondents who were in
possession of it. Private respondents got the
alleged vendor Leoncia to testify that she didn’t
sell to Lechugas the particular lot that Lechugas
was claiming. Lechugas contested the admission
of Leoncia’s testimony on the ground of Parol
Evidence Rule. HELD: The Parol Evidence Rule
does not apply when the controversy is between
one of the parties to the document, and a 3rd
person.
DOCTRINE: 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.
Regalado Notes
Thus, if one of the parties to the case is a
complete stranger to the contract involved therein,
he is not bound by this rule and can introduce
extrinsic evidence against the efficacy of the
Inciong v. CA (1996)
SUMMARY: Pet signed a promissory note. PR is
suing him for the value indicated therein (P50k).
He claims that he signed 5 of those, and noted on
1 that he is only liable for P5k as agreed upon with
his friends, and that he was a victim of trickery,
fraud, and misrepresentation.
DOCTRINE: Parole evidence rule applies not only
to public documents. Rule does not specify a
particular written agreement. GR: bills, notes, and
other instruments of a similar nature are not
subject to be varied or contradicted by parole or
extrinsic evidence. Fraud, which was the
inducing/moving cause of the written contract,
may be shown by parolee evidence, but such
must be established by clear and convincing
evidence.
Ortañez v. CA (1997)
SUMMARY: Respondents sold to petitioners 2
parcels of land. Respondents got paid but did not
deliver the titles, because one lot was in
possession of another, while the other was subject
to certain conditions. Petitioner sued for specific
performance. Respondents said there were oral
were inadmissible.
DOCTRINE: When terms of an agreement were
reduced to writing, it is deemed to contain all the
terms agreed upon; no evidence of such terms
can be admitted other than the contents thereof.
Palanca v. Fred Wilson & Co. (1918)
SUMMARY: Palanca, as the manager of Song Fo
& Co., purchased a distilling machine from Fred
! of 164
47 !
Wilson & Co. Palanca had the machine examined
and found out that the machine cannot produce
6000 liters of alcohol per day contrary to the
stipulation in the contract. Palanca sued the Fred
Wilson & Co. for damages on the ground of
breach of contract. The CFI dismissed the action.
HELD: Since there is an ambiguity in the
interpretation of the term “capacity” in the
contract, resort to circumstances under which the
agreement was made can be done. The
circumstances show that the machine delivered
was that stipulated in the contract. Hence, no
breach of contract was present in the case.
purely questions of law. HELD: Judgment on
DOCTRINE: Chapter 4, title 2, book 4 of the Civil
Code, and chapter 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure permit the introduction of evidence to
explain the circumstances under intrinsic
ambiguity.
prohibits the admission of oral evidence to vary or
Philippine National Railways v. CIR of Albay, Br.
1 (1978)
SUMMARY: In their complaint for annulment of
donation, plaintiffs alleged that the donation was
subject to conditions, which they claim were not
complied with by defendant. Plaintiffs, however,
did not expressly plead that the donation was
incomplete or that the execution was vitiated by
mistake or that it did not reflect the intention of
the donor and the donee. Neither did they attach
a copy of the deed of donation to the complaint.
During the trial, defendant objected to plaintiffs’
parol evidence to prove the alleged conditions,
but the TC overruled the objection. HELD: that the
defendant’s objection should be sustained. In
order that parol or extrinsic evidence may be
admitted to vary the terms of the writing, the
mistake or imperfection thereof or its failure to
express the true intent and agreement of the
parties should be put in issue by the pleadings.
The plaintiffs failed to make these claims in their
pleadings. Their complaint merely alleged that the
donation was subject to five conditions.
fraud or mistake.
DOCTRINE: In order that parol or extrinsic
evidence may be admitted to vary the terms of the
writing, the mistake or imperfection thereof or its
failure to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties should be put in issue by the
pleadings.
She sought to have the foreclosure proceedings
Filipinas Manufacturers v. Eastern Rizal
Fabricators (1987)
SUMMARY: FMB filed action to collect sum of
money against ERF, alleging that they extended
P370,000 loan to the latter which the latter failed
to pay despite repeated demands. In its answer,
ERF admitted the indebtedness but alleged that
FMB agreed to forbear collection of payment for
180 banking days, until ERF collects payment
from its own debtors. FMB filed Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings alleging that ERF
failed to tender and issue and admitted the
material allegations of the complaint. FMB also
alleged that Parole Evidence Rule prevented ERF
from presenting evidence on the terms of the
agreement other than that expressed in the
contents of the written agreement. Lower Court
granted motion and ruled for FMB. ERF appealed
to CA which certified case to SC as involving
pleadings was improper. Parole Evidence Rule
does not apply to subsequent modifications by
parties.
DOCTRINE: The parole evidence rule, which
contradict a written contract, does not apply to or
prohibit a subsequent modification by parol
evidence. In other words, subsequent agreements
to written contracts may be made orally and
evidence in reference thereto does not violate the
parol evidence rule.
Lapu Lapu Foundation v. CA (2004)
S U M M A RY: Ta n , p re s i d e n t o f L a p u l a p u
Foundation, obtained loans secured by four
promissory notes. In the collection suit filed
against him and the Foundation, he claims an
unwritten agreement to renew the notes until paid
from his shares.
DOCTRINE: Evidence of a prior or
contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally
not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the
operation of a valid contract. While parol evidence
is admissible to explain the meaning of written
contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of
incorporating into the contract additional
contemporaneous conditions which are not
mentioned at all in writing, unless there has been
Baluyut v. Poblete (2007)
SUMMARY: Petitioner’s inability to pay her debt
caused her mortgaged house and lot to be
foreclosed in favor of private respondent spouses.
nullified on the ground that her promissory note
(which had a maturity of one month) was actually
for one year. The petitioner insists that one of the
respondents’ witnesses testified that the maturity
date was indeed after a year. HELD: SC ruled in
favor of respondents.
DOCTRINE: When the terms of an agreement are
reduced to writing, it is deemed to contain all the
! of 164
48 !
terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms
can be admitted other than the contents of the
agreement itself. While parol evidence is
admissible to explain the meaning of written
contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of
incorporating into the contract additional
contemporaneous conditions which are not
mentioned at all in writing, unless there has been
fraud or mistake.
claim rights under Alfonso and Policronio,
Heirs of Ureta v. Heirs of Ureta (2011)
SUMMARY: The story is about a Deed of Sale
simulated to lessen inheritance taxes. The lower
courts relied upon oral testimony, which clarified
the terms of the Deed, to uphold the fact of
simulation. This reliance is now being questioned
before the SC for being violative of the parol
evidence and hearsay rules.
when a contract may be void for lack of
Alfonso executed, in favor of his children, Deeds
of Sale covering certain parcels of land. The
objective of this transaction was to lessen
inheritance tax upon his death. The subject of the
dispute at bar is the land sold to Alfonso’s son,
Policronio. The dispute is between Policronio’s
heirs and Alfonso’s heirs: nieces/nephews vs. their
uncles/aunts. Simply put, Policronio’s heirs assert
Policronio’s ownership over the land covered by
the Deed of Sale in his name. They claim that said
Deed of Sale is valid and binding. Alfonso’s heirs
claim that the Deed of Sale is not valid, as it was
merely simulated to lessen inheritance tax. The
lower courts ruled that the Deed of Sale was in
fact simulated and invalid because the
preponderance of evidence tilted towards that
fact
contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that
The relevant parol evidence issue arose through
the MR filed with the CA by Policronio’s heirs.
They objected to the court’s reliance upon the oral
testimony of Amparo (she is on the side of the
Heirs of Alfonso, as the daughter of Policronio’s
brother, Liberato), who testified what she had
overheard when Alfonso and his children
discussing the simulation of the contract.
Except as provided in the next succeeding
In this case before the SC, Policronio’s heirs say
that reliance upon this rule was violative of the
rules of parol evidence and hearsay. Specifically
with regard to parol evidence, they say that
Alfonso’s heirs and Amparo were not in a position
to prove the terms outside of the contract
because they were neither parties nor successors-
in-interest in the Deed of Sale in question. HELD:
The SC rejected this argument of Policronio’s
heirs because it was not raised in a timely manner,
and they are deemed to have waived the benefit
of the parol evidence rule. And even if they did
raise the argument in a timely manner, they would
still be wrong.
DOCTRINE: Indeed, the applicability of the parol
evidence rule requires that the case be between
parties and their successors-in-interest. In this
case, both the Heirs of Alfonso (including Amparo)
and the Heirs of Policronio are successors-in-
interest of the parties to the Deed of Sale as they
respectively. The parol evidence rule excluding
evidence aliunde, however, still cannot apply
because the present case falls under two
exceptions to the rule (ROC 130 SEC 9). The
operation of the parol evidence rule requires the
existence of a valid written agreement. It is, thus,
not applicable in a proceeding where the validity
of such agreement is the fact in dispute, such as
consideration. Considering that the Deed of Sale
has been shown to be void for being absolutely
simulated and for lack of consideration, the Heirs
of Alfonso are not precluded from presenting
evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of
the written agreement.
Financial Bidding Corporation v. Rudlin (2010)
SUMMARY: A contract to build a school was
awarded to FBC by Rudlin, allegedly for P6.9M.
However, when FBC was already asking for
payment from Rudlin, Rudlin refused, stating that
the true contract price was actually P6M only, not
P6.9M as indicated in their Agreement.
DOCTRINE: The exception under (a) or (b) under
Sec 9, Rule 130 obtains only where the written
the contractual intention of the parties cannot be
understood from a mere reading of the instrument.
C. Testimonial Evidence
RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

SECTION. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. —
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. (18a)
Civil Code
ARTICLE 821. The following are disqualified from
being witnesses to a will:
(1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines;
! of 164
49 !
 communication. TC is the one who determines if
(2) Those who have been convicted of falsification the child is competent to testify.

of a document, perjury or false testimony. (n)

Recto v. Republic (2004)

RULE 119 – Trial
SECTION 17. Discharge of accused to be state
witness. — When two or more persons are jointly
charged with the commission of any offense, upon
motion of the prosecution before resting its case,
the court may direct one or more of the accused
to be discharged with their consent so that they
may be witnesses for the state when, after
requiring the prosecution to present evidence and
the sworn statement of each proposed state
witness at a hearing in support of the discharge,
the court is satisfied that:
of title of the land.
SUMMARY: Sps. Recto bought land from the
Medrana sisters. The Republic opposed their
application for registration, stating that the sisters
did not prove possession of the land for the
period required by law and that they failed to
overthrow the presumption that the land was
public domain. HELD: The sisters, at 13 years old
(in 1930 and 1935) were competent to be
witnesses to perceive that the land was indeed in
their parents' possession. Thus, Sps. Recto meet
the requirements of the application for registration

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of DOCTRINE: A person is competent to be a
the accused whose discharge is requested;
witness if (a) he is capable of perceiving at the
(b) The is no other direct evidence available for the time of the occurrence of the fact and (b) he can
proper prosecution of the offense committed, make his perception known.

except the testimony of said accused;

It is well-established that any child regardless of
(c) The testimony of said accused can be age, can be a competent witness if he can
substantially corroborated in its material points;
perceive, and perceiving can make known his
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most perception to others and that he is capable of
guilty; and
relating truthfully facts for which he is examined.

(e) Said accused has not at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
witness are: (a) capacity of observation; (b)
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge
shall automatically form part of the trial. If the
court denies the motion for discharge of the
accused as state witness, his sworn statement
shall be inadmissible in evidence. (9a)
knowledge of the fact to which he testifies was
The requirements of a child’s competence as a
capacity of recollection; and (c) capacity of
communication. There is no showing that as a
child, claimant did not possess the foregoing
qualifications. It is not necessary that a witness
obtained in adulthood.

Basic Requisites
1. The testimony of the witness must be RULE 130 – Rules of Admissibility

RELEVANT
 SECTION 21. Disqualification by reason of mental
2. The witness must be COMPETENT incapacity or immaturity. — The following persons
(QUALIFIED) TO TESTIFY
 cannot be witnesses:

3. The testimony must be FORMALLY OFFERED (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of
IN EVIDENCE
their production for examination, is such that they
are incapable of intelligently making known their
People v. Mendoza (1996) perception to others;

SUMMARY: Accused set his wife on fire and their (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to
5-year-old son testified to this. The accused render them incapable of perceiving the facts
challenged the competency and credibility of the respecting which they are examined and of
child as witness. HELD: Accused was competent, relating them truthfully. (19a)

as the RTC found him to be.

DOCTRINE: Any child, regardless of age, can be

a competent witness if he can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known his perception to RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS
others and of relating truthfully facts respecting SECTION 6. Competency.— Every child is
which he is examined.
presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the
Requirements of a child’s competency as a court shall conduct a competency examination of
witness are the: (a) capacity of observation, (b) a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party,
capacity of recollection, and (c) capacity of when it finds that substantial doubt exists
regarding the ability of the child to perceive,

! of 164
50 !
 People v. Deauna (2002)
remember, communicate, distinguish truth from SUMMARY: Josephine testified on behalf of the
falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth prosecution that her father raped her. She later
in court.
recanted and testified on behalf of the defense
(a) Proof of necessity.— A party seeking a that her father did not rape her and she was
competency examination must present proof of insane when she said that he did. HELD: SC
necessity of competency examination. The age of upheld her previous testimony because at that
the child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a time, there was no evidence to prove that she was
competency examination.
insane when she narrated the events of her rape
(b) Burden of proof.— To rebut the presumption of and identified her father as the rapist.

competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of DOCTRINE: Unsoundness of mind does not per
proof lies on the party challenging his se render a witness incompetent. One may be
competence.
insane, yet be capable in law of giving competent
(c) Persons allowed at competency examination. testimony. The general rule is that lunatics or
— Only the following are allowed to attend a persons affected with insanity are admissible as
competency examination:
witnesses, if they have sufficient understanding to
(1) The judge and necessary court personnel;
apprehend the obligation of an oath and are
(2) The counsel for the parties;
capable of giving correct accounts of the matters
(3) The guardian ad litem;
that they have seen or heard with respect to the
(4) One or more support persons for the child; and
questions at issue.

(5) The defendant, unless the court determines

that competence can be fully evaluated in his People v. Macapal (2005)
absence.
SUMMARY: Respondent was convicted by both
(d) Conduct of examination.— Examination of a the lower courts for having raped a 23-year old
child as to his competence shall be conducted mental retardate sometime in June 1996. The rape
only by the judge. Counsel for the parties, was discovered by the victim’s sister after she
however, can submit questions to the judge that noticed that the victim’s belly was bulging – the
he may, in his discretion, ask the child.
victim happened to by 7 months pregnant. The
(e) Developmentally appropriate questions.— The victim thereafter narrated to her sister that
questions asked at the competency examination respondent had raped her in a grassy isolated
shall be appropriate to the age and developmental area while she was on her way home from an
level of the child; shall not be related to the issues errand; and that the respondent threatened to kill
at trial; and shall focus on the ability of the child to her with a knife should she resist, shout, or
remember, communicate, distinguish between recount to anyone the rape which occurred.
truth and falsehood, and appreciate the duty to Respondent questions the credibility of the victim
testify truthfully.
considering she was mentally retarded.

(f) Continuing duty to assess competence.— The
court has the duty of continuously assessing the
competence of the child throughout his testimony.
credible witness. The acceptance of his or her
People v. de Jesus (1984)
SUMMARY: Complainant, a feeble-minded
DOCTRINE: Mental retardation per se does not
affect credibility. A mentally retarded may be a
testimony depends on the quality of his or her
perceptions and the manner he or she can make
them known to the court.

woman, was raped. She testified that accused

inserted penis inside her vagina. Accused argues
that since complainant is feeble-minded, she may
not be considered a competent witness. HELD:
She is a competent witness because there is no
showing that complainant is not capable of
conveying her ideas through words or signs.
DOCTRINE: A witness with mental deficiency like
feeble-mindedness is still a competent witness as
long as there is no showing that they are unable to
People v. Santos (2006)
SUMMARY: Defendant Rene Santos is accused
of raping 5 year old AAA in his house in Apalit,
Pampanga. The victim, who was already six years
old when she testified in court, positively identified
the appellant during the trial. RTC found the
accused guilty and imposed the death penalty. CA
affirmed, giving credence to the testimony of the 6
yr old victim in court.

convey ideas through words or signs.

DOCTRINE: Testimonies of rape victims who are
young and immature, as in this case, deserve full
credence considering that no young woman,
especially one of tender age, would concoct a

! of 164
51 !
story of defloration, allow an examination of her
private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by
being subject to a public trial if she was not
motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for
the wrong committed against her.
RULE 130 – Rules of Admissibility
 and the child died. Presented as evidence for the
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. (20a)
prohibiting the wife and the husband from
Ordoño v. Daquigan (1975)
SUMMARY: Ordono was charged with raping his
two daughters. He objected to his wife (Catalina)
testifying against him during trial citing Rule 130
Sec. 20 (now 22). RTC overruled him and held that
the circumstances fall under the exception stated
in the statute. Ordono filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition against the RTC in the SC. HELD:
SC dismissed the case, the proper interpretation
of the exception is that the offense should, directly
or indirectly, impair the conjugal relation, Ordono
raping his daughters with Catalina certainly falls
under the exception.
DOCTRINE: When an offense directly attack or
directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it
comes within the purview of the exception to the
statute that one shall not be a witness against the
other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime
committed (by) one against the other.
SUMMARY: Roque obtained a judgment against
People v. Castaneda (1979)
SUMMARY: Benjamin Manaloto allegedly forged
his wife’s signature in a deed of sale for a house
and lot belonging to the conjugal partnership.
Victoria (wife) filed a case against him and
charged him with Falsification of Public
Document. The wife was called to the witness
stand, but the defense opposed this and invoked
Sec. 20, Rule 130 (marital disqualification). TC
ruled in favor of the latter. HELD: SC reversed and
held that his case falls under the exception since
it a criminal case for a crime committed by a
husband against his wife.
testify against her husband under Sec. 30(b), Rule
DOCTRINE: When an offense directly attacks, or
directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it
comes within the exception to the statute. In other
words, one shall not be a witness against the
other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime
committed by one against the other.
Wife may testify against husband for crime of
falsification of a deed of sale of conjugal house
and lot where wife was made to appear as having
given far consent to the sale.
People v. Francisco (1947)
SUMMARY: Francisco attacked his wife and child
prosecution were Francisco's confession (which
he claimed was obtained under threat) along with
the rebuttal testimony of his wife (who he claimed
was the one who was responsible for wounding
the child). Upon appeal, Francisco challenged the
admissibility of the testimony of appellant's wife,
invoking the provision of Sec, 26 (d) of Rule 123
testifying for or against each other.
DOCTRINE: Objections to the competency of the
spouse presented to testify against the other may
be waived as in the case of other witnesses
generally. Where the accused husband in his
testimony imputed the commission of the crime to
his wife, he is deemed to have waived his
objection to the latter's testimony rebuttal. The
wife did not testify in the direct evidence for the
prosecution. The wife only testified against her
husband after the latter, testifying in his own
defense, imputed upon her the killing of their son.
This gave the prosecution, which had theretofore
refrained from presenting the wife as a witness
against her husband, the right to do so, as it did in
rebuttal; and the the wife herself the right to so
testify, at least, in self-defense.
Lezama v. Rodriguez (1968)
La Paz for collection of a sum of money (P150K).
He claimed La Paz owed him such money.
Dineros, receiver of La Paz, accused the Paquita
and Jose Manuel Lezama (president and secretary
of La Paz, respectively) of fraudulently conspiring
and colluding with Roque by manipulating the
books of the corporation to make it appear that
the loan existed. The issue in this case was
whether Paquita, who is a co-defendant of her
husband Jose Manuel in the action, may be
examined as a hostile witness by the adverse
party (Dineros) under Sec. 6, Rule 132 ROC,
without infringing on her marital privilege not to
130 ROC. HELD: SC found for the spouses
Lezama.
DOCTRINE: The interests of the spouses Lezama
are necessarily interrelated. Testimony adverse to
the wife's own interests would tend to show the
existence of collusive fraud between the spouses
! of 164
52 !
and work havoc upon their common defense that ELEMENTS
the loan was not fictitious.
1. THE PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM
TESTIFYING ARE ONLY THE PARTIES TO THE
Alvarez v. Ramirez (2005) TRANSACTION, ASSIGNORS OF SUCH PARTIES,
SUMMARY: Husband is accused of burning OR PERSONS IN WHOSE BEHALF A CASE IS
house where estranged wife is. Wife testifies, and PROSECUTED

in the course of the examination, she showed
uncontrolled emotions that led to the suspension
of the proceedings. Husband moved to disqualify
wife pursuant to Sec. 22 Rule, 130. HELD: Their
strained relations was an exception to the
2. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROHIBITED
TESTIMONY IS AS TO ANY MATTER OF FACT
OCCURRING BEFORE THE DEATH OF SUCH
DECEASED PERSON OR BEFORE SUCH
PERSON BECAME OF UNSOUND MIND

disqualification.
3. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROHIBITED
DOCTRINE: (Exception to marital disqualification) TESTIMONY MUST PERTAIN TO THE DEALINGS
Where the marital and domestic relations are so OF THE WITNESS TO THE DECEASED PERSON,
strained that there is no more harmony to be WHICH IS ADVERSE TO THE ESTATE

preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be

disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony Waiver
and tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of 1. Failing to object to the testimony, or

interests disappears and the consequent danger 2. Cross-examining the witness on the prohibited
of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.
testimony, or

3. Offering evidence to rebut the testimony. 


C. DEAD MAN’S STATUTE
Guerrero v. St. Clare’s Realty & Co. (1983)
RULE 130 – Rules of Admissibility
 SUMMARY: Petitioners were assailing the validity
SECTION 23. Section 23. Disqualification by of the deed of sale of a parcel of land owned
reason of death or insanity of adverse party. — purportedly executed in favor of the Manuel
Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons Guerrero. During trial, petitioners presented as
in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an witness one Laura Cervantes, who testified that
executor or administrator or other representative the land was not actually sold but was only
of a deceased person, or against a person of mortgaged by the petitioner to the Manuel.
unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against Counsel of the defendants objected to the line of
the estate of such deceased person or against questioning and alleged that these are matters
such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to prohibited under Sec. 20(a) of Rule 120, now Sec.
any matter of fact occurring before the death of 23 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. HELD: lower
such deceased person or before such person court erred in ruling as such.
became of unsound mind. (20a)
DOCTRINE: Case is not a claim or demand
against the estate of the deceased Manuel
AKA SURVIVOR DISQUALIFICATION RULE Guerrero. The defendants Guerreros are not the
executors or administrators or representatives of
REQUISITES
such deceased. They are being sued as claimants
1. THERE MUST BE A SUIT UPON A CLAIM BY of ownership in their individual capacities of the
THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE ESTATE OF disputed lot. The lot is not a part of the estate of
SAID DECEASED OR PERSON OF UNSOUND Manuel Guerrero. Hence, the dead man’s rule is
MIND
inapplicable.

2. THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE IS THE

EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR OR A Abraham v. Recto-Kasten (1962)
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED OR SUMMARY: The action is a claim on a promissory
THE PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND (THE note against the estate of Juan C. Ysmael.
ESTATE IS THE DEBTOR)
Evidently Juan C. Ysmael executed a promissory
3. THE WITNESS IS THE PLAINTIFF, OR AN for Php 12,500 (in Japanese currency) in favor of
ASSIGNOR OF THAT PARTY, OR A PERSON Alfonso Abraham, Sr. The execution of the note
IN WHOSE BEHALF THE CASE IS was witnessed by herein petitioner, wife of
PROSECUTED
deceased Alfonso Abraham, Sir. The note was
uncollected notwithstanding demand by
petitioners and remained uncollected until the
death of Juan C. Ysmael and Alfonso Abraham,

! of 164
53 !
Sr. The testatrix objected to the claim of the
petitioner invoke Sec. 26(C) of the Rules of Court
in order to prevent the testimony of petitioner on
the circumstances surrounding the execution of
the note.
a defendant, and the case was commenced “by”
DOCTRINE: Sec. 26(c), Rule 123 of the Rules of
Court provides the general rule on testimonies
regarding any matter of fact occurring before the
death of a deceased person or before a person
becomes of unsound mind. However, there was a
waiver of the prohibition when the counsel for the
administratix extensively cross-examined the
witness on the very matters subject of the
prohibition. It was for this reason that the trial
judge eventually overruled the counsel’s vicious
general and continuing objection and admitted the
testimony of the of the witness, petitioner vda.
Abraham.
which he was entitled from the company.
Goni v. CA (1986)
SUMMARY: Praxedes Villanueva bought
negotiated to buy 3 haciendas from the
TABACALERA. However, due to lack of funds, he
offered to sell Hacienda Sarria to Villegas with
Gaspar Vicente as guarantor. When Villanueva
died, Vicente instituted an action for recovery of
property and damages against Goñi (administrator
of Villanueva) basing his entitlement on the
contract/promise to sell executed by the late
V i l l a n u e v a . G o ñ i fi l e d a n a n s w e r w i t h
counterclaim. During trial, Vicente stood as
witness and testified on facts occurring before the
death of Praxedes Villanueva. This was objected
to on the ground that it was in violation of the
Dead man’s Statute. HELD: this was effectively
waived when counsel for petitioners cross-
examined Vicente. Also a counterclaim was filed
against Vicente. When Vicente thus took the
witness stand, it was in a dual capacity as plaintiff
and as defendant in the counterclaim. Evidently,
as defendant in the counterclaim, he was not
disqualified from testifying as to matters of fact
occurring before the death of Praxedes Villanueva
corporation which is a party to an action upon a
DOCTRINE: The privilege to invoke the Dead
Man’s Statute is waived by the defendant where
(a) he cross-examines the plaintiff; and (b) he files
a counterclaim against the plaintiff.
held that FZ estate should be paid the sum of
Tongco v. Vianzon (1927)
SUMMARY: Before Marcelino died, he presented
claims in a cadastral case over certain parcels of
land. Shortly after he died, these parcels of land
were named in his conjugal partnership with
Anastacia. Josefa, Marcelino’s niece and
appointed administratrix, filed an action for
recovery of these properties. TC ruled in favor of
Anastacia, but Josefa questioned the fact that the
TC admitted Anastacia’s testimony. HELD: TC did
not err in admitting Anastacia’s testimony because
a cadastral case does not involve a petitioner and
the estate and not “against” it, as provided in the
provision.
DOCTRINE: Dead man’s statute is subject to
waiver, and is not applicable in a cadastral case
where there is neither a defendant nor a petitioner.
Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf (1949)
SUMMARY: Fitzimmons (FZ) is the president of
the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila.
In 1941 the sum of P64,500 had been credited in
his favor on account of the purchase price of 545
share of stock out of bonuses and dividends to
Afterwards the 2 nd world war broke and
suspended the operations of the company.
Moreover, during this period FZ died in the
internment camp. The company filed a claim of
advances/charges against his estate and also
offered to re-acquire the 545 shares previously
sold. The administrator denied the alleged
indebtedness of the deceased to the claimant,
expressed his conformity to the refund of P64,500
by the claimant to the estate and the retransfer by
the latter to the former of the 545 shares of stoc.
Counterclaim of P90,000 for salaries allegedly due
the deceased from the claimant corresponding to
the years 1942, 1943, and the first half of 1944, at
P36,000 per annum. The company in its argument
summoned the President and Vice-President of
the company. The counsel for the estate opposed
this on the grounds of the “Dead Man’s Statute”,
they being also large stockholders and members
of the board of directors. HELD: The rule
disqualifies only parties or assignors of parties,
but were constrained to hold that the officers and/
or stockholders of a corporation are not
disqualified from testifying, for or against the
claim or demand against the estate of a deceased
person, as to any matter of fact occurring before
the death of such deceased person. The court
P64,500 upon the retransfer by the latter to the
former of the 545 shares of stock purchased by
the decedent in 1939. The administrator is
ordered to pay to the said company the sum of
P868.67 for agents fees. The claim of the
company against the estate for P63,000 and the
counterclaim of the estate against the company
for P90,000 are disapproved.
DOCTRINE: Dead Man’s Statute
! of 164
54 !
“If death has closed the lips of one party, the
policy of the law is to close the lips of the other.”
P2,000 against the estate of his deceased father,
If one party to the alleged transaction is precluded
from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental
disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the
undue advantage of giving his own
uncontradicted and unexplained account of the
transaction.
Central Group of mining claims. The claim having
Razon v. IAC (1992)
SUMMARY: Petitioner Razon was in possession
of stock certificates under the name of deceased
Chuidian. Respondent Vicente filed a complaint
praying for the delivery of the stock certificates.
Petitioner contends that ownership was subject to
the oral agreement with late Chuidian that
ownership is still subject to payment. CFI ruled in
favor of Petitioner Razon. IAC reversed. Petitioner
contends that his testimony must be admissible.
HELD: SC ruled in favor of Petitioner and admitted
the testimony.
DOCTRINE: Petitioner's testimony is not within
the prohibition of the rule on deadman's statute.
Procedure, which is now Rule 123, section 26,
The reason for the rule is that if persons having a
claim against the estate of the deceased or his
properties were allowed to testify as to the
supposed statements made by him (deceased
person), many would be tempted to falsely impute
statements to deceased persons as the latter can
no longer deny or refute them, thus unjustly
subjecting their properties or rights to false or
unscrupulous claims or demands. The purpose of
the law 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
rule, however, delimits the prohibition it
contemplates in that it is applicable to a case
against the administrator or its representative of
an estate upon a claim against the estate of the
deceased person.
Sunga-Chan v. Chua (2001)
Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho (1955)
SUMMARY: Defendants are appealing the
decision of the CFI allowing the testimonies of the
plaintiffs as regards a statement made by the
deceased that he committed fraud.
daughter. Pets. filed Answer with Counterclaim.
DOCTRINE: The reason for the prohibition in the
dead-man’ statute is to prevent the claimants
from making testimonies as against statements
made by the deceased (in a case against the
deceased) because the deceased can no longer
testify against such.
apply, for 2 reasons – Rep. of estate filed a
Icard v. Masigan (1941)
SUMMARY: For services rendered in connection
with the development and location of certain
mining claims, Joseph K. Icard filed a claim of
George M. Icard. His claim was based on a
compromise agreement regarding a previous case
where sum of P39,478.16 be paid to Joseph K.
Icard in full settlement of his personal interest and
that of said George M. Icard in the Antamok
been allowed by the commissioners on claims,
the administrator appealed to the Court of First
Instance, where it was likewise allowed. The
administrator's appeal to this Court rests mainly
on the theory that the probate court erred in
allowing the claimant to testify to the services
rendered by him in favour of his father, because
the action being one against the administrator of a
deceased person, plaintiff cannot be allowed to
testify as to any matter of fact which occurred
before the death of such deceased person, under
Sec. 383, paragraph 7, of Act No. 190, now Rule
123, Sec. 26, paragraph (c), of the Rules of Court.
DOCTRINE: Sec. 383, par. 7, of the Code of Civil
paragraph (c), of the Rules of Court, is designed
to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death
has closed the lips of the party defendant, in order
to remove from the surviving party the temptation
to falsehood and the possibility of fictitious claims
against the deceased. Where, as in the instant
case, the purpose of the oral testimony is to prove
a lesser claim than what might be warranted by
clear written evidence, to avoid prejudice to the
estate of the deceased, the law has certainly no
reason for its application. Ratione cessante,
cessaf ipsa lex. (The reason for a law ceasing, the
law itself ceases. Many if not all laws are brought
in to respond to situations that exists at the time
of the law.)
SUMMARY: Chua and Jacinto entered into a
partnership. When Jacinto died, Pet wife took
over and used the partnership properties to her
own advantage. Resp. Chua filed complaint for
winding up and accounting against Pets wife and
TC found for Chua and ordered Pet to render
account. Pet argued there was no partnership
proven, and that testimonies by Resp. and
witness should be excluded by Dead Man’s
Statute. HELD: Dead Man’s Statute does NOT
counter-claim, and the witness is not a party or
assignor.
DOCTRINE: The Dead Man’s Statute provides
that if one party to the alleged transaction is
! of 164
55 !
precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or
other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not
entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own
uncontradicted and unexplained account of the
transaction. But before this rule can be
successfully invoked to bar the introduction of
testimonial evidence, it is necessary that:
and protection of the rule
1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to
a case or persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted.
testimony, alleging that it is inadmissible under the
survivorship disqualification rule. HELD: SC ruled
in favor of respondent.
DOCTRINE: Exceptions to the Dead Man’s
Statutes are: 1. When no timely objection was
made and 2. When there is a waiver of the benefit
D. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

2. The action is against an executor or RULE 3 - RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

administrator or other representative of a SECTION 3. Privileged Communication. – The
deceased person or a person of unsound mind;
c o n fi d e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r o f a p r i v i l e g e d
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or communication is not lost solely on the ground
demand against the estate of such deceased that it is in the form of an electronic document.

person or against person of unsound mind;

4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact which a. MARITAL COMMUNICATIONS

occurred before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound ROC 130 – Rules of Admissibility
mind.
SEC 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication. — The following persons cannot
Ong Chua v. Carr (1929) testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
SUMMARY: Teck and Lim sold properties to Ong following cases:

Chua subject to a right of repurchase for 4 years.
Ong Chua sold it to Carr, but asked Moore (the
lawyer and notary) to include a stipulation in the
deed respecting the right of repurchase of Teck
and Lim. Moore did not put such a condition and
lied to Ong Chua who did not understand English.
Ong Chua made Moore keep the deed until the
period to repurchase expires. But Carr molested
(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

Moore to deliver it to him. Carr died after the

action was commenced. HELD: SC allowed Ong
REGALADO NOTES
Chua to testify on Carr’s fraudulent scheme.
Requisites:
DOCTRINE: The rule does not render the adverse
1. There was a valid marital relation

party incompetent to testify to fraudulent

2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a
transactions of the deceased. It was not designed
confidential communication between spouses
to shield wrongdoers, but the courts compel the
during said marriage;

adverse party to clearly establish the alleged

3. The spouse against whom such evidence is
fraudulent acts before admitting such testimony

being offered has not given his or her consent to

such testimony

Asturias v. CA (1963)
SUMMARY: Private respondent obtained a loan
from the successors-in-interest of petitioners,
secured by a mortgage over a property. Having
failed to pay, the creditors requested that the
debtor execute a deed of sale with right to
repurchase. The redemption of the property was
postponed several times. The petitioners herein,
notwithstanding that the property was still in
respondent’s possession, subdivided the land and
tried to fence the same. Because petitioners'
continued refusal to have the property redeemed,
respondent filed a case. The petitioners now
contend that the lower courts erred in admitting
and giving credence to the respondent’s

! of 164
56 !
 Marital Privilege vs Martial Disqualification
Disqualification by
Disqualification by
Reason of Marital
Reason of Marriage
Privilege
Can be invoked only if Can be claimed
one of the spouses is a whether or not the
party to the action spouse is a party
Applies only if Can be claimed even
marriage is existing at after the marriage has
the time the testimony been dissolved
is offered
Total prohibition Applies only to
against any testimony confidential
communications
People v. Carlos (1925)
SUMMARY: Dr. Sityar performed a surgical
operation on the wife of Carlos because the latter
was suffering from appendicitis. The former
demanded payment to Carlos but the latter
protested such payment. Dr. Sityar was stabbed
by Carlos after an argument between the two.
Carlos claimed selfdefense. CFI ruled out self-
defense and found that Carlos is guilty of murder.
This is based on a finding of evident premeditation
when the court admitted in evidence a letter
written by the wife of Carlos addressed to him two
days after the death of Dr. Sityar stating that
Carlos might have resorted to physical violence.
HELD: Carlos is guilty only of simple homicide.
The letter is inadmissible because the defense
was not given the opportunity to assent to its
contents during trial.
DOCTRINE: Where a privileged communication
from one spouse to another comes into the hands
of a third party, whether legally or not, without
collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of
either spouses, the privilege is thereby
extinguished and the communication, if
competent, becomes admissible. The illegality of
the search and seizure must be directly litigated
and established by a motion made before trial for
the return of the things seized in order that the
communication be excluded in evidence.
However, in case of letters, the spouses must be
given opportunity in the witness stand to assent to
its contents.
disunion and unhappiness; and fourth, because
US v. Antipolo (1916)
SUMMARY: Mr Antipolo was charged with
murder. The defence presented the widow to
testify as a witness concerning her husband’s
dying declaration that he died due to a fall and
due to the acts of the accused. The prosecutor
objected to the admissibility of such testimony on
the ground that the husband, being dead, could
not have given his consent to such testimony, as
required by procedural rules. TC sustained the
objection and convicted the accused of homicide.
DOCTRINE: SC granted a new trial to admit the
widow’s testimony, based on these reasons: (1)
The husband’s dying declaration to his wife as to
his cause of death was not confidential
communication inside a marital relation, but was
actually intended to be relayed to the authorities.
(2) The privileged nature of marital
communications may be invoked only in cases in
which one spouse’s testimony is offered for or
against the other spouse in a proceeding where
the other is a party. (3) Though marital
communications is privileged during the marriage
or afterwards, it is no longer privileged in cases
where the marriage has been dissolved by death
of one of the spouses.
People v. Francisco (1947)
SUMARY: Defendant was convicted of parricide
for killing his one and a half year old son.
Defendant prays for a reversal of the conviction
while prosecution is praying for the imposition of
capital penalty relying on confession of defendant
and testimony of defendant’s wife alleging that it
was her husband, herein defendant, who stabbed
and killed their son. SC had to decide on the
admissibility of the wife’s testimony in light of the
prohibition against husband and wife testifying
against each other. HELD: The wife’s testimony is
admissible as she can rightfully rebut husband’s
testimony, which alleged that it was his wife who
killed their son. Wife can rightfully testify to the
contrary and allege that the husband, herein
defendant, actually committed the crime.
DOCTRINE: The reason for the prohibition against
husband and wife being witnesses against each
other except in a criminal or civil complaint filed
by them against each other are: First, identity of
interest; second, the consequent danger of
perjury; third, the policy of the law which deems it
necessary to guard the security and confidences
of private life even at the risk of an occasional
failure of justice, and which rejects such evidence
because its admission would lead to domestic
where a want of domestic tranquility exists, there
is danger of punishing one spouse through the
hostile testimony of the other.
Lacurom v. Jacoba (2006)
SUMMARY: After losing a case in the RTC,
Velasco Jacoba filed a Motion for Reconsideration
calling the decision many horrible things, such as
a “legal monstrosity” and a “boner”. After being
! of 164
57 !
made to show cause why she should not be guilty
of contempt, she admitted it was her husband
who prepared the pleading. The husband, upon
also being asked why he should not be held for
contempt, invoked the marital privilege rule.
privilege.
DOCTRINE: The marital privilege rule, being a rule
of evidence, may be waived by failure of the
claimant to object timely to its presentation or by
any conduct that may be construed as implied
consent.
destroyed the stocks of the business. The
b. ATTORNEY – CLIENT PRIVILEGE
RULE 130 – Rules of Admissibility
SECTION 24(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.
in the policies. He filed a suit against the
REGALADO NOTES
Requisites:
1. An attorney and client relation
insurer tried to present the attorney’s testimony (re
2. Invoked with respect to a confidential
communication between them in the course of
professional employment
Chico claimed that such testimony was covered
3. The client has not given his consent to the
attorney’s testimony thereon; or if the
attorney’s secretary, stenographer or clerk is
sought to be examined, that both the client
and the attorney have not given their consent
thereto.
communicated to others are NOT privileged after
Notes
• The attorney must be consulted in his
professional capacity, even if no fee is paid
therefor. Preliminary communications are
within the privilege but only if made for the
purpose of creating the attorney-client
relationship.
SUMMARY: Republic of the PH filed a complaint
• T h e p r i v i l e g e d o e s n o t a p p l y t o
communications which are (1) intended to be
made public; (2) intended to be
communicated to others; (3) intended for an
unlawful purpose; (4) received from third
persons not acting in behalf or as agents of
the client; or (5) made in the presence of third
parties who are strangers to the attorney-
client relationship.
the defendants Raul Roco was excluded as a
• Communications regarding a crime already
committed, made by the offender to an
attorney, consulted as such are privileged
communication. Communications between
attorney and client having to do with the
client’s contemplated criminal act, or in aid or
furtherance thereof, are not covered by the
Uy Chico v. Union Life (1915)
SUMMARY: Uy Chico took over the business of
his father after the latter died. A fire broke out and
business was heavily indebted so creditors
showed up during the father’s estate proceedings.
Uy Chico told his attorney to surrender the
insurance policies on the destroyed business’
stocks to the administrator of his father’s estate.
The administrator then entered into a compromise
a g re e m e n t w i t h t h e i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n y
(defendant) for one-half face value of these
policies. The money was paid to the court where
the estate proceedings of Uy Chico’s father was
pending. Uy Chico changed his mind and wanted
to claim the whole extent of the face value stated
defendant to assert these claims. As a defense,
the insurance company says it already entered
into the said compromise agreement. When the
waiver on such claims through the surrender of
the policies to the administrator of the estate), Uy
under the attorney-client privilege. The lower court
said that such testimony was not within the
privilege. HELD: SC agrees with the TC.
DOCTRINE: Communications made by a client to
his attorney for the purpose of being
they have been so communicated, and may be
proved by the testimony of the attorney. This rule
applies to a compromise agreement perfected by
the attorney with the authority and under the
instructions of his client.
Regala v. Sandiganbayan (1996)
in Sandiganbayan vs Eduardo Cojuangco Jr
(PCGG Case 33) for the recovery of alleged ill-
gotten wealth. Defendants in the case are partners
of the ACCRA Law Firm. PCGG alleges that
petitioners acted as dummies, nominees and/or
agents by allowing themselves, among others, to
be used as instrument in accumulating ill-gotten
wealth through government concessions. One of
party-defendant on his undertaking that he will
reveal the identity of the principal/s for whom he
acted as nominee/stockholder. ACCRA lawyers
! of 164
58 !
requested that PCGG similarly grant the same of such a document is admitted, the court will
treatment to them, but they refused to comply take no notice of the manner in which it was
with the conditions set by PCGG, which included obtained.

the revelation of their clients’ names. The SC held

that the petitioners should be excluded from the Orient Insurance v. Revilla (1930)
Third Amended Complaint because PCGG has no SUMMARY: During trial, the witness made an oral
valid cause of action against them. Their inclusion testimony regarding a letter between him and Teal
as co-defendants in the complaint is merely being Motor’s attorneys. He wanted the court to only
used as leverage to compel them to name their admit that part he testified to, alleging that the
clients and consequently to enable the PCGG to rest of the letter is privileged in nature being an
nail these clients. HELD: SC upholds the attorney-client communication. HELD: No. The
petitioners' right not to reveal the identity of their nature of the content is not privileged. Also, by
clients under pain of the breach of fiduciary duty presenting an excerpt of the letter, they had
owing to their clients, because the facts of the already waived the privilege.
instant case clearly fall within recognized DOCTRINE: Privileged communication may be
exceptions to the rule that the clients name is not waived by presentation of a part/excerpt of the
privileged information. Information relating to the supposed privileged communication.
identity of a client may fall within the ambit of the
privilege when the clients name itself has an Hickman v. Taylor (1947)
independent significance, such that disclosure SUMMARY: The tugboat "JM Taylor" owned by
would then reveal client confidences.
respondent Taylor sank in an accident where 5
DOCTRINE:
crew members died. Taylor enlisted Fortenbaugh
GENERAL RULE: a lawyer may not invoke the as counsel for the anticipated claims and cases
privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity that the victims' representatives would bring.
of his client.
Fortenbaugh privately interviewed the survivors
EXCEPTIONS:
and took statements from them for the anticipated
1. Client identity is privileged where a strong litigation. He also interviewed other persons
probability exists that revealing the clients name believed to have information related to the
would implicate that client in the very activity for accident and made memoranda about it.
which he sought the lawyer’s advice
Petitioner Hickman, a representative of a crew
2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil member who died, filed an interrogatory asking for
liability, his identity is privileged.
the contents of the statements and memoranda
3. Where the government's lawyers have no case Fortenbaugh took and made in connection to the
against an attorney’s client unless, by revealing accident. HELD: One cannot ask that of a lawyer,
the clients name, the said name would furnish the NOT because it is privileged, but because
only link that would form the chain of testimony Hickman did not justify the necessity to obtain
necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the such statements. Furthermore, the privacy of a
clients name is privileged
lawyer is essential in his profession. Hickman did
not prove that his need for such statements was
Barton v. Leyte Asphalt (1924) so exceptional that he would be justified in
SUMMARY: BARTON wrote a letter to his obtaining Fortenbaugh's records and materials.

attorney. LAMOC offered in evidence a carbon
copy of such letter. BARTON’s counsel
questioned the manner in which the document
came into the possession of LAMOC’s counsel.
Lower court judge excluded the document on the
ground that it constitutes privilege communication
between client and attorney. HELD: When papers
are offered in evidence, the court shall disregard
how they were obtained, whether legally or
illegally.
opposing parties and their counsel
DOCTRINE: The privilege which protects
communications between attorney and client
does NOT extend to a copy of a letter written by
the client to his attorney which comes to the
hands of the adverse party. Where the authenticity
DOCTRINE: Since Hickman did not justify his
request, it falls outside the arena of discovery and
contravenes the public policy underlying the
orderly prosecution and defense of legal claims.
Not even the most liberal of discovery theories
can justify unwarranted inquiries into the files and
the mental impressions of an attorney. | It is
essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree
of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by
Upjohn v. US (1981)
SUMMARY: Internal investigation on anomalous
foreign transactions was conducted by petitioner
corporation. Counsel sent questionnaire to and

! of 164
59 !
conducted interviews with its employees. IRS,
conducting its own investigation, ordered
production of such questionnaires and notes of
the interviews. Petitioner declined to produce the
documents arguing that they were protected by
attorney-client privilege and work-product
doctrine. CA held that privilege not applicable
since interviews and questionnaires only involved
employees, not senior management or officers
who are considered the actual “clients”. CA also
held that work-product doctrine did not apply to
administrative summons. HELD: SC reversed CA,
held that employees covered by attorney-client
privilege. Also, administrative summons not
precluded from application of work-product
doctrine.
falsification of public document against her, a
DOCTRINE: Attorney-client privilege exists to
protect not only the giving of professional advice
to those who can act on it but also the giving of
information to the lawyer to enable him to give
sound and informed advice. Non-management
employees are also covered by the attorney-client
privilege.
asserting the privilege.
McGee v. Estrelle, Jr. (1983)
SUMMARY: McGee received an enhanced
sentence upon his third conviction. He filed a
petition for habeas corpus, claiming that his
counsel was ineffective during trial for failing to
object to the admission of the prior conviction into
evidence.
examined as to any advice or treatment given by
DOCTRINE: To establish prejudice, a habeas
petitioner must show that ineffective counsel
"resulted in actual and substantial disadvantage
to the course of his defense."
necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and
People v. Sandiganbayan (1997)
SUMMARY: Generoso was Ceferino’s lawyer for
several civil and criminal cases, while Mansueto
was a clerk of court. The three of them were
charged with falsification of documents. They
allegedly falsified a notice of arraignment of
Ceferino on a perjury charge to get the graft case
against him dismissed on double jeopardy.
Generoso sought to be discharged as a state
witness, but the Ombudsman rejected this on the
grounds of attorney client privilege. HELD: SC
disagreed and said this case falls within the
exception of that rule.
DOCTRINE: The period to be considered is the
date when the privileged communication was
made by the client to the attorney in relation to
either a crime committed in the past or with
respect to a crime intended to be committed in
the future. In other words, if the client seeks his
lawyer’s advice with respect to a crime that the
former has theretofore committed, he is given the
protection of a virtual confessional seal, which
cannot be broken by the attorney without the
c l i e n t ’s c o n s e n t . T h e s a m e p r i v i l e g e d
confidentiality, however, does not attach with
regard to a crime, which a client intends to
commit in the future and for purposes of which he
seeks the lawyers advice.
Mercado v. Vitrolo (2005)
SUMMARY: Rosa F. Mercado filed the instant
administrative complaint against Atty. Julito D.
Vitriolo, seeking his disbarment from the practice
of law. The complainant alleged that respondent
maliciously instituted a criminal case for
former client, based on confidential information
gained from their attorney-client relationship.
HELD: SC ruled in the negative.
DOCTRINE: It is not enough to merely assert the
attorney-client privilege. The burden of proving
that the privilege applies is placed upon the party
c. PHYSICIAN – PATIENT PRIVILEGE
RULE 130 – Rules of Admissibility
SECTION 24(c). A person authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil
case, without the consent of the patient, be
him or any information which he may have
acquired in attending such patient in a
professional capacity, which information was
which would blacken the reputation of the patient
RULE 28 – Physical and Mental Examination of
Persons
SEC. 4. Waiver of privilege. — By requesting and
obtaining a report of the examination so ordered
or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the
party examined waives any privilege he may have
in that action or any other involving the same
controversy, regarding the testimony of every
other person who has examined or may thereafter
examine him in respect of the same mental or
physical examination.
! of 164
60 !
REGALADO NOTES
Requisites
1. The physician is authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics
where it is asserted in such a case, the physician
2. The information was acquired or the advice of
treatment was given by him in his professional
capacity for the purpose of treating and curing
the patient
patient acquired through the physician and patient
3. The information, advice or treatment, if
revealed, would blacken the reputation of the
patient
knowledge of the patient’s condition he should
4. The privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether
the patient is a party thereto or not
opinion.
Notes
• It is not necessary that the relationship was
created through the voluntary act of the
patient
• The privilege does not apply where (1) the
communication was not given in confidence;
(2) the communication is irrelevant to the
professional employment; (3) the
communication was made for an unlawful
purpose, as When it is intended for the
commission or concealment of a crime; (4) the
information was intended to be made public;
or (5) there was a waiver of the privilege either
by provisions of contract or law.
physician-patient relationship, may testify on the
Lim v. CA (1992)
SUMMARY: Annulment case between petitioner
and private respondent. Private respondent claims
that petitioner is mentally ill. Private respondent
asked the RTC to let Dr. Acampado to testify as
an expert witness re: schizophrenia. Petitioner
objected to this on the ground that Dr. Acampado
diagnosed petitioner as being schizoprenic and
that the doctor’s testimony is privileged
communication and he cannot testify without
petitioner’s consent. Respondent judge denied the
objection and allowed the doctor to testify.
Petitioner filed for certiorari with the CA that was
eventually denied. HELD: SC affirms the decision
of the CA, Dr. Acampado was summoned as an
expert witness and the line of questioning was
purely hypothetical and was never about any
knowledge that the doctor may have obtained
from treating the petitioner.
the estate that were received and mortgaged by
DOCTRINE: The statutory physician-patient
privilege, though duly claimed, is not violated by
permitting a physician to give expert opinion
testimony in response to a strictly hypothetical
question in a lawsuit involving the physical mental
condition of a patient whom he has attended
professionally, where his opinion is based strictly
upon the hypothetical facts stated, excluding and
disregarding any personal professional knowledge
he may have concerning such patient. But in order
to avoid the bar of the physician-patient privilege
must base his opinion solely upon the facts
hypothesized in the question, excluding from
consideration his personal knowledge of the
relationship. If he cannot or does not exclude from
c o n s i d e r a t i o n h i s p e r s o n a l p ro f e s s i o n a l
not be permitted to testify as to his expert
Krohn v. CA (1994)
SUMMARY: A confidential psychiatric evaluation
report is being presented in evidence before the
TC in a petition for annulment of marriage
grounded on psychological incapacity. The
witness testifying on the report is the husband
who initiated the annulment proceedings, not the
physician who prepared the report. The subject of
the evaluation report, Ma. Paz Fernandez Krohn,
invoking the rule on privileged communication
between physician and patient, seeks to enjoin
her husband from disclosing the contents of the
report. HELD: The husband, a third party to the
Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report.
DOCTRINE: A third party may testify on the
contents of documents executed by a medical
practitioner which the latter has acquired as a
result of his confidential and privileged relation
with a patient.
Gonzales v. CA (1998)
SUMMARY: The siblings of deceased Ricardo De
Mesa sought to settle the estate and partition
among themselves his properties, claiming that
their brother died single with no heirs. Honoria
Empaynado came forward claiming to be the
common-law wife of Ricardo. She also claimed
they had two daughters (Cecilia and Marian) and
that Ricardo had another daughter (Rosemarie)
with another woman. TC declared Cecilia, Marian,
and Rosemarie as natural children and rightful
heirs of Ricardo Abad, and that properties from
the petitioners should be returned to the rightful
heirs and administratrix (Honoria).
Upon appeal, petitioners submitted proof of how
Cecilia and Marian could not have been children
of Ricardo, including an affidavit from Dr. Arenas
stating that Ricardo became sterile after getting
infected with gonorrhea. Respondents objected to
Dr. Arena's affidavit, claiming that it falls under
! of 164
61 !
Physician-Patient privilege under Sec. 24 (c), Rule Tiu Notes
130.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE - REQUISITES

D O C T R I N E : T h e r u l e o n c o n fi d e n t i a l 1. IT IS THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO

communications between physician and patient WITHHOLD MILITARY, DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER
requires that for the privilege to apply: e) the NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS FROM THE
disclosure of the information would tend to PUBLIC, THE COURTS, AND THE CONGRESS.

blacken the reputation of the patient. Patient 2. IT IS THE INFORMATION ITSELF THAT IS
became sterile due to gonorrhea. Given that PRIVILEGED, NOT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS
society holds virility at a premium, sterility alone, THEMSELVES

without the attendant embarrassment of 3. THERE MUST BE A FORMAL CLAIM OF THE

contracting a sexually-transmitted disease, would PRIVILEGE WITH SPECIFIC BASIS GIVEN
be sufficient to blacken the reputation of any
patient. Dr.'s affidavit is therefore inadmissible.
US v. Nixon (1974)
SUMMARY: This is a landmark US case about the
d. PRIEST/MINISTER – PENITENT Watergate scandal. SC here reached a unanimous
PRIVILEGE decision (8-0). (Background of Watergate scandal:
5 months before the 1972 general election, the
RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
headquarters of the Democratic National
SECTION 24(d). A minister or priest cannot, Committee at the Watergate Complex in
without the consent of the person making the Washington, DC, were broken into. Investigations
confession, be examined as to any confession were conducted, and it was discovered that there
made to or any advice given by him in his was a connection between cash found on the
professional character in the course of discipline burglars and the fund used by Nixon’s campaign
enjoined by the church to which the minister or committee for his re-election. President Nixon and
priest belongs
his subordinates were accused of covering up
their involvement in the break-in. Later on, it was
Requisites discovered that he used a tape-recording system
1. A PERSON GIVES A CONFESSION TO A in his office.)

MINISTER OR PRIEST, OR THE LATTER GIVES Subpoena duces tecum was issued by Special
ADVICE
Prosecutor Jaworski for the production before trial
2. CONFESSION OR ADVICE MUST BE GIVEN of certain tapes and documents re: conversations
OR MADE IN THE MINISTER’S “PROFESSIONAL and meetings between the President and his staff
CHARACTER”, OR IN HIS “SPIRITUAL” members and supporters. President Nixon
CAPACITY.
claimed executive privilege and filed a motion to
3. THE CONFESSION AND THE ADVICE MUST quash. SC held that it had been proven that there
BE MADE OR GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE was a sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes
COURSE OF DISCIPLINE OF THE contains conversations relevant to the offenses
DENOMINATION OR SECT TO WHICH THE charged in the indictment. It rejected Nixon's
MINISTER OR PRIEST BELONGS.
claim to an absolute, unqualified Presidential
privilege of immunity from judicial process under
e. STATE SECRETS all circumstances.

DOCTRINE: Neither the doctrine of separation of

RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
SECTION 24(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.
of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive
powers (1st argument) nor the generalized need for
confidentiality of high-level communications (2nd
argument) can sustain an absolute, unqualified
Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial
process under all circumstances. Absent a claim
national security secrets, the confidentiality of
Presidential communications is not significantly
diminished by producing material for a criminal
trial under the protected conditions of in camera
inspection, and any absolute executive privilege
under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly
conflict with the function of the courts under the
Constitution. The President's generalized

! of 164
62 !
assertion of privilege must yield to the
demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a
pending criminal trial and the fundamental
demands of due process of law in the fair
administration of criminal justice.
the President as a pre-requisite before said
Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board (1986)
SUMMARY: Petitioner moved for the production
of certain documents relating to its closure.
Respondents argue that the documents sought to
be produced are privileged and confidential,
pursuant to the Central Bank Act and that it will
The documents are not privileged and that these
constitute or contain evidence material to the
issues being inquired into by the Court.
DOCTRINE: Section 21, Rule 130 of the RoC is
intended not for the protection of public officers
but for the protection of public interest. Where
there is no public interest that would be
prejudiced, this invoked rule will not be applicable.
Public interests will be best served by the
disclosure of the documents. Not only the banks
and its employees but also its numerous
depositors and creditors are entitled to be
informed as to whether or not there was a valid
and legal justification for the petitioner’s bank
closure. Neither will it trigger any bank run nor
compromise state secrets. Respondent’s reason
for their resistance to the order of production are
tenuous and specious. If the respondent public
officials acted rightfully and prudently in the
performance of their duties, there should be
nothing at all that would provoke fear of
disclosure.
Almonte v. Vasquez (1995)
SUMMARY: The Office of the Ombudsman
received an anonymous latter alleging that funds
representing savings from unfilled positions in the
EIIB had been illegally disbursed. The
Ombudsman issued subpoena duces tecum for
the production of the documents relating to to
Personal Service Funds of the said agency.
Respondents assailed the validity of the issuance
of subpoena duces tecum, invoking governmental
privilege against disclosure of documents. The
Court ruled in favor of respondents.
grandparents, except when such testimony is
DOCTRINE: At common law a governmental
privilege against disclosure is recognized with
respect to state secrets bearing on military,
diplomatic and similar matters. But where the
claim of confidentiality does not rest on the need
to protect military, diplomatic or other national
security secrets but on a general public interest in
the confidentiality of conversations, the privilege
does not hold.
Senate v. Ermita (2006)
SUMMARY: Senate assails the constitutionality of
Executive Order 464 which requires officials of the
Executive Department to obtain prior consent of
officials may appear in a Congressional Inquiry in
Aid of Legislation. The President issued the
assailed resolution on the premise of identifying
before hand whether or not the information sought
by the Congress is covered by Executive Privilege
and, therefore, must be withheld.
DOCTRINE: Congress undoubtedly has a right to
information from the executive branch whenever it
is sought in aid of legislation. If the executive
branch withholds such information on the ground
that it is privileged, it must so assert it and state
the reason therefor and why it must be respected.
The infirm provisions of E.O. 464, however, allow
the executive branch to evade congressional
requests for information without need of clearly
asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its
reasons therefor. By the mere expedient of
invoking said provisions, the power of Congress
to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is
frustrated. That is impermissible. Resort to any
means then by which officials of the executive
branch could refuse to divulge information cannot
be presumed valid. Otherwise, we shall not have
merely nullified the power of our legislature to
inquire into the operations of government, but we
shall have given up something of much greater
value – our right as a people to take part in
government.
f. PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
RULE 130 – Rules of Admissibility
SECTION 25. Parental and Filial Privilege. — No
person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other
direct descendants.
CIVIL CODE
ART 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in a
criminal case, to testify against his parents and
indispensable in a crime against the descendant
or by one parent against the other. 
! of 164
63 !
Tiu Notes
Exceptions:
1. A PERSON CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO
TESTIFY AGAINST HIS DIRECT ASCENDANTS
OR DESCENDANTS
information when properly subpoenaed to appear
2. THE RULE APPLIES TO BOTH CRIMINAL AND
CIVIL CASES
i n t h i s C o u r t e i t h e r t h a t n e w s m e n a re
People v. Invencion (2003)
SUMMARY: Artemio was charged with 13 counts
of rape. Among the witnesses presented against
him was his son, Elven Invension (8 y/o). TC found
him guilty of rape in 1 case and acquitted him in
the other 12 cases. His appeal challenged the
credibility and competency of Elven, claiming he
is disqualified on the basis of Sec. 20(c), Rule 130.
HELD: Elven is NOT DISQUALIFIED from
testifying.
account of an article published by them regarding
DOCTRINE: The rule on filial privilege is not
strictly a rule on disqualification because a
descendant is not incompetent or disqualified to
testify against an ascendant. The rule refers to a
privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or
waived like other privileges.
especially one national in reach and coverage,
g. NEWSMAN’S PRIVILEGE
See: RA 53 as amended by RA 1477
aka Editorial/Journalist Privilege
REGALADO NOTES
Under R.A. 53, as amended by R.A. 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, 1unless the court or a House
or committee of Congress finds that such
revelation is demanded by the security of the
State.
criminal suits are leveled by persons wishing to
In the Matter of Farber (1978)
SUMMARY: New York Times and Myron Farber in
the case at bar are challenging several court
orders compelling them to produce certain
documents and materials that are relevant to an
ongoing murder case against Dr. Mario E.
Jascalevich. They were both found guilty of
contempt of court and imposed a fine of $100,000
for New York Times and $1000 for Farber in
addition to six months imprisonment. In the
Appellate Division, stay of the contempt orders
were granted but not as to orders for relief of
litigant. HELD: Appellants were not entitled to the
privilege that they are claiming on the ground that
it has no basis in law.
requirements of this Act and its implementing
DOCTRINE: Newspaper reporters or other media
representatives have no privilege deriving from the
First Amendment to refrain from divulging
confidential information and the sources of such
before a grand jury. There is no present authority
constitutionally privileged to withhold duly
subpoenaed documents material to the
prosecution or defense of a criminal case or that a
defendant seeking the subpoena must show
extraordinary circumstances before enforcement
against newsmen will be had.
Yambot v. Tuquero (2011)
SUMMARY: Respondent Judge filed a libel case
against several PDI officers and employees on
an alleged mauling incident involving respondent.
What respondent particularly found to be
malicious is the statement that there is a pending
case of sexual harassment against him.
DOCTRINE: In Borjal v. CA, "[a] newspaper
should be free to report on events and
developments in which the public has a legitimate
interest with minimum fear of being hauled to
court by one group or another on criminal or civil
charges for libel, so long as the paper respects
and keeps within standards of morality and civility
prevailing within the general community." Like fair
commentaries on matters of public interest, fair
reports on the same should thus be included
under the protective mantle of privileged
communications, and should not be subjected to
microscopic examination to discover grounds of
malice or falsity. Privileged communication is
implicit in the constitutionally protected freedom
of the press, which would be threatened when
silence the media due to unfounded claims of
inaccuracies in news reports.
h. INFORMER’S PRIVILEGE
RA 6981 – Witness Protection Security and
Benefit Act
SECTION. 11. Sworn Statement.  - Before any
person is admitted into the Program pursuant to
the next preceding Section he shall execute a
sworn statement describing in detail the manner
in which the offense was committed and his
participation therein. If after said examination of
said person, his sworn statement and other
relevant facts, the Department is satisfied that the
! of 164
64 !
rules are complied with, it may admit such person
into the Program and issue the corresponding
certification.
said person, his sworn statement and other
If his application for admission is denied, said
sworn statement and any other testimony given in
support of said application shall not be admissible
in evidence, except for impeachment purposes.
into the Program and issue the corresponding
McCray v. Illinois (1967)
SUMMARY: Petitioner was arrested in Chicago,
Illinois, for possession of narcotics. The Chicago
police officers who made the arrest based on
information received from an informer found a
package containing heroin on his person, and he
was indicted for its unlawful possession. On
cross-examination, petitioner sought for the
disclosure of the informant's identity. State
objected. Court sustained the objection. Petitioner
was convicted. HELD: SC of Illinois affirmed
conviction.
must serve with utmost fidelity and integrity;
DOCTRINE: A state court is under no absolute
duty under either the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment or under the Sixth
Amendment to require disclosure of an informer's
identity at a pretrial hearing held for the purpose
of determining only the question of probable
cause for an arrest or search where, there was
ample evidence in an open and adversary
proceeding that the informer was known to the
officers to be reliable and that they made the
arrest in good faith upon the information he
supplied.
that he may freely testify as to the official
RULE 119
SECTION 19. Remedy where accused is not
brought to trial within the time limit. — If the
accused is not brought to trial within the time limit
required by Section 1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1,
as extended by Section 6 of this rule, the
information may be dismissed on motion of the
accused on the ground of denial of his right of
speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of
proving the motion but the prosecution shall have
the burden of going forward with the evidence to
establish the exclusion of time under section 3 of
this rule. The dismissal shall be subject to the
rules on double jeopardy.
amended: Section 345 of the Internal Revenue
RA 6981 (Witness Protection Security and Benefit
Act)
Section 11. Sworn Statement. - Before any
person is admitted into the Program pursuant to
the next preceding Section he shall execute a
sworn statement describing in detail the manner
in which the offense was committed and his
participation therein. If after said examination of
relevant facts, the Department is satisfied that the
requirements of this Act and its implementing
rules are complied with, it may admit such person
certification.
If his application for admission is denied, said
sworn statement and any other testimony given in
support of said application shall not be admissible
in evidence, except for impeachment purposes.
PD 749 (GRANTING IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION TO GIVERS OF BRIBES AND
OTHER GIFTS AND TO THEIR ACCOMPLICES IN
BRIBERY AND OTHER GRAFT CASES AGAINST
PUBLIC OFFICERS)
WHEREAS, public office is a public trust: public
officers are but servants of the people, whom they
WHEREAS, it has heretofore been virtually
impossible to secure the conviction and removal
of dishonest public servants owing to the lack of
witnesses: the bribe or giftgivers being always
reluctant to testify against the corrupt public
officials and employees concerned for fear of
being indicted and convicted themselves of
bribery and corruption;
WHEREAS, it is better by far and more socially
desirable, as well as just, that the bribe or gift
giver be granted immunity from prosecution so
corruption, than that the official who receives the
bribe or gift should be allowed to go free,
insolently remaining in public office, and
continuing with his nefarious and corrupt
practices, to the great detriment of the public
service and the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers in me vested by the Constitution, do
hereby decree and order that:
Section 1. Any person who voluntarily gives
information about any violation of Articles 210,
211 and 212 of the Revised Penal Code, Republic
Act Numbered Three Thousand Nineteen, as
Code and Section 3604 of the Tariff and Customs
Code and other provisions of the said Codes
penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the
public officials concerned; and other laws, rules
and regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption
and other forms of official abuse; and who
willingly testifies against any public official or
employee for such violation shall be exempt from
! of 164
65 !
prosecution or punishment for the offense with Decree are hereby repealed or modified
reference to which his information and testimony accordingly.

were given, and may plead or prove the giving of Section 5. This Decree shall take effect
such information and testimony in bar of such immediately.

prosecution: Provided, that this immunity may be DONE in the City of Manila, this 18th day of July,
enjoyed even in cases where the information and in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
testimony are given against a person who is not a seventy-five.

public official but who is a principal, or

accomplice, or accessory in the commission of
any of the above-mentioned violations: Provided i. Trade Secrets
further, that this immunity may be enjoyed by such
informant or witness notwithstanding that he Tiu Notes
offered or gave the bribe or gift to the public Because of public policy, trade secrets are
official or is an accomplice for such gift or privileged and the rules providing for the
bribegiving; and Provided, finally, that the production and inspection of books and papers
following conditions concur:
do not authorize their production in a court of law.
1. The information must refer to consummated (Air Philippines Corporation vs Pennswell Inc,
violations of any of the abovementioned 2007) 

provisions of law, rules and regulations;
But note that a claim of the confidential nature of
2. The information and testimony are necessary trade secrets must have “substantial factual basis
for the conviction of the accused public officer;
which can pass judicial scrutiny.” (Cocoland
3. Such information and testimony are not yet in Development Corporation vs National Labor
the possession of the State;
Relations Commission, 1996) 

4. Such information and testimony can be
corroborated on its material points; and
Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell (2007)
5. The informant or witness has not been SUMMARY: Petitioner is seeking to compel
previously convicted of a crime involving moral defendant to divulge the composition of its
turpitude.
products to prove that it was defrauded.
Section 2. The immunity granted hereunder shall DOCTRINE: The ingredients and composition of
not attach should it turn out subsequently that the defendant’s products are trade secrets which may
information and/or testimony is false and not be divulged as such would lead to a violation
malicious or made only for the purpose of of defendant’s rights and the creation of an undue
harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing the advantage in favor of its competitors. There are
public officer denounced. In such a case, the other privileged matters which may not be
public officer so denounced shall be entitled to testified to in court in addition to the ones
any action, civil administrative or criminal, against enumerated under Rule 130 and trade secrets is
said informant or witness: Provided, however, one of these. (citing Francisco)
That such action may be commenced only after
the dismissal of the case against the denounced
public officer after preliminary investigation or
after the latter’s acquittal by a competent court.

The prescriptive periods for the various actions

under the provisions of this section shall start to
run from the time such actions may be
commenced as herein provided. (As amended by
BP Blg. 242, approved Nov. 11, 1982.)

Section 3. All preliminary investigations conducted

by a prosecuting fiscal, judge or committee, and
all proceedings undertaken in connection
therewith, shall be strictly confidential or private in
order to protect the reputation of the official under
investigation in the event that the report proves to
be unfounded or no prima facie case is
established.

Section 4. All acts, decrees and rules and

regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this
! of 164
66 !
IV. Admissions and Confessions

A. Admissions against interest

RULE 130
SECTION 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.

Sec. 32. Admission by silence. – An act or

declaration made in the presence and within the
hearing or observation of a party who does or
says nothing when the act or declaration is such
as naturally to call for action or comment if not
true, and when proper and possible for him to do
so, may be given in evidence against him.

Rule 132
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.

Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial Admissions

Governing Rules Rule 129, Sec. 4 Rule 130, Sec. 26-35

Requirements 1. Must be made by a party to the 1. Must be made by a party to the

case
case

2. Must be made in the same case, 2. It is made out of court. It is not

in the course of the proceedings made in the course of the
proceedings

Effects 1. The admission is deemed 1. Must still be formally offered in

automatically part of the evidence

records of the case

2. The admission may be given in

2. The admission need not be evidence against the party
formally offered in evidence
making it

3. The admission is conclusive

against the admitting party
(except in certain cases)

! of 164
67 !

Definition
How it should made
Application in Criminal Cases
Where it should be made
In relation to the Doctrine of
Adoptive Admission
ADMISSIONS CONFESSIONS
Merely a statement of fact not
directly involving an
There is an acknowledgement of
acknowledgement of guilt or the
guilt
criminal intent to commit the
offense with which one is charged
It cannot be implied. It must be a
It may be express or implied. An
positive acknowledgment of guilt
express admission is a positive
and cannot be inferred. Sec. 33 of
statement or act. An implied
Rule 130 refers to a confession as a
admission is one which may be
“declaration” which connotes an
inferred from the declarations or
affirmative statement from the
acts of a person.
person making the confession
It is a statement by the accused,
direct or implied, of facts pertinent It is an acknowledgment in express
to the issue, and tending, in terms, by a party in a criminal case,
connection with proof of other of his guilt of the crime charged
facts, to prove his guilt.
Admissions may be judicial or
A confession may be also judicial or
extrajudicial. An admission is
extrajudicial. But while a judicial
judicial when made in the course of
confession may sustain a
a judicial proceeding. An admission
conviction, an extrajudicial
is extrajudicial when made out of
confession is not sufficient for
court or even in a proceeding other
conviction
than the one under consideration
An admission may also be
adoptive. This admission occurs
when a person manifests his assent
to the statements of another
Cannot be adoptive
person. The admission may be
received in evidence if it can be
shown that a party adopted the
statements as his own
! of 164
68 !
Viacrucis v. CA (1972)
SUMMARY: Guillermo Viacrucis and Luisa De
Viacrucis was in possession of the said land in
dispute. Anastacio Orais and his wife Celestina
Malazarte, brought this action, in the CFI of Leyte,
to establish their title to a land of about four (4)
hectares, located in Matag-ob, Leyte, and more
particularly described in the complaint alleging
that it is part of a bigger lot sold to them, on June
8, 1936, by its registered owner, Pedro Sanchez,
by virtue of a deed of sale. In their answer to said
complaint, Mr. and Mrs. Viacrucis averred that
they are the owners of said 4-hectare land; that
the deed of sale in favor of Anastacio Orais, on
which Orais and company rely, attests merely to a
simulated transaction; and that this action is
barred by the statute of limitations. CFI rejected
the defenses of Viacrucis spouses and declared
that the land in dispute belongs to Orais Spouses.
CA affirmed CFI. Viacrucis spouses in its Petition
before the SC stated that the CA, like the TC,
considered in favor of Orais - allegedly in violation
of Section 25 of said Rule 130 - the admission of
Mrs. Beatriz Costelo, to the effect that, although
the land in dispute was physically in the
possession of her now deceased husband,
Pelagio Costelo, he and she recognized Orais as
the owner of said land.
Cudillan pointed to his co-accused and they just
DOCTRINE: It should be noted, that said
testimony of Mrs. Costelo and this recognition by
the now deceased Pelagio Costelo - which were
confirmed by the public document Exh. G –
constitute a declaration of Mr. and Mrs. Costelo
adverse to their own interest, which is admissible
in evidence, pursuant to section 32 of said Rule
130. Petitioners have no reason whatsoever to
object to the consideration in favor of Orais of
said admission, the same having been made in
1936, more than five (5) years before their
(petitioners) predecessor in interest, Balentin
Ruizo, had entered into the picture, when Orais
and Costelo were the only parties who had any
interest in the object of said admission. Pursuant
to said legal provision, such admission "may be
received in evidence," not only against the party
who made it "or his successors in interest," but,
also, "against third persons."
collect sums of money against the defendants
Keller & Co., Ltd. v. COB Group Mktg. (1986)
SUMMARY: COB Group became exclusive
distributor of Keller’s products. COB mortgaged
several properties as security. In some of these
documents and other evidence, COB admitted its
liability of 179k to Keller. When Keller later sued
COB, it denied liability and even claimed
overpayment. TC & CA found for COB. HELD: SC
reversed, saying COB had already given
admissions which could be used as evidence
against it.
DOCTRINE: Sec. 22, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court (before) provides that the act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him "as admissions of a
party".
People v. Paragsa (1978)
SUMMARY: Mirasol claimed accused raped her.
She did not resist, she did not ask for help during
or after. HELD: Tita Lita caught Mirasol having
sex. The testimony of the accused and 2
witnessed that they were sweethearts was not
rebutted.
DOCTRINE: The rule allowing the silence of a
person to be taken as an implied admission of the
truth of the statements uttered in his presence is
applicable in criminal cases.
People v. Alegre (1979)
SUMMARY: Respondents were accused in the
robbery with homicide involving death of Adelina
Sajo. The lower court convicted them on the basis
of the testimonies of Isla, a police officer, and
Carillo, a detention prisoner. Isla said that accused
remained silent. Carillo said the accused admitted
to him while they were in detention that they
participated in the crime. HELD: SC acquitted
them because their silence did not mean
admission. The remaining evidence are not
sufficient to warrant conviction.
DOCTRINE: Silence of an accused under
custody, or his failure to deny statements by
another implicating him in a crime cannot be
considered a tacit confession of his participation
in the commission of the crime. Such an inference
of acquiescence drawn from his silence would be
incompatible with his right against self-
incrimination
Philippine Trust Co. v. Antigua Botics Ramirez
(1932)
SUMMARY: Philippine Trust filed a complaint to
based on an overdraft account and two
promissory notes. The CFI dismissed the 3
complaints. Philippine Trust filed an appeal to SC
contending that the CFI erred in not admitting in
evidence Exhibit EE. Said exhibit contains the
minutes of a Stockholder’s Meeting of the Antigua
Botica the transcript of which includes admissions
of defendants to the obligations sued upon. The
defendants contend that they were not given an
! of 164
69 !
opportunity to explain their statements during trial.
HELD: The Exhibit is not shown to impeach
statements of the defendants but were only
shown as admissions against interest. Hence,
laying the foundation is not required.
SUMMARY: Republic is assailing the title of
DOCTRINE: If a testimony is shown to contain
admissions against interest, such testimony is
admissible without the laying of a foundation
(having the person who made such testimony
explain the statements during trial).
and pleadings of the case concerning the
Rufina Patis Factory v. Alustain (2004)
SUMMARY: Mr Alusitain has been working as a
labourer for Rufina Patis Factory since 1948. After
nearly 43 years or on 19 February 1991, he
tendered his letter of resignation. On 22 May
1991, he executed an Affidavit of Separation from
employment and submitted it to the SSS to get
his pension. However, claiming he retired from the
factory only on 31 January 1995 upon reaching 65
years old, he demanded retirement benefits
amounting to P86,710 from the Rufina Patis
Factory, which refused his demand. He filed a
complaint with the NLRC for his retirement
benefits, offering his sworn statement and the
sworn statement of his daughter to show that he
continued working for Rufina Patis Factory until
January 1995. The defence argued that his letter
of resignation and Affidavit of Separation wherein
he says that he had retired in February 1991
contain admissions against his interest. Mr
Alusitain argued that he executed these
documents only for the purpose of getting his
pension from SSS. HELD: SC relied on Mr
Alusitain’s admissions against his interest in his
letter of resignation and Affidavit of Separation to
rule that he is not entitled to retirement benefits.
made the plea or offer.
DOCTRINE: Being an admission against interest,
the documents are the best evidence which
affords the greatest certainty of the facts in
dispute. The rationale for the rule is based on the
presumption that no man would declare anything
against himself unless such declaration was true.
The disserving quality of the admission is judged
as of the time it is used or offered in evidence and
not when such admission is made. Thus, it
matters not that the admission is self-serving
when it was made, so long as it is against the
declarant’s present claim.
other matters requiring his presence. In case of
Nonetheless, admissions against interest may be
refuted by the declarant. To contradict the
admissions stated in a notarial document, there
must be evidence that is clear, convincing and
more than merely preponderant. It is not enough
for him to merely execute a subsequent notarial
document that refutes the admissions previously
made.
Estate of Yujuico v. Republic (2007)
Yujuico as to parcels of land alleging that when
they were acquired, they were still part of the
Manila Bay and underwater, and therefore
inalienable. HELD: SC looked into court records
application and found that it contained several
admissions on the part of the Republic wherein
they surrendered that land was actually dry and
solid land, therefore alienable.
DOCTRINE: Compromise Agreement is already a
clear admission that it recognized petitioners as
true and legal owners of the land subject of this
controversy. (Case is not mainly about Admission
Against Interest, SC did not give a more definitive
statement on the matter.)
B. Compromises
RULE 130
SEC. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. – In
civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and it 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.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted
offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is not
admissible in evidence against the accused who
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.
RULE 116
SECTION 1. Arraignment and plea; how made. –
(f) The private offended party shall be required to
appear at the arraignment for purposes of plea
bargaining, determination of civil liability, and
failure of the offended party to appear despite due
notice, the court may allow the accused to enter a
plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged with
the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.
! of 164
70 !
RULE 118 Commissioner and the four (4) Deputy
SEC. 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. – In Commissioners.

all criminal cases cognizable by the (*note: didn’t include 204(B) and (C) because only
Sandiganbayan, RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and (A) talks of compromise)
MCTC, the court shall, after arraignment and
within thirty days from the date the court acquires PD 1508
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless SEC. 2. Subject matters for amicable
a shorter period is provided for in special laws or settlement.  The Lupon of each barangay shall
circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial have authority to bring together the parties
conference to consider the following:
actually residing in the same city or municipality
(a) plea bargaining;
for amicable settlement of all disputes except:

(b) stipulation of facts;

1. Where on party is the government, or any
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

parties;
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee,
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of and the dispute relates to the performance of his
evidence;
official functions;

(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused 3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment
admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense; exceeding 30 days, or a fine exceeding P200.00;

and
4. Offenses where there is no private offended
(f) such matters as will promote a fair and party;

expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects 5. Such other classes of disputes which the Prime
of the case.
Minister may in the interest of justice determine
SEC. 2. Pre-trial agreement. – All agreements or upon recommendation of the Minister of Justice
admissions made during the pre-trial conference and the Minister of Local Government.

shall be reduced in writing and signed by the SEC. 4. Procedure for amicable settlement.

accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be
used against the accused. The agreements
covering the matters referred to in Section 1 of
this Rule shall be approved by the court.
of the Lupon as provided in Section 2 may
RA 8424
Sec. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to
a) Who may initiate proceedings. Any individual
who has a cause of action against another
individual involving any matter within the authority
complain orally or in writing, to the Barangay
Captain of the barangay referred to in Section 3
hereof.

Compromise, Abate, and Refund or Credit Taxes. b) Mediation by Barangay Captain. Upon receipt
– The Comissioner may –
of the complaint, the Barangay Captain shall,
(A) Compromise the Payment of any Internal within the next working day summon the
Revenue Tax, when:
respondent/s with notice to the complainant/s for
(1) A reasonable doubt as to the validity of the them and their witnesses to appear before him for
claim against the taxpayer exists; or
a mediation of their conflicting interests. If he fails
(2) The financial position of the taxpayer in his effort within fifteen (15) days from the first
demonstrates a clear inability to pay the assessed meeting of the parties before him, he shall
tax.
forthwith set a date for the constitution of the
The compromise settlement of any tax liability Pangkat in accordance with the provisions of
shall be subject to the following minimum Section 1 of this Decree.

amounts:
c) Hearing before the Pangkat. The Pangkat shall
For cases of financial incapacity, a minimum convene not later than three (3) days from its
compromise rate equivalent to ten percent (10%) constitution, on the day and hour set by the
of the basic assessed tax; and
Barangay Captain, to hear both parties and their
For other cases, a minimum compromise rate witnesses, simplify issues, and explore all
equivalent to forty percent (40%) of the basic possibilities for amicable settlement. For this
assessed tax.
purpose, the Pangkat may issue summons for the
Where the basic tax involved exceeds One million personal appearance of parties and witnesses
pesos (P1,000.000) or where the settlement before it.

offered is less than the prescribed minimum rates, In the event that the party moves to disqualify any
the compromise shall be subject to the approval member of the Pangkat by reason of relationship,
of the Evaluation Board which shall be composed bias, interest or any other similar ground/s
of the
discovered after constitution of the Pangkat, the
! of 164
71 !
matter shall be resolved by the affirmative vote of
the majority of the Pangkat whose decision shall
be final. Should disqualification be decided upon,
the procedure provided for in paragraph (g) of
Section 1 shall be followed.
admissible for any purpose in any other
d) Sanctions. Refusal or willful failure of any party
or witness to appear in compliance with the
summons issued pursuant to the preceding two
(2) paragraphs may be punished by the city or
municipal court as for direct contempt of court
upon application filed therewith by the Lupon
Chairman, the Pangkat Chairman, or by any of the
parties. Further, such refusal or willful failure to
appear shall be reflected in the records of the
Lupon Secretary or in the minutes of the Pangkat
Secretary and shall bar the complainant from
seeking judicial recourse for the same cause of
action, and the respondent, from filing any
counterclaim arising out of or necessarily
connected therewith.
Willful failure or refusal without justifiable cause on
the part of any Pangkat member to act as such,
as determined by the vote of a majority of all the
other members of the Lupon, whose decision
thereon shall be final, shall result in his
disqualification from public office in the city or
municipality for a period of one year.
compromise the case. Defendants objected on
e) Time limit. The Pangkat shall arrive at a
settlement/resolution of the dispute within fifteen
(15) days from the day it convenes in accordance
with paragraph (c) hereof. This period shall, at the
discretion of the Pangkat, be extendible for
another period which shall not exceed fifteen (15)
days except in clearly meritorious cases.
the conviction but clarifies the effect of
SEC. 6. Conciliation, pre-condition to filing of
complaint.  No complaint, petition, action or
proceeding involving any matter within the
authority of the Lupon as provided in Section 2
hereof shall be filed or instituted in court or any
other government office for adjudication unless
there has been a confrontation of the parties
before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat and no
conciliation or settlement has been reached as
certified by the Lupon Secretary or the Pangkat
Secretary, attested by the Lupon or Pangkat
Chairman, or unless the settlement has been
repudiated. However, the parties may go directly
to the court in the following cases:
than commence and prosecute an action.
1. Where the accused is under detention;
2. Where a person has otherwise been deprived of
personal liberty calling for habeas corpus
proceedings;
kidnapping hs 17-year-old student Mia. She was
3. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such
as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of
personal property and support pendente lite; and
they were secret lovers. Mia’s family reported the
4. Where the action may otherwise be barred by
the Statute of Limitations.
SEC. 10. Admissions.  Admissions made in the
course of any proceedings for settlement may be
proceeding.
Varadero v. Insular Lumber (1924)
SUMMARY: El Varadero repaired Insular Lumber’s
lighter without express agreement on the price.
Insular found the El Varadero’s eventual price
excessive; compromises broke down, hence the
matter being taken to court.
DOCTRINE: As a general rule, offers of
compromise must be excluded under the general
rules of evidence. They are only relevant in as
much as the amount named in the offers appear
to have been a fair estimate of value.
US. v. Torres (1916)
SUMMARY: This is a criminal case for violations
relating to sale and/or possession of opium
punishable under Act No. 1761. During the trial,
the prosecution presented witnesses to prove,
among others, that defendants offered to
the ground that the alleged compromise with the
secret agent (witness for the prosecution) was not
made in writing, therefore inadmissible in criminal
cases and should be stricken from the record. The
lower court overruled the objection. The
defendants were convicted. HELD: SC affirmed
compromise in criminal cases. (nb: the fact of
compromise, whether or not proven, was not
taken into account by the TC in convicting the
defendants)
DOCTRINE: No presumption of guilt must be
raised against the maker, as occurs in other
criminal causes for public crimes in which the
offer is not lawful because it is a thing prohibited
by law. The offer may have been prompted simply
to avoid the annoyance of a prosecution, as
sometimes happens in a civil case where a person
involved in the litigation is perhaps entirely in the
right but prefers to lose a sum of money rather
People v. Godoy (1995)
SUMMARY: Godoy was convicted of raping and
raped in her cousin’s boarding house and locked
in a hotel room for several days. Godoy claimed
matter to the police and Godoy’s mother gave
! of 164
72 !
them P30,000 as settlement, which they
accepted. However, they claimed this was an
admission of guilt. HELD: SC reversed RTC and
acquitted Godoy. The offer to compromise cannot
be considered an admission of guilt because he
did not know, not until the trial proper, that his
mother actually paid P30k for the settlement of
the cases. It has been held that where the
accused was not present at the time the offer for
monetary consideration was made, such offer of
compromise would not save the day for the
prosecution. Also, the evidence for the defense
overwhelmingly proves his innocence of the
offense charged. What actually transpired was an
elopement or a lovers' tryst.
no proof on record that they were made
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, an offer of
compromise is generally admissible as evidence
against the party making it. It is a legal maxim,
which assuredly constitutes one of the bases of
the right to penalize, that in the matter of public
crimes which directly affect the public interest, no
compromise whatever may be entered into as
regards the penal action. It has long been held,
however, that in such cases the accused is
permitted to show that the offer was not made
under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to
avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for
some other reason which would justify a claim by
the accused that the offer to compromise was not
in truth an admission of his guilt or an attempt to
avoid the legal consequences which would
ordinarily ensue therefrom
driver and defendant and admission of liability by
People v. de Guzman (1996)
SUMMARY: Gener De Guzman raped Gilda. 1
month after the commission of the crime, his
mom, wife, kids, and sister-in-law went to Gilda to
seek for forgiveness and to compromise, only to
be denied by Gilda. RTC found De Guzman guilty,
using such offer of compromise by De Guzman’s
relatives as one of the indications of his guilt. SC
affirmed.
People v. Lambid (2003)
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, except those
involving quasi-offenses (RPC 365) 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.
that he was just drunk. HELD: This was analogous
People v. Yparriguirre (1997)
SUMMARY: Accused was charged with the crime
of rape. Evidence was admitted proving that the
wife of the accused offered 15-25k to the mother
of the victim to dissuade her from filing the
complaint. HELD: Even if there still was no
complaint at the time of compromise, this still
counts as an implied admission of guilt.
DOCTRINE: 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
People v. Maqui (1914)
SUMMARY: Maqui was convicted of theft of a
female carabao. In his appeal, his counsel
contends that Maqui's extrajudicial statements to
compromise during the pendency of the case
should be excluded on the ground that there was
voluntarily. HELD: The record clearly discloses
that Maqui offered to compromise voluntarily,
hoping that if accepted, he would escape
prosecution.
DOCTRINE: Evidence of offers to compromise are
admitted. | An offer of compromise, voluntarily
made by the accused, without threat or promise,
and the reply thereto, are admissible in evidence
upon his trial for a crime.
Hawthorne v. Eckerson Co. (1935)
SUMMARY: Collision between car driven by
plaintiff and car driven by a salesman of
defendant. In the proceedings, plaintiff introduced
as evidence the compromise between defendant
and plaintiff’s passenger to prove agency between
defendant. HELD: Compromises are not evidence
of admission of liability. However, introduction of
proof of the settlement prejudiced decision of the
jury as to the amount of the claim. Since proof of
settlement erroneously received and prejudiced
the result of the trial, judgment was reversed.
DOCTRINE: Compromises are not in themselves
evidence as admissions of liability.
SUMMARY: The accused was charged with the
rape of his 14-year-old daughter. On the witness
stand, he offered no defenses and claimed that if
he did rape her, he asks for forgiveness and said
to an offer of compromise and was an implied
admission of guilt.
DOCTRINE: A plea for forgiveness may be
considered as analogous to an attempt to
compromise and an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
! of 164
73 !
C. Res Inter Alios Acta Raquels to positively identify them as the former's
co-perpetrators.

RULE 130 DOCTRINE: The res inter alios rule ordains that
SECTION 28. Admission by third-party. – The the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, act, declaration, or omission of another. An
declaration, or omission of another, except as extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the
hereinafter provided.
confessant and is not admissible against his co-
accused. The reason for the rule is that, on a
SEC. 34. Similar acts as evidence. – Evidence that principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a
one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are
not admissible to prove that he did or did not do evidence against him. So are his conduct and
the same or a similar thing at another time; but it declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly
may be received to prove a specific intent or inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, man should be bound by the acts of mere
custom or usage, and the like.
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to
be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought
Tiu Notes
their acts or conduct be used as evidence against
TWO BRANCHES OF RES INTER ALIOS ACT
him.

BRANCH 1: Acts, declarations or omissions of

another
Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan (2003)
EXCEPTIONS:
S U M M A RY : P e t i t i o n e r s a r e e n g i n e e r s ,
a. Admission by a co-partner or agent (Sec. 29, accountants and property custodians of region 7
Rule 130)
of the Ministry of Public Highways (MPH). They
b. Admission by a co-conspirator (Sec. 30, Rule were charged with violation of RA 3019 in
130)
connection to ghost projects that were discovered
c. Admission by privies (Sec. 31, Rule 130)
in their district. Petitioners denied the charge and
d. Interlocking Confessions (Jurisprudence)
said that they were unaware of the ghost project
as they only dealt with a part of the project that
BRANCH 2: Evidence of similar conduct
they all claim was aboveboard. Some of the MPH
employees charged however were turned to state-
People v. Alegre (1979) witnesses and confirmed the existence of the
S U M M A RY : D e f e n d a n t s - a p p e l l a n t s w e re conspiracy as well as the acts that they
convicted for robbery with homicide, having committed to facilitate the scheme.
allegedly stolen from and killed the spinster, Sandiganbayan found the petitioners guilty
Adelina. The only basis for their conviction was (almost 200 counts). Ps appealed to the SC, one
the extra-judicial confession of Melencio, of their arguments was that the pleas of guilt of
implicating all of them, their silence or failure to their other alleged co-conspirators should not be
object when Melencio pointed to them, and the given weight in determining their guilt because of
testimony of an inmate to whom they allegedly res inter alios acta. HELD: SC affirms the decision
confessed their participation in the crime. HELD: of the Sandiganbayan. Factual findings sufficient
Acquitted.
to support the decision of the respondent and that
DOCTRINE: As a general rule, the extrajudicial the Sandiganabayan did not base its decision on
declaration of an accused, although deliberately the pleas of guilt of the other co-conspirators but
made, is not admissible and does not have such merely strengthened the case against the
probative value against his co accused. It is petitioners. The SC also held that the res inter
merely hearsay evidence as far as the other alios acta rule only applies to extra-judicial
accused are concerned.
confessions and not to judicial confessions, the
pleas of guilt were judicial confessions and
People v. Raquel (1996) therefore not covered by the rule.

SUMMARY: Agapito Gambalan was the deceased
victim of a robbery with homicide. Amado Ponce,
one of the three perpetrators was found wounded
near the house. When the police apprehended
him, he revealed that Valeriano and Sabas Raquel
were the other culprits. HELD: This extrajudicial
statement of Ponce cannot be used against the
DOCTRINE: The rule embodied in Sec. 30 that
the declaration of a conspirator made after the
termination of the conspiracy is inadmissible
against his co-conspirator applies only to an
extra-judicial confession, and not to a plea of
guilty, which is a judicial confession. In this very
specific instance, the rule of res inter alios acta

! of 164
74 !
does not apply because the confessions
embodied in the pleas of guilty are judicial
confessions, not extra-judicial ones.
Code. Mr. Sison denied liability on the ground that
People v. Gaudia (2004)
SUMMARY: Gaudia was accused of raping 3 ½
year old Remelyn. Remelyn’s mother, Amalia,
testified that that Gaudia’s parents talked to her
husband and offered a compromise. TC convicted
Gaudia of rape. Gaudia contends that the offer of
compromise by his parents should not be taken
against him and cannot prejudice him. HELD: the
offer of compromise should not be taken as
evidence, but even if sustained, this will not
exculpate Gaudia. He is found by the SC guilty of
simple rape.
with his clients.
DOCTRINE: Following the principle of res inter
alios acta alteri nocere non debet, the actions of
the accused’s parents in offering to compromise
cannot prejudice the accused, 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.
declaration of a conspirator relating to the
D. Exceptions to the Res Inter Alios Acta
Rule
1. Partner’s/agent’s admissions
RULE 130
SEC. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. – The
act or declaration of a co-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.
Robbery-Hold-Up with Homicide. Only Villanueva
RULE 138
SEC. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. –
Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in
any case by any agreement in relation thereto
made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all
matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they
cannot, without special authority, compromise
their client’s litigation, or receive anything in
discharge of a client’s claim but the full amount in
cash.
SUMMARY: Panganiban and Consunji were
Acenas v. Sison (1963)
SUMMARY: Angela Sison executed a promissory
note, promising to pay Emma S. Acenas the sum
of P8,160 in 26 installments. Angela failed to pay
and was sued with her husband Teofilo as co-
defendats pursuant to Article 113 of the Civil
he had not signed the promissory note. Atty.
Nicanor S. Sison, counsel for Teofilo and Angela
Sison, agreed to a judgment on confession
against his clients. But the records do not show
that Atty. Sison had authority to confess
judgment. On the contrary, Atty. Sison "moved for
the postponement of the hearing hereof in view of
the absence of his clients and that he needs time
within which to confer with them for the purpose
of amicably settling this case." HELD: Atty. Sison
lacked authority to confess judgment, otherwise,
there would have been no need for him to confer
DOCTRINE: Rule 138, Section 23
2. Co-conspirator’s statements
RULE 130
SEC. 30. Admission by conspirator. – The act or
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.
People v. Cabrera (1974)
SUMMARY: Four men robbed a jeep and stabbed
the owner thereof (Dela Cruz) with knives and ice
picks. Before he died in the hospital, Dela Cruz
identified Cabrera as one of the four men. Once
he was arrested two days after the incident,
Cabrera executed an extrajudicial confession
pointing to Villanueva as the mastermind of the
crime. CFI convicted both of them (the other two
who had participated in the crime were at large) of
appealed from the conviction. HELD: SC
acquitted Villanueva, holding that the Rule on
“Admission by conspirator” does not apply.
DOCTRINE: Rule on “Admission by conspirator”
does not apply here because Cabrera’s statement
was not made during the existence of the alleged
conspiracy between her and Villanueva but after
such supposed conspiracy had already ceased
and she was in the hands of the authorities.
People v. Yatco (1955)
charged with conspiracy in a murder. An extra-
judicial confession allegedly made by Consunji
was presented. The lower court excluded the
evidence on the ground that the confession could
not be introduced to prove conspiracy without
! of 164
75 !
prior proof of such conspiracy by a number of
definite acts, conditions, and circumstances.
HELD: The confession was nevertheless
admissible as to Consunji’s own guilt.
examine the declarant. And while the testimony of
DOCTRINE: The rule refers to statements made
by one conspirator during the pendency of the
unlawful enterprises ("during its existence") and in
furtherance of its object, and not to a confession
made, as in this case, long after the conspiracy
had been brought to an end.
People v. Chaw Yaw Shun (1968)
SUMMARY: Crisostomo’s body was found dead
with gunshot wounds. Police found evidence
linking it to Alvarez. Alvarez made a confession
that he alone killed Crisostomo, then later on said
it was another person who killed Crisostomo. He
then said he killed Crisostomo, and gave a
narration of facts that involved Chua. When Chua
surrendered, he was then made to sign an
extrajudicial confession. They were convicted of
murder. HELD: SC acquitted Chua because the
facts do not show that there was conspiracy nor
that Chua was involved in the crime.
DOCTRINE: There is no rule requiring the
DOCTRINE: Conspiracy must be proved by
independent evidence other than the confession.
Admissibility must relate to statements made by
one conspirator during the pendency of the
unlawful enterprise (or during its existence) and in
furtherance of its objects, and not to a confession
made long after the conspiracy had been brought
to an end. Conspiracy must be real, must be
proved as the crime itself, independent from
confession
SUMMARY: Camat and Del Rosario were charged
People v. Serrano (1959)
SUMMARY: In October 1950, Eugelio Serrano
with Respondents plotted to kill Pablo Navarro
who had allegedly been inducing and prompting
people to call on Sen. Pablo Angeles David and
testify on the Maliwalu massacre. The plan was for
the group, with the exception of Eugelio Serrano,
to wait for Navarro in the town of Bacolor, where
he drinks and gambles, and bring him to Barrio
Dolores. After several attempts, the group, under
the guise of giving Navarro a good time,
successfully lured him to Barrio Dolores where he
was killed together with his companion, Simplico
Manguerra. During the course of the Trial for
Murder, one of the defendants, Anastacio Reyes,
was discharged to serve as prosecution witness.
was made after the supposed homicidal
DOCTRINE: The rule that 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
applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration,
but not to testimony given on the stand at the trial,
where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-
accomplices or confederates in crime is always
subject to grave suspicion, "coming as it does
from a polluted source," and should be received
with great caution and doubtingly examined, it is
nevertheless admissible and competent.
Gardiner v. Magsalin (1941)
SUMMARY: Catalino Fernandez and five others
were accused of conspiring to commit and
committing murder. Fernandez pleaded guilty
while the others pleaded not guilty. Fernandez
was called to testify on the alleged conspiracy,
which was objected to by counsel for the defense.
The respondent judge did not allow Fernandez to
testify. Petitioner prosecutor filed for present
petition for mandamus to compel judge to let
Fernandez testify. HELD: SC granted writ of
mandamus and ordered respondent judge to
allow Fernandez to testify.
prosecution to establish a conspiracy in order to
permit a witness to testify what one or all of
several accused persons did; and evidence
adduced by coconspirators as witnesses, which is
direct evidence of the facts to which they testify, is
not within the rule requiring a conspiracy to be
shown as a prerequisite to its admissibility
People v. Camat (1996)
with the complex crime of robbery with homicide
and frustrated homicide – for robbing and
stabbing/attempting to kill Penalver and for killing
Sinoy. During the police investigation, the police
investigator testified on the witness stand that
Camat admitted that Del Rosario was a co-
conspirator in the crime. HELD: Even though the
Court could not convict Del Rosario based on
Camat’s extra-judicial confession, there are other
pieces of evidence sufficient to sustain a
conviction (i.e. Penalver’s testimony).
DOCTRINE: No reliance can be placed on the
imputation therein because it violates the rule on
res inter alios acta (a thing done between others
does not harm or benefit others) and does not fall
under the exceptions thereto, especially since it
conspiracy. An extrajudicial confession is binding
only upon the confessant and is not admissible
against his co-accused. As against the latter, the
confession is hearsay.
! of 164
76 !
People v. Palijon (2000)
SUMMARY: Decena and Mercena entered the
residence of the Reyes couple in the morning of
August 27, 1993 and positioned themselves near
the couple’s bedroom so that they could take
cash and jewelry once somebody opens it. Palijon
remained outside to serve as a look-out. Mrs.
Reyes came out to go to the bathroom. Decena
followed her there where he kicked and boxed her.
When Mr. Reyes rushed to her aid, Decena struck
him with a steel-edged stool several times. They
ransacked the house and escaped. Mr. Reyes
died in the hospital on the same day. All of them,
including Pria (Decena’s live-in partner), were
charged with robbery with homicide. Mercene and
Decena, upon motion of their counsel, were re-
arraigned to plead guilty to the lesser offense of
homicide and were found guilty thereafter. Trial
proceeded against appellants who were
eventually found guilty of robbery with homicide
on the strength of Mercene’s testimony that they
are co-conspirators of the crime. On appeal to the
Supreme Court, Palijon argued that other
evidence should have been presented to
corroborate the testimony of a self-confessed
conspirator. He pointed out that based on human
experience one who admits to a crime is more
likely to put the blame on others than on himself
alone. HELD: SC clarified that Sec. 30, Rule 130
(one of the provisions cited by appellant) applies
only to extrajudicial acts or admissions.
RULE 130

DOCTRINE: Sec. 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.
against the former.
People v. Buntag (2004)
SUMMARY: Appellants were charged with murder
of Otte along the beach of Panglao. Bohol.
Prosecution offered in evidence the hunting
knife,key to Ottes room, Buntag’s sworn
statement and Bongos counter-affidavit to prove
that both appellants conspired to kill the victim
and in fact killed the victim. In their individual and
separate statements, the other accused
implicated the other. Appellants objected to the
admission of these statements as evidence on the
ground that it was hearsay and inadmissible as to
the other. RTC admitted the evidence and found
appellants guilty of murder. HELD: SC affirms
admissibility of evidence and conspiracy between
the appellants but found them guilty only of
homicide based on the statements and other
circumstantial evidence.
estate of the deceased are privies in
DOCTRINE: The guilt of the appellants are
established by circumstantial evidence other than
their statements against each other. Some of the
extrajudicial inculpatory admissions of one are
identical with some of the extrajudicial inculpatory
admissions of the other and vice versa. This
corroborates and confirms their veracity and
having been made without collusion, are akin to
interlocking extrajudicial confessions. They are
admissible as circumstantial evidence against the
other to show the probability of his participation in
the commission of the crime and as corroborative
evidence against him.
Preagido, et al. v. Sandiganbayan (2005)
SUMMARY: Petitioner Bolotaulo was convicted of
the crime of estafa through falsification of public
and commercial documents on the basis of
conspiracy. He appeals his conviction arguing that
conspiracy was not adequately proven.
DOCTRINE: Rule 130 Sec. 27 applies only to
extra-judicial acts or declarations but not to the
testimony given by a witness on the stand during
trial where the defense has the opportunity to
cross-examine the declarant.
3. Admission By Privies (Rule 130, Section
31)
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
Requisites:
1. There must be an act, declaration or omission
by a predecessor-in-interest;
2. The act, declaration, or omission of the
predecessor must have occurred while he was
holding (not after) the title to the property; and
3. The act, declaration, or omission must be in
relation to the property
Notes
• “Privies” – persons who are partakers or have
an interest in any action or thing, or any relation to
another. Examples:
o A lessor and his lessee, a grantor and a
grantee; an assignor and an assignee are
privies in an estate or a contract;
o An executor or an administrator and the
representation; or
! of 164
77 !
 o An heir and his ascendant are privies in blood
or succession.
- Transaction was made in fraud of creditors
• When the former owner of the property made the
declaration after he ceased to be the owner of the
property, the rule on admission by privies does
not apply.
City of Manila v. Del Rosario (1905)
• What applies is the general rule that the rights of
a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another (Gevero v.
Intermediate Appellate Court)
brother Lorenzo del Rosario but Manila presented
Class Notes
• Rule does not apply if the declarant does not
hold title to property any longer
things: a petition to the mayor of manila and a
• If there were declarations made by a
predecessor in interest, the law says that those
who acquire title subsequent to him are burdened
by the same liability imposed on the predecessor-
in-interest declarant
because Lorenzo did not hold the title to the land
*Alpuerto v. Pastor (1918)
SUMMARY: This is a case regarding the validity
of a sale. But this case is important for us in
regard to our topic as it defines who are “privies”.
The three parcels of real property which constitute
the subject matter of the contention in this case
formerly belonged to Juan Llenos, and both the
interested parties in this action claim title under
him, the Alpuerto as party in possession under a
contract of sale with pacto de retro, and the Jose
Perez Pastor as purchaser at a public sale under
an execution directed against Llenos. The Eladio
Alpuerto, asks the court to make a declaration
against the defendant, Jose Perez Pastor, to the
effect that the he is the owner thereof in full and
absolute dominion. He also prays that the sale of
the property effected by the sheriff, Manuel Roa,
to said defendant be declared null. Pastor on the
other hand claims that the sale entered into by his
debtor, Llenos and Alpuerto is simulated and
executed in fraud of creditors.
answer, the Marcos children’s General and
DOCTRINE: The sale between Llenos and Pastor
was annulled by the SC for being executed in
fraud of creditors. As to the definition of “privies”
SC said, “The said word denotes the idea of
succession, not only by right of heirship and
testamentary legacy, but also that of succession
by singular title, derived from acts inter vivos, and
for special purposes; hence, an assignee of a
credit, and one subrogated to it, etc., will be
privies; in short, he, who, by succession is placed
in the position of one of those who contracted the
juridical relation and executed the private
document and appears to be substituting him in
his personal rights and obligations, is a
privy." (Manresa, Codigo Civil, pp. 492 and 493.)
Class Notes
- Why did the court still rule in his favor? Because
the sale was found to be fraudulent.
SUMMARY: City of Manila filed an action to
recover possession of 2 lots from Jacinto del
Rosario. Jacinto allegedly bought the lots from his
various testimonial and documentary evidence to
prove it owned the lots. The important
documentary evidence Manila presented were 2
letter to the municipal board of manila written by
Lorenzo, offering to purchase from Manila the
contested lots. HELD: The statements of Lorenzo
made in those letters DO NOT bind Jacinto
when he made those statements.
DOCTRINE: Where one derives title to real estate
from another, the declaration act, or omission of
the latter to the property is evidence against the
former only when made while the latter holds the
title. (Sec. 278, Code of Civil Procedure.)
Class Notes
Outside the application of the rule on prohibition
because the acts were not made when Lorenzo
was holding title to the property
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2003)
SUMMARY: The Republic filed a petition for
forfeiture of Swiss funds under false names
(William Saunders: Ferdinand and Jane Ryan:
Imelda) and foundations. The law providing for
forfeiture requires 2 facts to be established. (See
Ratio #1) The Marcoses claim the Republic failed
to prove ownership by Ferdinand and Imelda. The
HELD: The Marcoses admitted ownership in their
Supplemental Agreement with the PCGG,
Bongbong’s testimony, Imelda’s Manifestation,
Imelda’s Constancia, their Undertaking, and the
Marcos children’s Motion to place the $356M in
custodia legis.
DOCTRINE: The individual and separate
admissions of each respondent bind all of them
pursuant to Secs. 29 and 31, Rule 130. The
declarations of a person are admissible against a
party whenever a “privity of estate” exists
between the declarant and the party, the term
“privity of estate” generally denoting a succession
in rights. Consequently, an admission of one in
privity with a party to the record is competent.
Without doubt, privity exists among the
! of 164
78 !
respondents in this case. And where several co-
parties to the record are jointly interested in the RULE 130 – Rules of Admissibility
subject matter of the controversy, the admission Section 33. Confession – The declaration of
of one is competent against all.
an accused acknowledging his guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
Class Notes included therein, may be given in evidence
What about the privity? All of them are considered against him.

to have answered. Because they are all

successors to the estate of Marcos, the answer of
one binds the other. REGALADO NOTES:
Confession

Do you agree that there was privity of estate • A categorical acknowledgment of guilt without
among them? Were they really holding title? No. any exculpatory statement or explanation

Because the properties were already sequestered. • May be oral or in writing and need not be under
But probably the court used the admission that oath

they owned the property.

• May be judicial or extrajudicial

E. Confessions Judicial

• made before a court where case is pending

1987 Constitution
 • made in the course of legal proceedings

Article 3 – Bill of Rights

• by itself can sustain a conviction

SEC 12.
(1) Any person under investigation for the Extrajudicial

commission of an offense shall have the right to • made in any other place or occasion

be informed of his right to remain silent and to •cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated
have competent and independent counsel by evidence of the corpus delicti (Sec. 3, Rule
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot 133)

afford the services of counsel, he must be

provided with one. These rights cannot be waived Requisites for admissibility:

except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

1. Express and categorical acknowledgment of
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, guilt

or any other means which vitiate the free will shall 2. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a
be used against him. Secret detention places, criminal offense

solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of 3. Given voluntarily

detention are prohibited.

4. Intelligently made: the accused realizes the
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in importance or legal significance

violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be 5. No violation of Sec. 12, Art. 3 of the 1987
inadmissible in evidence against him.
Constitution

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil

sanctions for violations of this section as well as Inadmissibility:

compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of o Unreliable

torture or similar practices, and their families.

o Humanitarian considerations

SEC. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a o Legal considerations: violative of the

witness against himself.
constitutional right against self-incrimination

Confession admissible not only with respect to the

REGALADO NOTES
offense charged but also any offense necessarily
• Illegal confessions and admissions are
included therein.

inadmissible against the confessant or the

admitter but admissible against the person
Class Notes
violating the constitutional prohibition

What is the difference between judicial confession

• Inadmissibility of “fruit of a poisonous tree” does
and extrajudicial confession?
not contemplate testimony or confession because
As to effects against third parties

it refers to object, not testimonial evidence

- Judicial confession can be used against other

parties involved in the case because the parties
who are affected have the right to cross-examine

! of 164
79 !
What is corpus delicti? What does it actually 2. existence of a criminal agency as the cause of
mean? the act or result

- That the crime was actually committed

• identity of the accused not a necessary element

- It does not refer to the object of the crime per se

• proved when evidence on record shows that the
crime had been committed

Why is it needed for extrajudicial confessions?

- Because it’s easy to get an extrajudicial A mere voluntary extrajudicial confession
confession by force, violence, maltreatment or uncorroborated by independent proof of the
psychological
corpus delicti is not sufficient to sustain a
- Cannot just base conviction on extrajudicial conviction

confession in line with the constitutional Not synonymous with the whole charge so as to
presumption of innocence
require all the elements of the crime to be
established independently

What are the elements of corpus delicti?

- Proof of occurrence of a certain event
Binding only upon the accused and is not
- There is someone criminally responsible
admissible against co-accused, EXCEPT:

• co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted

Can corpus delicti be established by confession by not questioning its truthfulness

circumstantial evidence? YES (Zapanta v. People)

• accused admitted the facts stated by the
confessant

When you talk about extrajudicial confessions, be
mindful of what law?
- Rights of an accused in a custodial investigation
independently and corroborated by other
- In determining whether confession is made
• interlocking confessions: identical confessions
without conclusion executed voluntarily and
evidence

extrajudicially, consider requirements under RA • charged as co-conspirators and confession is

7438
used only as a corroborating evidence to show
- Any extrajudicial confession taken in violation of the probability of participation by co-conspirator

the act is inadmissible

• confessant testified for the co-defendant

- But when made spontaneously and not in a

custodial investigation setting – takes it out of the People v. Compil (1995)
inadmissibility (i.e. confessions to private person – SUMMARY: A furniture store was robbed and one
People v. Maqueda) of the proprietors was killed. Police talked to a
worker in the store about the crime. They told
information that led the police to Tayabas,
RULE 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Quezon, where they were able to arrest Compil.
SECTION 3. Extrajudicial confession, not Immediately, Compil turned pale. Later on, he
sufficient ground for conviction. – An extrajudicial admitted participation in the crime, as well as his
confession made by an accused, shall not be co-participants. He was again interrogated in the
s u ffi c i e n t g ro u n d f o r c o n v i c t i o n , u n l e s s Tayabas Police Station, and on the trip back to
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
Manila. He executed a sworn statement
confessing to the crime and naming the other
REGALADO NOTES accused. An Information was filed; Compil filed a
Extrajudicial
demurrer, but this was denied, so he was
• made in any other place or occasion than in the convicted of Robbery with Homicide, based on
course of legal proceedings
the extrajudicial confession. HELD: Confession
• cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated was inadmissible because it was constitutionally
by evidence of the corpus deli
infirm. However, they still convicted him based on
circumstantial evidence.

Corpus delicti
DOCTRINE: Extrajudicial confession which is so
• literally means the body or substance of the convincing, not merely concocted, and jibes with
crime
evidence, may not be admitted if it is
• actual commission by someone of the particular constitutionally infirm. However, other factual
crime charged
circumstances may be resorted to to prove guilt
• common fact made of 2 things
beyond reasonable doubt.

1. existence of a certain act or result forming the

basis of the criminal charge

! of 164
80 !
People v. Wong Chuen Ming (1996)
SUMMARY: The accused (Malaysians) and the
accused-appellants (HK nationals) arrived in
Manila from HK. Customs officials at the airport
found that their luggages contained boxes of
Alpen Cereals the contents of which were found
to be shabu. The boxes were binded by masking
tape and all eleven accused were asked to sign
thereon. They did not have counsel present at that
time. They were arrested and brought to Camp
Crame where they were asked to sign again on
the plastic bags. The accused were not informed
of their Miranda Rights from the moment they
were inspected until they were asked to sign the
plastic bags. RTC found the accused guilty of
unlawfully transporting shabu in the country.
HELD: SC acquitted the appellants on the ground
that the signatures are inadmissible in evidence
for having been procured in violation of the
accused’s Miranda Rights. These signatures were
treated as extra-judicial confessions which were
uncounseled.
exception to the rule. (2) The silence of Messrs
DOCTRINE: By affixing their signatures, the
accused in effect made a tacit admission of the
crime charged. These signatures are tantamount
to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession. They
are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence. The
constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of
Rights are given and extend to all persons, both
aliens and citizens.
not admissible and does not have probative value
Class Notes
- What was so special about the situation of the
HK nationals who appealed? Outsiders to the
group of Malaysians apprehended
independent evidence of conspiracy.
Constitutional rights apply to even aliens not
nationals
If the other 9 appealed, what could have been the
decision of the Court? There are more
circumstances that prove that the other 9 are
guilty. But as to the 2 HK nationals, they weren’t
sure whether they got the cereal boxes so it
added to their presumption of innocence.
People v. Maqueda (1995)
People v. Alegre (1979)
SUMMARY: There was a robbery at the residence
of an old spinster; she was strangled to death. Mr
Cudillan was caught in Tacloban City, where he
executed an extrajudicial confession that also
implicates Messrs Alegre, Comayas and Medalla.
When he was brought to Pasay City, he again
executed an extrajudicial confession that also
implicates the same three men. All four were then
charged with robbery with homicide. The
prosecution presented as evidence, among
others, (1) Mr Cudillan’s extrajudicial confessions,
(2) the testimony of Sgt Mariano Isla of the Pasay
City Police Department and (3) the testimony of
Mr Hernando Carillo, who was detained in the
same Pasay City precinct as the four accused.
Sgt Isla testified that, as part of his investigation,
he brought Mr Cudillan to the cells where Messrs
Alegre, Comayas and Medalla were detained. He
pointed at the three men as his companions in
committing the crime, and these three men “just
stared at him (Mr Cudillan) and said nothing.” Mr
Carillo testified that while in detention he had had
conversations with each of the accused where
they had admitted to committing the crime. The
trial court rendered a guilty verdict. (Mr Cudillan
died pending appeal). The Supreme Court
reversed: (1) Mr Cudillan’ extrajudicial confessions
are not admissible and are mere hearsay as far as
Messrs Alegre, Comayas and Medalla are
concerned under the principle of res inter alios
acta, there being no independent evidence of
conspiracy or other circumstances to serve as
Alegre, Comayas and Medalla when Mr Cudillan
pointed at them as his co-conspirators cannot be
considered as tacit admission of their participation
in the crime pursuant to their right to remain silent
and against self-incrimination.
DOCTRINE:
1. The extrajudicial declaration of an accused is
against his co-accused under the principle of res
inter alios acta. It is merely hearsay evidence as
far as the other accused are concerned. There are
exceptions to the rule, such as when there is
2. The silence of an accused after being pointed
at the perpetrator of the crime cannot be
considered as his tacit admission of his
participation in the crime. This rule is based on his
right to remain silent and against self-
incrimination.
SUMMARY: Accused was charged, along with a
co-accused still at large, of robbery and homicide.
Victims were Horace Baker, British and Consultant
to the World Bank, and his wife, Filipina Teresita
Mendoza. Perpetrators entered the house of the
victims in Benguet, the co-accused Salvamante
used to be a houseboy thereof. Perpetrators
assaulted and beat the spouses with lead pipes,
killing Horace Baker and severely injuring Teresita
Mendoza. The house help and Teresita were only
abel to identify Salvamante but noted that he was
with a man they didn’t know. Police investigation
led to the arrest of Maqueda alias Putol, after he
! of 164
81 !
matched the description given by victims as well
as the description given by two other witnesses
who saw the perpetrators after they left the
Barkers’ house and noted that one man had an
amputated left hand and was missing a thumb
and index finger on his right hand. Maqueda was
arrested and gave a Sinumpaang Salaysay before
the police without counsel. He also admitted to
the prosecutor and and another private person his
participation in the crime. RTC convicted
Maqueda on the strength of such admissions.
HELD: Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible but
admissions made voluntarily to the private
persons are admissible.
character are admissible.
DOCTRINE: Confession v Admission: In a
confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt.
The term admission is usually applied in criminal
cases to statements of fact by the accused which
do not directly involve an acknowledgment of his
guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense
with which he is charged. A confession is an
acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a
criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged,
while an admission is a statement by the accused,
direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue
and tending, in connection with proof of other
facts, to prove his guilt. In other words, an
admission is something less than a confession,
and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or
circumstance which in itself is insufficient to
authorize a conviction and which tends only to
establish the ultimate fact of guilt.
translated. He signed the document willingly, after
Class Notes
Was he also questioned by the police? YES he
narrated his participation in the crime
admissible.
Didn’t the court say the Sinumpaang Salaysay was
taken in violation of the constitutional rights? But
the court admitted the confessions made to
Salvosa and the Prosecutor because they were
done voluntarily and to private persons not the
officials conducting the custodial investigation
through the testimonies of the persons who heard
Confession made to a private person – not
custodial investigation. It was more like an
admission against interest
People vs. Feliciano, 58 SCRA 383; People vs.
Parker v. Randolph (1979)
SUMMARY: Respondents were convicted of
murder committed during a robbery of a gambler.
Their oral confessions were admitted into
evidence through police officers’ testimony. The
jury was instructed that each confession can be
used only against the defendant that gave it and is
not evidence of co-defendant guilt. HELD: SC
upheld the convictions, holding that admission of
the confessions do not violate the rule that
defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause
of the Sixth Amendment are violated by the
admission, at a joint trial, of the confession of a
codefendant who did not take the stand.
DOCTRINE: While admission at a joint trial of the
incriminating extrajudicial statements of a
nontestifying codefendant can have "devastating"
consequences to a nonconfessing defendant,
hence violating rights under the Confrontation
Clause, incriminating statements of a codefendant
will seldom be of "devastating" character when
the incriminated defendant has admitted his own
guilt. “Interlocking” confessions of such a
People v. Molas (1993)
SUMMARY: Josue Molas was accused of
murders of a mother and the latter’s daughter and
8 year-old son. The day after the murder, Josue
Molas with blood-stained clothes, surrendered to
police. The following morning, he was informed of
his Constitutional rights, Molas refused to give any
statement to the police. But almost after a month
after the murder, Molas made a sworn statement
(extrajudicial confession) without the assistance or
presence of counsel, which the police investigator
Fetalvero took down. Molas signed his confession
before a Judge of the Municipal Trial Court after
the latter and a police, had translated the contents
of his affidavit into the Cebuano dialect. Molas did
not object to any of the contents of his affidavit as
which the judge affixed his own signature on it.
The issue then is whether this extrajudicial
confession made without presence of counsel is
DOCTRINE: While it is true that the appellant's
extrajudicial confession was made without the
advice and assistance of counsel, hence,
inadmissible as evidence, it could be treated as a
verbal admission of the accused established
it or who conducted the investigation of the
accused (People vs. Carido, 167 SCRA 462;
Fontanosa, 20 SCRA 249). The police investigator,
Patrolman Paquito Fetalvero who took note of the
accused’s extrajudicial confession, testifying
before the trial court on October 16, 1984, quoted
the admissions of the accused. The trial court,
which observed his deportment on the witness
stand, found him credible.
! of 164
82 !
Class Notes
- The sinumpaang salaysay was taken before the
policeman but the Court admitted it even if done
during custodial investigation and without counsel

- Court appreciated the verbal confession – but

per se Sinumpaang Salaysay shouldn’t have been
admitted

Zapanta v. People (2013)

SUMMARY: Zapanta was charged with the theft
of wide flange steel beams worth P2M. Zapanta
argues that the prosecution failed to establish the
fact of the loss of the steel beams since the
corpus delicti was never identified and offered in
evidence. HELD: the testimonial and documentary
evidence on record fully established the corpus
delicti.

DOCTRINE: Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the

commission of the crime charged or to the body
or substance of the crime. Corpus delicti may
even be established by circumstantial evidence.

! of 164
83 !
 NOTE: Offer to pay/ deliver must be in writing. If
V. Conduct and Character As Evidence rejected without valid cause, the money,
document or property need not be actually
produced, because the rejected offer is equivalent
RULE 130 to its actual production or tender thereof.

SECTION 34. Similar acts as evidence.

Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing

RULE 130
at one time is not admissible to prove that he did
SEC. 51. Character evidence not generally
or did not do the same or similar thing at another
admissible; exceptions:

time; but it may be received to prove a specific

(a) In Criminal Cases:

intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system,

(1) The accused may prove his good moral
scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.

character which is pertinent to the moral trait

involved in the offense charged.

Reason for the Rule: The rule may be said to be (2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not
an application of the principle that the evidence prove his bad moral character which is pertinent
must be confined to the point in issue in the case to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

on trial. Evidence of collateral offenses must not (3) The good or bad moral character of the
be received as substantive evidence of the offended party may be proved if it tends to
offenses on trial.
establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense
General Rule: Evidence which shows or tends to charged.

show that the accused in a criminal case has (b) In Civil Cases:

committed a crime wholly independent of the Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil
offense for which he is on trial is not admissible. It case is admissible only when pertinent to the
is not competent to prove that he committed other issue of character involved in the case.

crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing (c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section
that he would be likely to commit the crime 14.

charged in the indictment.

EXCEPTION: Evidence that one did or did not do

Character: possession by a person of certain
a certain thing at one time is admissible for the
qualities of mind or morals, distinguishing him
purpose of proving a specific intent or knowledge, from others

identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, customs, or

usage and the like.
Good moral character

• all elements essential to make up such a

Is the rule applicable in civil cases? YES. character, including common honesty and
In civil cases, the rule as to proof of commission veracity

of an act by showing the commission of similar

• character that measures up as good among
acts by the same person at other times and under the people of the community in which the
other circumstances is the same in a criminal person lives or that is up to the standard of
prosecution.
the average citizen

• status which attaches to a man of good

RULE 130 behavior and upright conduct

SECTION 35. Unaccepted offer.

An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of Different ways of proving character
money or to deliver a written instrument or (Wigmore in Francisco)

specific personal property is, if rejected without • Personal opinion as to the moral character of
valid cause, equivalent to the actual production an accused party is excluded

and tender of the money, instrument, or property.

• Reputation in the community is admissible

• Specific conduct of the party exhibiting

character is excluded for three reasons:

Scope: The rule covers the following:

1. Undue prejudice

a) Payment of sum of money

2. Unfair surprise

b) Delivery of document
3. Confusion of issues

c) Delivery of personal property

! of 164
84 !
Good moral character of an accused may be Good or bad moral character of the offended
proved by him.
party may be given in criminal cases if it tends to
T h i s a ff o rd s a p re s u m p t i o n a g a i n s t t h e establish in any reasonable degree the
commission of crime, which arises from the probability or improbability of the offense
improbability that a person who has uniformly charged.

pursued an honest and upright course of conduct

will depart from it and do an act inconsistent with Evidence of moral character of a party in a civil
it.
case is NOT admissible, except:

NOTE: Character offered ought to be a trait • Where, because of the nature of the action,
germane in kind to the act charged.
the character or reputation of a party
becomes a matter in issue

Character proved must be character prior to the

time of the commission of the crime.
Evidence of GMC of a witness is not admissible
until such character has been impeached.

Accused cannot prove the GMC of his co- The character or reputation of a witness must be
accused.
attacked or impeached before testimony
This evidence is not in the least relevant to show sustaining his character or reputation can be
his innocence, as the fact that the friends or admitted, but it is not necessary that character
acquaintances of the accused are men of witness for impeachment purposes be first
unimpeachable character, in no way proves that introduced if the veracity or character of the
he is a person of good character.
witness has been substantially impeached in
other ways.

Character of a person may be established by

negative testimony.

The testimony of a witness to the effect that he RULE 132

has never heard anything against the character SEC. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness.

reputation of a person is admissible to prove the A witness must answer questions, although his
GMC of such person, provided the witness is answer may tend to establish a claim against him.
shown to have been in a position that he would However, it is the right of a witness:

have heard anything hat was said concerning the (1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
person’s character or reputation.
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;

Inference may not be drawn against the accused (2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of
from his failure to offer evidence of his good justice require;

character.
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters
If the defendant offers no evidence of his good pertinent to the issue;

character, no legal presumption can be drawn (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
from such omission prejudicial to the defendant, subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
or that, his character is bad. However, if he otherwise provided by law; or

desires to put his character in issue he has the (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
right to the benefit of his previous good character degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very
or reputation, so far as it is at variance with the fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in
crime charged.
issue would be presumed. But a witness must
answer to the fact of his previous final conviction
Prosecution may not attack the character of the for an offense.

accused in the first instance.

It is only after the prisoner has elected to put his A witness is bound to answer a question which
character in issue, by calling witness and may tend to establish a claim against him.

adducing evidence in its distinctive support, that A constitutional provision against compulsory self-
the prosecution is permitted to follow and incrimination relates to criminal proceedings only
disprove the evidence so offered, if it can.
and not to civil actions, or to evidence that may
be used against the witness in such action, or to
Character may be a fact in issue (i.e. in offenses questions of property or business.

against social morality, character may be an

element of an offense, hence making it a fact in
issue)

! of 164
85 !
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF WITNESSES:
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or RA 8505, Section 6. Rape Shield.
insulting questions
In prosecutions for rape, evidence of
2. To be protected from harsh or insulting complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion
demeanor
thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be
3. To be detained only so long as interests of admitted unless, and only to the extent that the
justice require it
court finds, that such evidence is material and
4. To be examined only on matters pertinent to relevant to the case.

the issue

5. To refrain from answering questions if the U.S. v. Pineda (1918)

answer will have a direct tendency to degrade Summary: Santos bought potassium chlorate
his character
from pharmacist Pineda,but upon giving some to
6. To answer question about his previous final the former’s horses, these immediately died, as it
conviction for an offense
turned out that what Pineda gave barium chlorate.
7. To refrain from answering questions which Santos sought to make Pineda liable, but Pineda
may incriminate him (right against self- raised the defense that the acts of the chemists
incrimination)
(who bought from Pineda’s store some more
“potassium chlorate” which turned out to be
Rationale for privilege
barium chlorate again) cannot be admitted
a. As of policy: It would place witness under the because of the principle of res inter alios acta.
strongest temptation to commit perjury
HELD: SC ruled against Pineda, as the impugned
b. As of humanity: It would be to extort a acts are not meant to convict PINEDA for a
confession of truth by a kind of duress every second offense, but to fix Pineda’s negligence
specie and degree of which the law abhors
under the theory that Pineda has done the same
in more than one occasion.

RULE 132 Doctrine: Exception to res inter alios acta: if the

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.
to ascertain one’s knowledge and intent, and to fix
Rationale: Law presumes every person to be
reputedly truthful till evidence shall have been
produced to the contrary
may even be established.
act or declaration is presented not to convict one
for a second offense, nor done in an attempt to
“draw the mind away from the point at issue”, but
his negligence, under the theory that if one has on
more than one occasion performed similar acts,
accident in good faith is possible excluded,
negligence is intensified, and fraudulent intent

People v. Irang (1937)

Civil Code SUMMARY: This is a case of complex crime of
Article 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of robbery with homicide wherein the wife of the
payment has been made refuses without just deceased recognized the accused in a lineup. A
cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released neighbor, who was also robbed the same night by
from responsibility by the consignation of the men of the same features (white stripes on their
thing or sum due.
faces), also recognized the accused to be the one
Consignation alone shall produce the same effect who opened her trunk. HELD: The neighbor’s
in the following cases:
testimony indirectly corroborates that of the wife,
(1) When the creditor is absent or unknown, or and found the accused to have been conclusively
does not appear at the place of payment;
identified.

(2) When he is incapacitated to receive the

payment at the time it is due;
DOCTRINE: Exceptions to inadmissibility of
(3) When, without just cause, he refuses to give a evidence of another crime: (1) it tends to identify
receipt;
defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery
(4) When two or more persons claim the same charged, or (2) tends to show his presence at the
right to collect;
scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time
(5) When the title of the obligation has been lost.
charged, or (3) when it is evidence of a
circumstance connected with the crime

! of 164
86 !
U.S. v. Mercado (1913)
SUMMARY: Defendant Mercados were found
guilty by the CFI of Bulacan of the crime of
coaccion (aka unlawful coercion). The private
prosecutor asked Santiago, the witness for the
defendants, how many times he's been convicted
of assault upon other persons. Defendant
Mercados objected to this question, stating that it
was irrelevant to the case. SC said the CFI should
have sustained the objection of the defendant
Mercados, because you may only impeach based
on the 2 grounds stated in the doctrine. And since
Santiago was not even convicted of a high crime,
then the examination of Santiago as a witness
with that line of questioning was unnecessary.
Exception: If the relationship between the two is
DOCTRINE: A witness cannot be impeached by
the party against whom he has been called,
except by showing: (a) He has made contradictory
statements or (b) his general reputation for the
truth, honesty, or integrity is bad. | While you
cannot impeach the the credibility of a witness
except upon those 2 grounds cited above, you
may show an examination of the witness himself
or from the record of the judgment that he has
been convicted of a high crime.
Nelson was the son of Jimmy and Prescilla.
Michelson v. United States (1948)
SUMMARY: Petitioner was charged with bribery.
He presented witnesses to prove his good
reputation. Prosecution presented questions
regarding his previous conviction and arrest.
Court held that generally, state is not allowed to
show defendant’s prior trouble with the law. The
exception is when defendant presents evidence to
prove his good reputation and character.
“evidence that one did or omitted to do a certain
DOCTRINE: The law does not invest the
defendant with a presumption of good character;
it simply closes the whole matter of character,
disposition and reputation on the prosecution’s
case in chief. The defendant may introduce
evidence tending to prove his good reputation,
but, if he does so, it throws open the entire
subject, and the prosecution may then cross-
examine defendant’s witnesses to test their
credibility and qualifications, and may also
introduce contradictory evidence.
trial, evidence was presented as to a fire on May
People v. Asinas (1929)
SUMMARY: Canuto and Eugenio Asinas killed
their father with the help of Ogacho and Credo.
Ogacho turned state witness and confessed the
whole incident. However, the only evidence is
Ogacho’s testimony.
received of other similar acts, committed about
HELD: General rule applied, similar acts
inadmissible
establishing the criminal intent of the accused.
A defendant in a criminal action cannot be
convicted on the evidence of the accomplice only.
To attain a conviction, there must be other
evidence corroborating that of the accomplice
which tends to show the guilt of the defendant.
There was also evidence that in previous
occasions, the brother had attempted or done
violence on their father (tied him to a papaya tree,
tried to drown him in a river).
DOCTRINE: General Rule: Evidence which shows
or tends to show that the accused in a criminal
case has committed a crime wholly independent
of the offense in which he is on trial for is
inadmissible.

that the one tends to prove the other
Strangely, SC said that the previous acts did not
tend to prove that the siblings killed their father.
Nicolas v. Enriquez (1955)
SUMMARY: A complaint for concubinage was
filed against defendants Jimmy and Prescilla. The
lower court ruled out the testimony of prosecution
witnesses tending to show that Paul William
Nicanor brought this action for mandamus to
compel the court to admit this evidence on the
basis that prior sexual relations between the
defendants were admissible to show “propensity”
to commit concubinage. HELD: SC denied the
writ.
DOCTRINE: What one did at one time is no proof
of his having done the same or a similar thing at
another time. But the rule is not absolute, as
thing at one time…+ may be received to prove a
specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the
like."
United States v. Evangelista (1913)
SUMMARY: Sufficient circumstantial evidence
point to the accused Evangelista's culpability in
starting the fire on June 2. She was heavily in debt
and needed the money from the insurance. During
31, which she allegedly caused. The issue
presented to the court was whether or not such
evidence may be admitted to prove intent for the
June 2 fire. HELD: SC affirmed.
DOCTRINE: Where a person is charged with the
commission of a specific crime, testimony may be
the same time, for the purpose only of
! of 164
87 !
People v. Steele (1961)
SUMMARY: Buy-bust operation led to the arrest
of Steele for selling heroin that turned out to be
quinine (a different drug, not illegal). Steele was
charged for offering to sell narcotics and then
selling a different drug. Steele claims that the law
only covers a situation where person A offers to
sell fake (illegal) drugs to B and it was B who
received the drugs and in his case he offered to
sell the heroin (quinine) to Jackson and it was
Stribling who got the drugs. Steele also claims
that Jackson should not be allowed to testify as to
his past dealing with Steele since it will prejudice
him. County court found Steele guilty. HELD: SC
of Illinois affirms the decision of the lower court.
Stribling testified that Steele directly offered to sell
to hm the heroin. SC also held that admission of
Jackson’s testimony was proper since past
conduct was offered as evidence to establish
deceit on the part of Steele.
balance of the purchase price. CA sustained the
DOCTRINE: Nature of the case must be taken
into account when determining if past conduct
can be admitted as evidence. If the evidence is
independently relevant apart from its tendency to
show the character of either party then it should
be admitted as evidence.
DOCTRINE: The bare fact that other lot buyers
Baldridge v. Matthews (1954)
SUMMARY: At trial for a case of adultery, the
plaintiff, in support of his allegation that his wife
and the defendant had stayed overnight in a hotel
tryst, sought to show that they had baggage with
them when the defendant registered himself and
companion as “Mr. & Mrs. W.D. Miller”. The
significance of the baggage would be in its
confirmation of an intended overnight sojourn.
The clerk testified, over the defendant's objection,
that the room was not paid for in advance and
that it was the uniform practice of the hotel to
require payment in advance for lodging when the
registrant was without luggage. The appellant
argues that the testimony in respect of the hotel's
practice was inadmissible since evidence as to
how an act was done on other occasions is
irrelevant for the purpose of showing what was
done on a particular occasion. HELD: SC
admitted the testimony on the hotel’s practice.
as well as other extraneous matters, were
DOCTRINE: Whether evidence of such usage or
habit is admissible to show what occurred in a
specific instance depends on the "invariable
regularity" of the usage or habit. To be admissible
the usage must have "sufficient regularity to make
it probable that it would be carried out in every
instance or in most instances."
DOCTRINE: While good or bad moral character
Boston Bank v. Manalo (2006)
SUMMARY: Xavierville sold lots to spouses
Manalo. The parties agreed that the Contract of
Conditional Sale would then be signed upon
payment of the downpayment. The spouses
started to construct on the lots, but they did not
pay the balance of the downpayment because XEI
failed to prepare a contract of conditional sale and
transmit the same to them. Commercial Bank of
Manila (CBM) acquired the Xavierville Estate and
requested Perla Manalo to stop any on-going
construction. The spouses then filed a complaint
for specific performance and damages, alleging
that upon their partial payment of the
downpayment, they were entitled to the execution
and delivery of a Deed of Absolute Sale covering
the subject lots. TC ordered the petitioner to
execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the
spouses upon the payment of the spouses of the
ruling of the RTC but declared the purchase price
of the property was payable in fixed amounts on a
monthly basis for 120 months based on the deeds
of conditional sale executed by XEI in favor of the
other lot buyers.
were allowed to pay the balance of the purchase
price of lots purchased by them in 120 or 180
monthly installments does not constitute evidence
that XEI also agreed to give the respondents the
same mode and timeline of payment. Under Sec.
34, Rule 130, 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.
People v. Soliman (1957)
SUMMARY: Basa was stabbed by two men
(Soliman and Polonio) while he was asleep in a
pushcart on the street. They were convicted by
the TC of MURDER. HELD: SC affirmed,
modifying the penalty from death to reclusion
perpetua. It held that the TC’s observations of the
lone witness Balaktaw’s conduct during the trial,
sufficient to convict Soliman and Polonio. Despite
one of the accused’s testimony about certain
supposed violent incidents involving Basa, the TC
didn’t err in not allowing the defense to prove that
the deceased Basa had a violent, quarrelsome or
provocative character.
may be availed of as an aid to determine the
probability or improbability of the commission of
! of 164
88 !
an offense (Sec. 15, Rule 123), such is not
necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is
committed through treachery or premeditation.
record was spotless while Magdalena had been
People v. Babiera (1928)
SUMMARY: Deceased leased lands that the
accused previously owned but was not able to
repurchase. Said lands were damaged by the
accused’s cow. One night, the former was
misconduct and ordering his dismissal. On Motion
for Reconsideration, Allyson contended that his
charged with 22 criminal cases before MTC and
23 complaints were filed against her in the
barangay, tending to discredit her character and
integrity. CSC denied the MR, but on appeal, the
CA ruled in Allyson’s favor, holding that Allyson
was an unreliable witness. HELD: SC reversed.

attacked from behind and eventually died in the
hospital a few days after. There was an argument
regarding the character of the deceased, in that
he was of a quarrelsome disposition. However, the
respondents were not able to substantiate claim,
hence the lower court did not err in not admitting
such proof. HELD: In deciding the case, SC
DOCTRINE: Settled is the principle that evidence
of ones character or reputation must be confined
to a time not too remote from the time in question.
In other words, what is to be determined is the
character or reputation of the person at the time
of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period
remote from the commencement of the suit.

looked into the circumstances relative to the

incident to determine the guilt of the accused.

DOCTRINE: It is necessary to take into account

all the circumstances, previous, coetaneous and
subsequently to the incident in question, and to
determine who had, or could have had, motives to
assault the other.

To prove that the party was of a quarrelsome

disposition, provoking, irascible, and fond of
starting quarrels, proof must be of his general
reputation in the community and not of isolated
and specific acts.

People v. Cheng (1997)

SUMMARY: Emma Ruth Ilosco, a prostitute,
witnesses the crime committed by herein
accused. Accused appellant Cheng assails the
credibility of Emma Ruth as to her eyewitness
account, alleging that the latter is a woman of
loose morals. HELD: SC sustained the credibility
of Emma and the admissibility of her testimony.

DOCTRINE: In this jurisdiction, loose morals per

se is not a ground to discredit a witness. There
must be clear indications militating against her
credibility other than her being a person of ill
repute. Even a prostitute may be a competent
witness provided that such witness is not
coached and her testimony is not rehearsed and
on all other counts worthy of credence beyond
reasonable doubt.

Civil Service Commission v. Belagan (2004)

S U M M A R Y: A l l y s o n ( w h o i s a g u y ) ,
Superintendent of DECS, was charged with sexual
harassment and sexual indignities by Magdalena
and Ligaya. DECS Secretary found him guilty and
ordered his dismissal. CSC affirmed the DECS
decision with respect to Magalena but dismissed
Ligaya’s complaint, holding Allyson guilty of grave

! of 164
89 !
 4. Family reputation or tradition regarding
VI. Hearsay Rule pedigree
5. Common reputation

6. Part of res gestae

A. Testimonial Knowledge (Rule 130, 7. Entries in the course of business

Section 36) 8. Entries in official records

Rule 130 9. Commercial lists and the like

SEC. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal 10. Learned treaties

knowledge; hearsay excluded. - A witness can 11. Testimony or deposition at a former

testify only to those facts which he knows of his proceeding
personal knowledge; that is, which are derived
from his own perception, except as otherwise People v. Brioso (1971)
provided in these rules. SUMMARY: The two accused were charged of
murdering Silvino Daria. His niece, Cecilia Bernal,
and his wife testified as to the identity of the
Hearsay evidence
accused and to the commission of the crime. The
• Evidence whose probative force depends in accused were convicted of murder and are now
whole or in part, on the competency and appealing and imputing error on the lower court’s
credibility of some persons other than the reliance on Bernal’s testimony. HELD: SC upheld
witness by whom it is sought to produce it.
the conviction and gave credence to Bernal’s
• Evidence not of what the witness knows testimony having been made with adequate
himself but of what he has heard from others.
knowledge of the accused’s identities and having
no motive to falsely impute them with the crime.
Why exclude hearsay evidence?
Her testimony also corroborated the dying
Hearsay testimony is not subject to the tests declaration of Daria as to the identities of the
which can ordinarily be applied for the accused.

ascertainment of the truth of testimony, since DOCTRINE: A witness can testify only to those
declarant is not present and available for cross- facts which he knows of his personal knowledge;
examination
that is, which are derived from his own perception,
except as otherwise provided in these rules.

Hearsay evidence may be verbal or in writing.

The rule against the admissibility of hearsay is so People v. Cusi, Jr. (1965)
sweeping that it necessarily includes within its SUMMARY: The accused were charged with the
scope written statements which fall within the crime of robbery in band with homicide. One of
general definition of hearsay.
the accused allegedly told Sgt. Bano who were
involved in the conspiracy. During trial, the
How may the fact that an evidence is defendants’ counsel objected to Bano’s
hearsay determined?
testimony, identifying who are involved in the
• From the form of question or answer itself
conspiracy on the ground that it was hearsay.

• From the context of the evidence in chief

DOCTRINE: Such testimony will not be
• By cross- examination of the witness showing considered hearsay evidence if the purpose is
that the testimony given on direct examination only to establish the fact that the statement was
was based on hearsay
made OR to prove the tenor of such statement.

Presumption when witness testifies

People v. Gaddi (1989)
It is presumed that when one testifies to a fact, in SUMMARY: Prosecution witness Guzman saw
the absence of any showing to the contrary, he/ Esguerra drinking gin with appellant. Appellant
she is testifying of his/ her own knowledge.
confessed to him the following day that he killed
Esguerra and dumped his body in a toilet pit.
Multiple Hearsay- hearsay declaration which Guzman reported to the authorities which led to
within itself contains a hearsay statement.
appellant’s eventual arrest.

Appellant also confessed to the police who

EXCEPTIONS to Hearsay Rule: apprehended him and even gave instructions
1. Dying declaration while the body was being dug out with the help of
2. Declaration against interest
barangay residents. RTC found him guilty. On
3. Act or declaration about pedigree
appeal to the SC, he argues that the testimony of

! of 164
90 !
Guzman as to his confession should not be given
credence on the ground that such is considered
as hearsay evidence.
become one (i.e. if it asserts something). The rules
DOCTRINE: Proof that a person confessed to the
commission of a crime can be presented in
evidence without violating the hearsay rule
[Section 30, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of
Court] which only prohibits a witness from
testifying as to those facts which he merely
learned from other persons but not as to those
facts which he "knows of his own knowledge: that
is, which are derived from his own perception."
Hence, while the testimony of a witness regarding
the statement made by another person, if
intended to establish the truth of the fact asserted
in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is
otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement
in the record is merely to establish the fact that
the statement was made or the tenor of such
statement [People v. Cusi Jr.]
DOCTRINE: The testimony is not admissible. It
Leake v. Hagert (1970)
SUMMARY: Hagert’s automobile collided with the
plow towed by Leake’s tractor so the latter filed a
c o m p l a i n t f o r d a m a g e s . H a g e r t fi l e d a
counterclaim alleging that Leake’s negligence in
operating his tractor after sunset, without proper
lights, reflectors or other warnings was the
proximate cause. Among the testimonies admitted
in evidence was that of Gross saying that Leake’s
son told him during the investigation a day after
the accident that the lens in the small light had
been missing from its frame for some time prior to
the accident. Leake objected. Lower court
overruled objection. HELD: LC erred; testimony is
hearsay and should be excluded because Leake’s
son did not testify.
tried to make her admit that she gave Roberts the
DOCTRINE: The hearsay rule prohibits use of a
person’s assertion, as equivalent to testimony of
the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to
testify in court on the stand, where he may be
probed and cross-examined as to the grounds of
his assertion and his qualifications to make it.
was in violation of the Confrontation Clause hence
U.S. v. Zenni (1980)
SUMMARY: During a valid search, government
agents answered several calls with directions for
the placing of bets. These calls were offered as
evidence to show that people believed that the
place was a betting place, and this was objected
on the ground of hearsay. HELD: SC characterized
the statements as implied assertions and although
these were included in the definition of hearsay
before, the Federal Rules on Evidence actually
excluded them and thus, the rule on hearsay will
not apply.
rooted hearsay exception. In other cases, the
DOCTRINE: Under the US rules, a statement will
only become an assertion if it was intended to
on hearsay only apply to assertions, thus if the
statement does not assert something – it is not
covered by the hearsay rule.
Richmond v. Anchuelo (1905)
SUMMARY: Anchuelo, who was blind, went to
Richmond, a doctor, to treat his eyes. The
treatment was unsuccessful. Anchuelo did not pay
Dr. Richmond. Dr. Richmond now sued Anchuelo
(blind). During the proceeding, Anchuelo
presented Jose Pastor as a witness, who testified
that Anchuelo upon returning from Dr. Richmond’s
office stated to Pastor (witness) that Dr. Richmond
agreed to cure him (Anchuelo) for 200 pesos and
not to charge anything if the treatment was
unsuccessful. Is such testimony then admissible?
will be noticed that the witness did not offer to
testify to anything which the plaintiff had said, but
offered to testify to what the defendant said that
the plaintiff had said. The witness did not know
that the plaintiff had made these, statements; he
only knew that the defendant said that the plaintiff
had made them. Such evidence is inadmissible,
according to the provisions of Sec. 276 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
Ohio v. Roberts (1980)
SUMMARY: Roberts was charged with forgery of
checks and possession of stolen credit cards
belonging to Mr. Isaacs. At the preliminary
hearing, Robert’s defense counsel questioned
Anita, the daughter of Isaacs. Defense counsel
checks and cards, but she denied this. Later in
trial, Anita could not be subpoenaed. Roberts
testified that Anita gave him the checks and
cards. Prosecution offered the transcript of the
preliminary hearing. Defense objected, saying this
inadmissible. HELD: The transcripts are
ADMISSIBLE, because it bore sufficient “indicia of
reliability” i.e. the defense counsel was able to
test Anita’s statements in a manner which partook
of cross-examination.
DOCTRINE: In sum, when a hearsay declarant is
not present for cross-examination at trial, the
Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing
that he is unavailable. Even then, his statement is
admissible only if it bears adequate "indicia of
reliability." Reliability can be inferred without more
in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly
! of 164
91 !
evidence must be excluded, at least absent a
showing of particularized guarantees of
trustworthiness.
accused of receiving millions of jueteng money.
Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes (1993)
SUMMARY: APL wants to take depositions of
certain persons in Taiwan. RTC allowed it, but only
for written interrogatories. Dasma questioned this
in the CA and SC. HELD: RTC, CA, and SC all
allowed. SC said RTC could have also allowed
oral examinations. There is still opportunity to
cross-examine.
support. Estrada left the Malacañang Palace
DOCTRINE: Any deposition offered to prove the
facts therein set out during a trial or hearing, in
lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in
open court, may be opposed and excluded on the
ground that it is hearsay; the party against whom
it is offered has no opportunity to cross-examine
the deponent at the time that his testimony is
offered. It matters not that that opportunity for
cross-examination was afforded during the taking
of the deposition; for normally, the opportunity
must be accorded a party at the time that the
testimonial evidence is actually presented against
him during the trial or hearing. Also, RTC could
have allowed for the depositions to be taken on
oral examination in Taipei, the adverse party is still
accorded full right to cross-examine the
deponents by the law, either by proceeding to
Taipei and there conducting the cross-
examination orally, or opting to conduct said
cross-examination merely by serving cross-
interrogatories.
classes: (1) those statements which are the very
California v. Green (1970)
SUMMARY: Porter was arrested in a buy-bust
operation. He named Green as his supplier of
“baggies” of marijuana. In different instances,
Porter testified about how he got the marijuana,
but there were inconsistencies in his statements.
The lower court convicted Green. HELD: The
District CA and California SC reversed saying the
belated cross-examination was not an adequate
substitute for the contemporaneous cross-
examination when testimony is given. The Court
said the subsequent cross-examination was
sufficient to satisfy the hearsay rule because there
was already an opportunity to test the basis of his
former statement.
witness.
DOCTRINE: When the witness gives an out-of-
court statement which varies/is inconsistent with
the statement he gives during trial, the hearsay
rule is satisfied when there is an opportunity to
cross-examine the witness to test the basis of his
former statement
also contains statements of Secretary Angara
Estrada v. Desierto (2001)
SUMMARY: Then Pres. Joseph Estrada was
An impeachment trial was held. The Senate voted
against opening the 2nd envelope allegedly
containing evidence that Estrada indeed received
money which was deposited under the
name Jose Velarde. This sparked the EDSA Dos
movement. Various personalities called for
Estrada’s resignation. AFP Chief (Angelo Reyes)
and PNP Chief (Panfilo Lacson) withdrew their
shortly after Arroyo was sworn as President.
Estrada filed Quo Warranto suit praying that he be
declared the lawful President. HELD: Estrada
impliedly resigned using as evidence the Angara
Diaries. Estrada seeks reconsideration from this
decision.
DOCTRINE: Admissions are admissible even if
they are hearsay. An adoptive admission is a
partys reaction to a statement or action by
another person when it is reasonable to treat the
partys reaction as an admission of something
stated or implied by the other person. 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.
The ban on hearsay evidence does not cover
independently relevant statements. These are
statements which are relevant independently of
whether they are true or not. They belong to two
facts in issue, and (2) those statements which are
circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. The
second class includes the following:
a. Statement of a person showing his state of
mind, that is, his mental condition, knowledge,
belief, intention, ill will and other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his
physical condition, as illness and the like;
c. Statements of a person from which an
inference may be made as to the state of mind
of another, that is, the knowledge, belief, motive,
good or bad faith, etc. of the latter;
d. Statements which may identify the date, place
and person in question; and
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a
These statements are not covered by the
prohibition against hearsay evidence.
The Angara Diary contains statements of the
petitioner which reflect his state of mind and are
circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign. It
from which it can reasonably be deduced
! of 164
92 !
Estrada’s intent to resign. They are admissible and
they are not covered by the rule on hearsay.
that since neither the manager nor the auditor
Lea Mer Industries v. Malayan Insurance (2005)
SUMMARY: P565,000 worth of silica sand
perished at sea when Judy VII, the vessel carrying
it, sank. Malayan employed Toplis & Harding to
inspect its claim. After paying the insured
consignee, Malayan Insurance demanded
reimbursement from Lea Mer Industries, the
common carrier who leased and operated Judy
VII. Malayan filed a complaint against Lea Mer
after its refusal to pay. To prove that Judy VII was
not seaworthy due to holes in the hull of its barge,
Malayan presented as evidence, among others, a
survey report prepared by Mr Jesus Cortez, a
cargo surveyor employed by Toplis & Harding, the
final adjustment report made by Toplis & Harding
and testimonial evidence of several witnesses.
Lea Mer objected to the admissibility of the survey
report on the ground that it was hearsay because
Mr Cortez was not presented as a witness to
testify on the report. HELD: The survey report is
admissible because independently relevant
statements were presented that make the case an
exception to the hearsay rule. The survey report
was offered and used not to prove the facts state
therein but only to prove its existence. The survey
report was offered and used only as part of the
testimonies of plaintiff’s witnesses who referred to
the survey report only in relation to the final
adjustment report. Thus, only the existence of the
survey, not the facts stated in the report, was
testified to.
The declaration of a dying person, made under
DOCTRINE: Well-settled is the rule that, unless
the affiant is presented as a witness, an affidavit is
considered hearsay. An exception to the foregoing
rule is that on independently relevant statements.
A report made by a person is admissible if it is
intended to prove the tenor, not the truth, of the
statements. Independent of the truth or the falsity
of the statement given in the report, the fact that it
has been made is relevant. Here, the hearsay rule
does not apply.
that death is impending and is certain to follow
Patula v. People (2012)
SUMMARY: Patula, sales representative of
Footluckers, was charged with estafa after she
misappropriated for her own use the money she
collected from customers of the company, which
sum she had the obligation to deliver to the
company. In the trial, Prosecution presented the
manager and the store auditor who relied on
ledgers and receipts to show how Patula made it
seem that there were still collectibles and unpaid
accounts from certain customers, when in fact
such had already been paid. The defense allaged
prepared such ledgers and receipts, these
documents along with the testimonies relying
upon them amount to hearsay. The person who
prepared the same should be presented to be
corss-examined as only such person has personal
knowledge of the alleged falsification of the
documents. HELD: Such documents and
testimonies in relation to them in fact amount to
hearsay. Personal knowledge was lacking.
DOCTRINE: Sec. 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court, a
rule that states that a witness can testify only to
those facts that she knows of her personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from her
own perception, except as otherwise provided in
the Rules of Court. The personal knowledge of a
witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting
testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a
disputed fact. A witness bereft of personal
knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called
upon for that purpose because her testimony
derives its value not from the credit accorded to
her as a witness presently testifying but from the
veracity and competency of the extrajudicial
source of her information.
B. Exceptions:
1. Dying Declaration
RULE 130
SEC. 37. Dying declaration.
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.
Dying declaration- a statement made by the
victim of homicide, referring to the material facts
which concern that cause and circumstances of
the killing and which is uttered under a fixed belief
immediately, or in a very short time, without an
opportunity for retraction and in the absence of all
hopes of recovery.
Rationale
a) Necessity
• Declarant’s death renders impossible his
taking the witness stand
• No other equally satisfactory proof of the
crime
! of 164
93 !
b) Trustworthiness
A dying declaration may be impeached.

• The declaration is made in extremity, when the A dying declaration may be impeached by the
party is at the point of death and every hope same means employed to impeach as the
of this world is gone; when every motive to witness’ sworn testimony.

falsehood is silenced; and the mind is induced

by the most powerful consideration to speak Circumstances to determine weight given to
the truth.
dying declarations

• Trustworthiness of the reporters

PURPOSES FOR WHICH DYING DECLARATIONS • Capacity of the declarant at the time to
ARE ADMITTED
accurately remember the past

• Identification of the accused

• Disposition to tell what he remembers

• To show the cause of death of the deceased

• Such circumstances as may be attendant as
• To show circumstances under which the the fact that the declarations were the result of
assault was made upon him
questions propounded by a lawyer, the
presence only of friends and prosecuting
Admission of dying declarations may not be officers, the lack of belief of the declarant in a
objected to as a violation of right of accused to future life, rewards and punishment, the fact
confront or examine witness.
that the statements in the dying declarations
The person who testifies to the dying declaration are contrary to facts satisfactorily proven by
is the witness against the accused and the other evidence, and the fact that the declarant
witness with whom the accused is entitled to be might have been influenced by the passion of
confronted. The declarant is not testifying against anger and vengeance, or jealousy.

him.

People v. Laquinon (1985)

Dying declarations are admissible in civil cases.
SUMMARY: Laquinon is charged with murder for
Declaration is now admissible in any case wherein shooting a Pablo Remonde, who upon being
his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of found by the barrio captain said that Laquinon
the cause and surrounding circumstances of such shot him. At the time, Remonde when asked if he
death.
thought he would survive said that he did not
know, and died three days later. Laquinon denies
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY the statement and argues that a Noli Cabardo is
1. Death be imminent and that declarant be the culprit. HELD: Remonde’s statement cannot
conscious of that fact
qualify as an ante-mortem declaration, he being
2. That the preliminary facts which bring the uncertain of his death, but it may admitted as res
declaration within its scope be made to gestae since the statement was made
appear.
immediately after the incident. Laquinon is guilty.

3. That the declaration related to the facts or DOCTRINE: A dying declaration cannot be
circumstances pertaining to the fatal injury or admitted as an ante-mortem admission if the
death
deceased is in doubt as to whether he would die
4. That declarant would have been competent to or not. The sole basis for admitting such
testify had he survived
declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule is
when the deceased believes himself in extremist
A proper predicate must be laid for the to be at the point of death when ever hope of
introduction of dying declaration.
recovery is extinct.

The proper predicate is the proof that the

declarant has made his declaration under a People v. Sabio (1981)
consciousness of impending death.
SUMMARY: Catalino Espina, an octogenarian,
was found on his dwelling suffering from a
Dying declaration may be introduced by the forehead wound from which he died three days
accused.
later, with the merchandise in his sari-sari store in
Dying declarations, when they tend to exculpate disarray and his cash sales missing. When the
or exonerate the defendant, may be introduced by policemen and his grandnephew arrived, he
him.
pointed to the accused as the culprit behind the
incident. Defense questions the admissibility of
his statement given the apparent lack of evidence
that Catalino knew he was under impending

! of 164
94 !
death. HELD: Sabio guilty of homicide and familiarity of the concerned parties and judicial
statement admissible, given the circumstances authorities of the dialect involved.

behind his statement showing Catalino must have

known his end was near.
Marturillas v. People (2006)
DOCTRINE: It is the belief in impending death SUMMARY: This is a criminal case for homicide
and not the rapid succession of death, in point of where the victim, after being shot, shouted to his
fact, that renders the the dying declarations neighbor, "Help me, Pre, I was shot by the
admissible.
captain." HELD: This was considered by SC as
evidence of the highest order as to the cause of
People v. De Joya (1991) his death and of the identity of the assailant. This
SUMMARY: Eulalia was stabbed to death. Her damning evidence, coupled with the proven facts
grandson found her and asked her what presented by the prosecution led to the
happened, to which she replied, “Si Paqui” (de conclusion of the petitioner’s guilt beyond
Joya’s nickname). RTC convicted de Joya based reasonable doubt.

on this dying declaration and other circumstantial DOCTRINE: The law does not require an explicit
evidence. HELD: Aquitted, because this dying declaration of consciousness of impending death.
declaration was incomplete.
The perception may be established from
DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Completeness: A dying surrounding circumstances, such as the nature of
declaration to be admissible must be complete in the declarant's injury and conduct that would
itself. To be complete in itself does not mean that justify a conclusion that there was a
the declarant must recite everything that consciousness of impending death.

constituted the res gestae of the subject of his

statement, but that his statement of any given fact Class Notes
should be a full expression of all that he intended Can a dying declaration be the sole basis for a
to say as conveying his meaning in respect of conviction? YES – evidence of the highest order

such fact.

People v. Salafranca (22 Feb. 2012)

Class Notes SUMMARY: Salafranca fatally stabbed Bolanon.
Sir: Court was nitpicking too much. How can you Bolanon sought help from his uncle, Estao. On the
expect a dying person to blurt out an entire way to the hospital in a taxi, Estao asked Bolanon
sentence??? Grandson’s fault for asking that who stabbed him,

question.
Bolanon answered that it was Salafranca. When
they got to the hospital, Salafranca was
People v. Salison, Jr. (1996) - skipped pronounced dead 10 minutes later. HELD: RTC,
SUMMARY: Salison, et al mauled Valmoria, CA and SC all affirmed the conviction of
resulting in his death. Before Valmoria breathed Salafranca as guilty of murder. SC found that
his last, he narrated the incident to their purok Bolanon’s dying declaration in the taxi en route to
leader with the help and in the presence of the hospital was admissible as evidence because
Valmoria’s parents.
it met all the requisites of a valid dying
Sole appellant Salison is now contesting the declaration.

admissibility and the probative weight of the dying DOCTRINE: A dying declaration is generally
declaration, arguing as it was written in Cebuano inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay
without any accompanying English or Filipino character except when:

translation as required by the rules, nor was it an (a) The declaration must concern the cause and
acceptable dying declaration since it was not surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
made under the consciousness of an impending death;

death. HELD: RTC affirmed saying that the dying (b) That at the time the declaration is made, the
declaration was admissible and had probative declarant is under a consciousness of an
weight.
impending death;

DOCTRINE: While Rule 132, Sec.33 now prohibits (c) That the declarant is a competent witness;

the admission of such document in an unofficial (d) That the declaration is offered in a criminal
language, SC believes that [in certain case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in
circumstances] in the interest of justice, such which the declarant is a victim.

injunction should not be taken literally, especially if

such is accompanied by a lack of timely objection
from the appellant and the knowledge and

! of 164
95 !
People v. Cerilla (2007) ADMISSIONS DECLARATIONS
SUMMARY: After victim was shot, he told his AGAINST
daughter it was appellant who shot him. RTC INTEREST
found appellant guilty, based its ruling on victim’s
dying declaration.
To be
Appellant argues that court erred in giving full An admission admitted as a
credence to the dying declaration, an exception to Status of the is admissible declaration
the hearsay rule. HELD: All 4 requisites for dying in evidence against
Persons
declaration to be admissible have been complied even if the interest, the
making the person making declarant must
with. SC affirmed ruling of CA and RTC.

Statement such is alive be dead or

DOCTRINE: Four requisites (see previous case).

and is in court unable to

2. Declaration Against Interest testify

RULE 130 When it Made at any Made at any

Sec. 38. Declaration against interest. — The should be time, even time, even
made during the during the
declaration made by a person deceased, or
trial trial
unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact is asserted in the Subject- Admissible as Generally
declaration was at the time it was made so far matter of the long as it is made against
contrary to declarant's own interest, that a Statement inconsistent one’s
reasonable man in his position would not with his pecuniary or
have made the declaration unless he believed present claim moral interest
it to be true, may be received in evidence or defense
and need not
against himself or his successors in interest
be against
and against third persons. one’s
pecuniary or
REQUISITES moral interest
1. A statement of fact w/c was contrary to
declarant’s own interest at the time it was Against An admission Admissible
made
whom it is is admissible even against
2. The declarant has knowledge that the admissible only against third persons
statement is against his pecuniary or moral against the party
interest in that a reasonable man in his making the
position would not have made the declaration admission
unless he believed it to be true
In relation to It is not an An exception
3. Declarant is dead or unable to testify
the Hearsay exception to to the hearsay
Rule the hearsay rule
R a t i o n a l e : S A M E R AT I O N A L E a s D Y I N G rule. It is
D E C L A R AT I O N w h i c h i s n e c e s s i t y & admissible
trustworthiness
not as an
exception to
any rule

Class Notes
What does UNAVAILABILITY mean?
- Subsequently insane

- Serious physical or mental impairment

Out of the country does not mean he’s unavailable

- Find out if place where he is known or unknown

Is it enough if declaration is against interest?

- Qualifier: REASONABLE MAN…

What if declaration not against one’s interest?

! of 164
96 !
- May be appreciated as res gestae or self-serving two of them that fought. On the theory that Toledo
declaration
was actually part of the fight, the lower court held
- Look at SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES of that the sworn statement of Holgado was
declaration
inadmissible and convicted Toledo for the
- Example: Person declares he’s a member of a homicide of Morales. HELD: Acquitted on
certain partnership. If later shown p-ship is reasonable doubt, on the basis of the sworn
bankrupt bec. of corporate crime, it’s a statement, among others, finally introducing the
declaration vs. interest. But if he just says he’s a exception to the hearsay rule of declaration
partner of pship, doesn’t automatically mean against penal interest into Philippine jurisdiction.

declaration against interest. See what he’s DOCTRINE: Declarations of a then living person
involved in, etc.
against his penal interest is admissible as an
Does rule cover declarations against PENAL exception to the hearsay rule.

INTEREST?
- Yes – People v Toledo
Class Notes
Normally refers to proprietary & pecuniary interest Court broadened doctrine — declarations against
(GENERAL RULE)
penal interests should be appreciated in favor of
WHY EXPAND IT? the accused

- Life of person at stake plus…

- Person penally liable may also be civilly liable Fuentes v. CA (1996)

may be required to pay damages (which is a
pecuniary interest)
dance floor. Victim Julieto Malaspino was
People v. Majuri (1980)
SUMMARY: A story of an incarcerated person
who escaped jail to kill his allegedly disloyal wife.
Accused was held guilty for robbery with
homicide. While serving time, he received word
from relatives that his wife was living with another
man and that their children were being neglected.
He escaped jail to see her. When they met, one
thing led to another and he ended up stabbing her
with a bolo multiple times. He was charged with
parricide. He pleaded guilty to killing his wife. On
automatic review, his counsel de oficio argues that
it was never proven that they were married, thus,
parricide was erroneous. HELD: The accused and
SUMMARY: This is a case of murder on the
attending a benefit dance. Accused called to him
and placed his right arm on the victim's shoulder,
saying, "Before long hair ka, ngayon short na."
Suddenly, petitioner stabbed Malaspino in the
abdomen with a hunting knife. Accused fled.
Victim fell and before dying, was able to say that it
was accused who stabbed him. Accused argues
"mistaken identity," that it was his cousin who
actually killed Malaspino. This was allegedly
confessed to him and another person (a common
uncle with this cousin), on separate occasions.
HELD: RTC, CA, and SC ruled that this is not a
declaration against interest as legally
contemplated. Requisites to its application have
not been established. Petitioner is guilty.

the victim were married pursuant to the accused's DOCTRINE: There are 3 essential requisites for
declaration against his penal interests.
the admissibility of a declaration against interest:
(1) the declarant must not be available to testify;
Class Notes (2) the declaration must concern a fact cognizable
Sir: MORE LIKE A JUDICIAL ADMISSION– by the declarant; (3) the circumstances must
accused was alive and could testify
render it improbable that a motive to falsify
existed.

People v. Toledo (1928)

SUMMARY: Story of two dead guys and an
accused. Holgado and Morales had an issue
about who really owns a certain piece of land in
Oriental Mindoro. This issue culminated in a bolo
duel wherein Morales died almost instantly.
Class Notes
D i ff e r e n t f r o m To l e d o : r e l i a b i l i t y a n d
trustworthiness of declarations there established,
but here, declaration of “cousin” came from same
person

Holgado died a month later. Plot twist: after the

bolo duel, Holgado meets his tenant, Eugenio
Toledo (accused), who helped him temporarily rest
at some neighbor’s house. Holgado then went to
the municipal building wherein he swore before
the municipal president that he and Morales
engaged in a bolo fight and that it was only the
Parel v. Prudencio (2006)
SUMMARY: This is a case about a two-storey
residential house between an uncle-in-law and his
nephew-in-law. Uncle filed a case for recovery of
possession of the house, with damages, alleging
that nephew unlawfully entered and took

! of 164
97 !
possession of the ground floor without the uncle's
consent. Nephew on the other hand asserts that
his father, now deceased, owns the ground floor
and his Uncle only owns the second floor; that
since his father and his uncle (whose wife is the
sister of petitioner's father) are co-owners, he has
a right to stay in said floor of the house. The
relevant document here is the affidavit sworn to
by petitioner's father, Florentino, in his lifetime,
saying that he does not own the house at all; that
the building is actually owned by Respondent
(Florentino's brother-in-law). RTC ruled in favor of
Petitioner (nephew), CA reversed. HELD: SC
affirmed CA and one of its grounds was the
affidavit just mentioned. This, the SC said, was a
declaration against interest of nephew's father. In
this case, it was held such was the best evidence
which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in
dispute.
Negros Oriental. One of the evidence therein
DOCTRINE: 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 interests.
declaration regarding pedigree within the
3. Pedigree
RULE 130
Sec. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. — The
act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable
to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another
person related to him by birth or marriage, may be
received in evidence where it occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the two
persons is shown by evidence other than such act
or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes
relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage,
death, the dates when and the places where these
facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It
embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree. (33a)
Deang and her grandfather testified regarding her
REQUISITES
1. THERE IS AN ACT OR DECLARATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE PEDIGREE OF ANOTHER
PERSON
Rule 130, Sec. 39
2. THE DECLARANT IS RELATED BY BIRTH OR
MARRIAGE TO THE PERSON WHOSE PEDIGREE
IS IN ISSUE
 2. That the reputation or tradition of the pedigree
3. THE DECLARATION WAS MADE BEFORE THE
CONTROVERSY
 the controversy; and
4. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO
PERSONS IS SHOWN BY EVIDENCE OTHER
THAN SUCH ACT OR DECLARATION
must be a member of the family
5. THE DECLARANT IS DEAD, OR UNABLE TO
TESTIFY
Gravador v. Mamigo (1967)
SUMMARY: This is a case about a school
principal's real age. Pre-war records seem to
show he was born in 1897. Post-war records on
the other hand show he was born in 1901 (4 years
after). Come 1964, this principal (petitioner)
receives a letter from the Superintendent of
Schools saying that he's already beyond 65,
based on pre-war records, hence had reached
compulsory retirement age. He was therefore
deemed separated from service immediately.
Mamigo, one respondent herein, was designated
as "teacher-in-charge" as petitioner's temporary
replacement. Petitioner commenced a quo
warranto suit against respondents before CFI
submitted was the declaration of petitioner's
brother (now deceased) in a verified pleading, in a
1924 cadastral case which referred to petitioner
as his 23-year old brother and co-owner of the
land. HELD: This was a statement made ante litem
motam by a deceased relative, and is at once a
intendment and meaning of section 33 (now 39) of
Rule 130 of the (old) Rules of Court. Coupled with
other evidence, the CFI, as affirmed by the
Supreme Court, ruled that 1901 was the date of
birth of petitioner.
DOCTRINE: A statement made ante litem motam
by a deceased relative is at once a declaration
regarding pedigree within the intendment and
meaning of section 33 of Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.
People v. Alegado (1991)
SUMMARY: Cristina Deang, a girl less than 12
years of age, was raped twice by Alegado in a
public market. The issue is whether she was
actually below 12 at the time of the incidents.
age. Alegado argues that their testimonies are
hearsay. HELD: Not hearsay, it falls under the
exception because all the requisites are present.
DOCTRINE: Requisites for the applicability of
1. That there is controversy in respect to the
pedigree of any of the members of a family
of the person concerned existed previous to
3. That the witness testifying to the reputation or
tradition regarding the pedigree of the person


! of 164
98 !
 of said person. 
 MARRIAGE TO THE PERSON WHOSE PEDIGREE
Tison v. CA (1997)
SUMMARY: Teodora, the aunt of petitioners, died.
Since she and her husband Martin did not have
any kids, by law, the petitioners shall inherit one-
half of the inheritance pursuant to the Civil Code.
However, Martin (before he, too, died) sold all the
inherited lot to respondent Dominga. The
petitioners filed an action for reconveyance
asserting their right to their part of the inheritance.
Dominga impugned their legitimacy and the
admissibility of Corazon’s (one of petitioners)
testimony that deceased Teodora in her lifetime
categorically declared Corazon to be the
deceased’s niece. HELD: SC ruled for petitioners,
saying that such testimony was admissible as an
exception to the hearsay rule, and, even assuming
arguendo that additional evidence was necessary
to allow said exception, Dominga’s non-objection
at time evidence on such was offered was
deemed a waiver.
DOCTRINE: Evidence may be given upon trial of
DOCTRINE: On the pedigree exception, the
general rule is that where the party claiming seeks
recovery against a relative common to both
claimant and declarant, but not from declarant
himself or declarant’s estate, the relationship of
the declarant to the common relative may NOT be
proved by the declaration itself; there must be
some proof of this fact. As an exception, where it
is sought to reach the estate of the declarant
himself and not merely to establish a right through
his declarations to the property of some other
member of the family, then the requirement of
other proof is NOT needed.
building. Alegado was charged and convicted of
4. Family Tradition
RULE 130
SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree. — The reputation or tradition existing in
a family previous to the controversy, in respect to
the pedigree of any one of its members, may be
received in evidence if the witness testifying
thereon be also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or
other family books or charts, engraving on rings,
family portraits and the like, may be received as
evidence of pedigree. (34a)
learned it from his parents and relatives and his
REQUISITES
1. THERE IS A WITNESS WHO TESTIFIES
REGARDING THE REPUTATION OR TRADITION
OF THE FAMILY IN RELATION TO THE PEDIGREE
OF ANY MEMBER OF THE FAMILY 

2. THE WITNESS IS RELATED BY BIRTH OR
IS IN ISSUE 

3. THE REPUTATION OR TRADITION IS ONE
EXISTING PREVIOUS TO THE CONTROVERSY
Class Notes
Difference from Sec. 39:
- SEC 39: Declarant already dead // any oral or
written evidence
- SEC 40: Declarant/witness alive // family
traditions, etc.
Ferrer v. de Ynchausti (1918)
SUMMARY: Rosa’s heirs filed a complaint praying
that Rosa be adjudged as Isabel Gonzalez’s
legitimate daughter and consequently entitled to
inheritance from the latter’s estate. CFI said no.
SC affirmed. In relation to the topic, they used as
evidence Ramon Jr. (the alleged brother) day-
book containing the circumstances as to Rosa
being a protegee. HELD: Admitted as evidence.
monuments and inscriptions in public places as
evidence of common reputation; and entries in
family Bibles or other family books or charts;
engravings on rings, family portraits and the like,
as evidence of pedigree. | The law does not
require that the entries in the said booklet be
made at the same time as the occurrence of those
events
People v. Alegado (1991)
SUMMARY: Accused Alegado raped a young girl,
Cristina, in the 2nd floor of a public market
statutory rape by the RTC. Alegado contended
that Cristina's age wasn't established with
certainty, because her grandfather's testimony as
to her age was merely hearsay. HELD: The
testimony of Cristina's grandfather was not
hearsay and fell under the exception of Family
Tradition under Sec. 40 of the Rules of Court.

DOCTRINE: The testimony of a person as to his
age is admissible, although hearsay and though a
person can have no personal knowledge of the
date of his birth as all the knowledge a person has
of his age is acquired from what he is told by his
parents -- he may testify as to his age as he had
testimony in such case is an assertion of FAMILY
TRADITION.
! of 164
99 !
5. Common Reputation
RULE 130
SEC. 41. Common reputation. — Common
reputation existing previous to the controversy,
respecting facts of public or general interest more
than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or
moral character, may be given in evidence.
Monuments and inscriptions in public places may
be received as evidence of common reputation.
(35)
significance, may be received as part of the res
REQUISITES
1. THERE IS A WITNESS WHO TESTIFIES
R E G A R D I N G A M AT T E R O F C O M M O N
6. Res Gestae
RULE 130
Sec. 42. Part of res gestae. — Statements made
by a person while a starting occurrence is taking
place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto
with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be
given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also,
statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal
gestae. (36a)
Class Notes
RATIONALE

REPUTATION MORE THAN THIRTY (30) YEARS Necessity

OLD
- No other person can testify due to startling
2. THE COMMON REPUTATION IS ONE occurrence

EXISTING PRIOR TO THE CONTROVERSY

- When person startled, natural effusion or
excitement where person tells story and doesn’t
GR: Reputation evidence cannot be questioned have enough time to concoct story that’s
unless put in issue; can’t be used to establish that favorable or unfavorable

a person did a particular act

Trustworthiness

E: Reputation can be presented in evidence if it - Rule recognizes spontaneity as source of

relates to
trustworthiness

1) Facts of public or general interest more than 30

years old
REQUISITES OF SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS
2) Respecting marriage or moral character
AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE
1 . T H E R E I S A S TA RT L I N G E V E N T O R
Can common reputation be used to establish OCCURRENCE TAKING PLACE

pedigree? 2. A STATEMENT WAS MADE, WHILE THE EVENT

- Other authors/Riano: NO because pedigree is
covered by specific rules so you can’t use
reputation to establish it
3. THE STATEMENT WAS MADE BEFORE THE
- Francisco: YES (if there is one relative)
DECLARANT HAD THE TIME TO CONTRIVE OR
Ferrer v. de Ynchausti (1918), supra
City of Manila v. Del Rosario (1905)
IS TAKING PLACE OR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO
OR SUBSEQUENT THERETO 

DEVISE A FALSEHOOD 

4. THE STATEMENTS MUST CONCERN THE
OCCURRENCE IN QUESTION AND ITS
IMMEDIATE ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES

SUMMARY: The City of Manila filed an action to

recover the possession of two lots in Tondo from Class Notes
the defendant. It presented several witnesses who Specific rule of thumb re: timeline?
testified regarding the ownership of those two - NO but factors should we considered

lots. HELD: the actual ownership of the lots by the - Mental condition of declarant, etc.

City did not constitute the “common reputation” - RULE OF THUMB: time lapse should be long
contemplated in what is now Sec. 41, Rule 130 of enough to enable or not to enable declarant to
the Rules of Court.
have had time to reflect

DOCTRINE: "Common reputation" is equivalent - No opportunity for declarant to have exercised

to universal reputation.
thought processes or engaged in reflective
thought

Should declarant have been competent as witness

before declaration admitted?
- Not required

- Doesn’t go into admissibility, goes into probative

value

! 100 of 164
!
Testimonies must relate to event that had down the victim's ante-mortem statement
happened
identifying "Guirmo" Putian as his assailant, was
- “Uy ang gwapo ng killer!” – not relevant to presented as witness for the prosecution. Trial
shooting
court convicted accused of murder using such
- Relevant: attire of shooter, manner shot, ante-mortem statement as part of the res gestae.
distance, etc.
Accused contends that the victim's statement
should not form part of the res gestae since it was
RATIONALE: special consideration given for reflex taken a few hours after the incident. HELD: SC
action because excitement suspends reflective disagrees.

thinking
DOCTRINE: Although a declaration does not
appear to have been made by the declarant under
OBJECT to res gestae: show witness himself/ the expectation of a sure and impending death,
herself so startled as to render him/her unreliable
 and, for the reason, is not admissible as a dying
declaration, yet if such declaration was made at
REQUISITES OF VERBAL ACTS AS PART OF the time of, or immediately after, the commission
THE RES GESTAE
of the crime, or at a time when the exciting
1. THE PRINCIPAL ACT TO BE CHARACTERIZED influence of the startling occurrence still continued
MUST BE AMBIGUOUS OR EQUIVOCAL
in the declarant's mind, it is admissible as a part
2. THE EQUIVOCAL ACT MUST BE MATERIAL TO of the res gestae.

THE ISSUE

3. A STATEMENT MUST ACCOMPANY THE People v. Tolentino (1993)

EQUIVOCAL ACT
SUMMARY: Accused-appellants were convicted
4. THE STATEMENT MUST GIVE A LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE TO THE EQUIVOCAL ACT
injuries. Evidence presented by the prosecution
Class Notes
VA: no requirement of spontaneity; statement
must give legal significance to equivocal act
the accused-appelants, and that of Adelaide
What if statement doesn’t give new meaning to
act? Sir swings bat. “I am swinging the bat to hit
you.” is statement part of res gestae? NO, doesn’t
add anything to swinging of bat!
People v. Lungayan (1988)
SUMMARY: Ceferino allegedly raped Agripina, a
52-year old widow. They were having a drinking
session in the public market when he suddenly
grabbed her, slapped her, and threatened her with
his gun. He brought her to a banana grove where
he raped her for one hour. She wandered around
for an hour then went home where she told her
daughter about what happened to her. The lower
court convicted Ceferino. HELD: SC overturned
LC decision.
a startling occurrence, b) the statements were
DOCTRINE: With respect to res gestae: it is
important to stress that her statement must not
only be spontaneous, [but] it must also be made
at a time when there was no opportunity for her to
of robbery with homicide and serious physical
that led to their conviction include the testimonies
of Grace Paule, who was an eye-witness to the
robbery and the killing of the Lingad children by
Lingad who was able to get the names of the
accused-appellants from her children before they
died. Accused-appellants appealed the decision
of the lower court and argued that the testimony
of Lingad shoud be inadmissible to as hearsay
evidence since it did not fall under the res gestae
rule. HELD: SC dismissed the petition. Paule was
groggy and delirious during her interview in the
hospital since she’s still recovering from her stab
wound but she was able to identify the accused-
appellants in the witness stand while Lingad’s
testimony falls squarely within the res gestae
exception.

DOCTRINE: The requirements for the application
res gestae: a) the principal act, the res gestae, be
made before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise and c) that the statements made must
concernt the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances.

concoct or develop her own story.

People v. Ner (1969)
People v. Putian (1976) SUMMARY: Jose “Boy” de Leon was allegedly
SUMMARY: On November 22, 1969 while murdered by Roberto “Bobby” / “Pirate” Ner. One
Teodulo Panimdim was attending a dance at of the witnesses, Patrolman Tiong, testified that
Barrio Tabo-o, Jimenez, Misamis Occidental, he he asked Angelina Viray (Boy’s common-law wife)
was stabbed in the left groin which led to his about what transpired. She said that Boy lived
death 5 days later. The policeman who who took with her in the apartment, she being his wife; that

! 101 of 164
!
evening, Pirate Bobby Ner had visited them; that,
when Boy and Angelina retired to their bedroom,
somebody knocked at the door; that as Boy
opened the door, there was a hail of gunshots that
rushing out of the bedroom, she saw Boy
sprawled on the floor, mortally wounded; and that
his assailant was Bobby Ner alias Pirate. 4.The
defense insists that the testimony of Patrolman
Tiong concerning his conversation with Angelina
Viray should be disregarded as hearsay, for
Angelina did not take the witness stand. HELD:
Tiong’s testimony about the statements made by
Angelina Viray, before she could deliberate on the
events that had transpired a few minutes before,
was properly admitted.
emotion, sensation or physical condition (such as
DOCTRINE: Declarations which are the natural
emanations or outgrowths of the act or
occurrence in litigation, although not precisely
concurrent in point of time, if they were yet
voluntarily and spontaneously made so nearly
contemporaneous as to be in the presence of the
transaction which they illustrate and explain, and
were made under such circumstances as
necessarily to exclude the idea of design or
deliberation, must, upon the clearest principles of
justice, be admissible as part of the act or
transaction itself.
DBP Pool v. Radio Mindanao Network (2006)
Class Notes
DISSENT (CASTRO): statement elicited after
patrolman was questioned. If you’re subject to
questioning by police, thought process already
started so you reflected at that time.
Rochar saying that they had interviewed
- No present knowledge
bystanders who identified the men as members of
- When she arrived, she saw common law
husband sprawled and didn’t see Bobby Pirate
shoot husband
D O C T R I N E : S t a t e m e n t s w e re m a d e b y
- Even circumstantial evidence wasn’t sufficient to
convict Bobby Pirate. He was seen at lobby,
corridor, etc. NOT ENOUGH.
spontaneously and before they had the time to
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon (1892)
SUMMARY: Mrs. Sallie Hillmon (“Mrs. Hillmon”),
upon the death of her husband, sought to collect
on three insurance policies insuring his life. The
insurance company defended on the grounds that
Mr. Hillmon was not actually dead and presented
evidence that the corpse Mrs. Hillmon was
claiming as her husband was that of Mr. Walters.
As proof, Mutual Life presented evidence in the
form of letters made by Walters to his sister and
fiancee, detailing his desire to travel with Mr.
Hillmon. After two hung juries, the lower court
decided in favor of Mrs. Hillmon. HELD: SC
reversed the ruling and remanded the case to the
circuit court with directions to set aside the verdict
and to order a new trial. It held that the letters
were the natural proof of Mr. Waters’ intention to
travel from Wichita to Crooked Creek with Mr.
Hillmon on a certain day. The letters were
admissible as evidence of the fact that he had the
intention of going from Wichita and of going with
Mr. Hillmon. The statements are admissible to
show the state of mind of Mr. Waters, and to show
his intent to do certain acts. These things are not
provable by any other testimony, as Mr. Waters
himself is unavailable to testify at trial.
DOCTRINE: US Federal Rules of Evidence 803(3)
makes hearsay admissible if it is "a statement of
the declarant’s then existing state of mind,
intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain
and bodily health), but not including a statement
of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered
or believed."
Class Notes
Declarations intending to prove subsequent
conduct (plan, intention to go somewhere, etc.):
GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE as res gestae under
verbal acts branch.
SUMMARY: Respondent company was claiming
under two insurance policies for a fire that was
allegedly caused by 20 members of the New
People’s Army. HELD: SC denied its claims as the
testimonies of witnesses Lt. Col Torres and SFO II
the NPA could not be accepted as part of the res
gestae.

bystanders during a startling occurrence.
HOWEVER, these utterances were made
contrive or devise a falsehood.
People v. VIllarico, Sr. (2011)
DOCTRINE: 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.

Res Gestae is 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
! 102 of 164
!
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in as were required by law. In defense, the railroad
question and its immediately attending company represented by Mr. Hoffman introduced
circumstances.
the statement of the train engineer and offered to
prove that the statement made by the engineer
7. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS was signed in the regular course of business, it
- Also known as Shop-Book Rule or Business being the regular course of such business to make
Records Rule
such a statement. Palmer objected to the
evidence for being hearsay. HELD: Statement
RULE 130 made by the engineer must be excluded.

SEC. 42. Part of res gestae. — Statements made
by a person while a starting occurrence is taking
place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto
with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be
given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also,
statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res
gestae. (36a)
others, or to provide internal controls.
DOCTRINE: The engineer's statement is not a
record made for the systematic conduct of the
business as a business. An accident report may
affect that business in the sense that it affords
information on which the management may act. It
is not, however, typical of entries made
systematically or as a matter of routine to record
events or occurrences, to reflect transactions with

Requisites: Class Notes

1. The person who made the entry must be dead Sir: In this case, the court did not say that
or unable to testify
accident reports are not admissible. The court
2. The entries were made at or near the time of only recognized the TC to exclude evidence which
the transactions to which they refer
they deem unreliable.

3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts

stated in the entries
Nolan v. Salas (1906)
4. The entries were made in his professional SUMMARY: Petitioner claims to hold a credit of
capacity, or in the performance of a duty, whether Php 690.18 against defendant. The credit was
legal, contractual, moral, or religious
assigned to the plaintiff by a one Tan Yngco. As
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular proof he submitted in evidence 3 notes in the
course of business or duty
aggregate amount of Php 110 and 6 reales and 10
cuartos and a book evidencing the balance of
Class Notes indebtedness. The controversy arose when the
Rationale:
court refused to recognize the contents of the
Reliability – regularly kept records typically have a book insofar as the entries therein were made by
high degree of accuracy and precision, people one Salvador Sia-Cayco, formerly the clerk of Tan
make these entries regularly are trained
Yngco, who, at the time of the trial, was already
deceased. Tan Yngco testified that he knew the
Rule of thumb:
entries existed because his clerk, Salvador, told
That the length of time between the transaction him about it. HELD: Testimony is hearsay. Plaintiff
and the entry should not be long enough to allow sought to avail himself of the provisions of Sec
the person to make a wrong entry due to failure of 328 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides
memory
that the writings of a deceased person may be
read as prima facie evidence of the facts stated
Does this include records of illegal activities? therein.

Yes, the rule does not distinguish.

DOCTRINE: Before one can avail of the benefits
of Sec 328 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now,
Diaries? Sec 43, Rule 130), the authenticity of the
No, except ship log.
manuscript or the documents must first be shown
and the exact date of the manuscript clearly
Palmer v. Hoffman (1943) established because it is required that it should be
SUMMARY: Plaintiff’s wife was hit by a train and made at or near the time of the transaction.

died. Her husband sued the railroad company

alleging that the accident was due to the latter’s Class Notes
negligence. Mr. Palmer alleged that the rain did Sir: Entries are only prima facie and not
not ring its bell, blow its whistle or have its light on conclusive.

! 103 of 164
!
Canque v. CA (1999)
SUMMARY: Canque entered into subcontract
agreements with Socor for some gov’t projects.
When Socor sent her a bill containing the balance,
Canque refused to pay claiming failure of Socor to
submit delivery receipts. Socor filed an action to
collect sum of money. RTC ruled in Socor’s favor
by admitting in evidence the Book of Collectible
Accounts (Exh. K). CA affirmed. HELD: While SC
did not admit Exh. K as competent evidence for
lack of necessity and lack of personal knowledge,
SC upheld RTC decision on the basis of other
documents which evidenced the claim of Socor.
Class Notes
DOCTRINE: The admission in evidence of entries
in corporate books requires the satisfaction of the
following conditions:
requiring the official’s attendance as a witness, will
a) The person who made the entry must be dead,
outside the country or unable to testify;
2. Trustworthiness
b) The entries were made at or near the time of
the transactions to which they refer;
Sps. Africa v. Caltex (1966)
c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts
stated in the entries;
station. It spread and burned several neighboring
d) The entries were made in his professional
capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether
owner, and Mateo Boquiren, as its agent in
e) Legal, contractual, moral or religious; and
operation, for their negligence which caused the
f) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
course of business or duty.
respondents. Among the other issues brought to
S a d a g n o t v. R e i n i e r P a c i fi c P a c i fi c
International Shipping (2007)
SUMMARY: Sadagnot, employed by the Reinier
Pacific as Third Officer, was repatriated after he
refused to follow the Master’s order to perform
deck work. As evidence, the ship’s logbook was
presented. Sadagnot questioned why the CA gave
more credence to the logbook rather than the
testimonies of his co-workers.
DOCTRINE: There are three requisites for
DOCTRINE: A ship’s logbook is the official record
of a ship’s voyage which its captain is obligated
by law to keep. It is where the captain records the
decision he has adopted, a summary of the
performance of the vessel, and other daily events.
The entries made in the logbook by a person
performing a duty required by law are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated in the log book.
sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated,
8. OFFICIAL RECORDS
RULE 130
SEC. 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in
official records made in the performance of his
duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a
person in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated. (38)
Requisites:
1. It was made by a public officer or by another
person specially enjoined by law to do so
2. It was made by a public officer in the
performance of his duty, or by another person in
the performance of a duty specially enjoined by
law
3. The public officer or the other person had
sufficient knowledge of the facts stated by him,
which he must have acquired personally, or
through official information
Rationale:
1. Necessity – inconvenience and difficulty of
unduly hamper public business
SUMMARY: Fire broke out at Caltex service
houses. Their owners sued Caltex Inc, as alleged
fire. Both TC and CA ruled in favor of
the SC is the admissibility of several reports,
submitted by the Manila Police, the Fire
Departments, by Captain Tinio of the AFP, and by
Captain Mariano of Manila Police, vis-à-vis now
Sec. 44, Rule 130. HELD: Based on the requisites
laid down by the SC (see doctrine), only the report
submitted by Captain Mariano is admissible. The
first three are inadmissible for failure to satisfy the
third requisite.
admissibility under the rule: (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
which must have been acquired by him personally
or through official information (Moran, Comments
on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1957] p. 398).
People v. Leones (1982)
SUMMARY: Leones family’s salesgirl Irene
residing in their house alleged that Joseph Leones
raped her. She alleged that while she was in her
room, Joseph and sister Elizabeth entered and
forced her to take 3 tablets of “aspirin”. She
! 104 of 164
!
became weak and dizzy and Joseph succeeded in
raping her. She was taken to the hospital 3 hours
after and examined by the doctor. RTC convicted
Joseph. He appealed to SC based on
insufficiency of prosecution evidence to establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. One of which is
Irene’s clinical case record which described that
she has healing lacerations in the hymen. HELD:
Acquitted, because the entries belie the claim that
Joseph raped Irene on the same day.
presented in court. In the case at bar, we
DOCTRINE: The written entries in the clinical case
record Exhibit 2 are prima facie evidence of the
facts having been made in official records by a
public officer of the Philippines in the performance
of his duty especially enjoined by law, which is
that of a physician in a government hospital.
Manalo v. Robles Trans Co. (1956)
SUMMARY: In a case involving subsidiary liability
of the employer, a sheriff’s return in the previous
criminal case was presented in evidence to show
insolvency of the employee without presenting the
sheriff for cross examination. HELD: The return
was an official record and is prima facie evidence
of the facts stated therein.
Casimiro did not mention him at all and named
DOCTRINE: A sheriff's return is an official
statement made by a public official in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by the
law and forming part of official records, and is
prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
The sheriff's making the return need not testify in
court as to the facts stated in his entry.
necessarily entitled to full credit for it could be
People v. Cabuang (1993)
SUMMARY: Maria and Evelyn were walking home
one night when Cabuang and Matabang (who
they knew) appeared from the rice paddies and
captured Maria. Evelyn was able to hide, but saw
Maria taken away in a trike by the 2 accused and
2 John Does. Maria’s dead, raped and ravished
body was found the next day. Evelyn was
questioned by the police. She couldn’t talk at first,
out of shock, but later executed a sworn
statement identifying the accused. She later
positively identified them also in a police line up.
They were convicted. On appeal, the accused
argued that she did not actually identify them in
during the police investigation because an entry in
the police blotter during that day said the
assailants were “still unidentified.” HELD: Such
records are only prima facie evidence which is
may be incomplete. In this case, the facts show
that she did actually positively identify them, and
later testified in open court.
SUMMARY: Que Ping was convicted of homicide.
DOCTRINE: In People v. Santito, Jr., SC held that
entries in official records like a police blotter are
only prima facie evidence of the facts therein set
out, since the entries in the police blotter could
well be incomplete or inaccurate. Testimony given
in open court during the trial is commonly much
more lengthy and detailed than the brief entries
made in the police blotter and the TC cannot base
its findings on a police report merely, but must
necessarily consider all other evidence gathered
in the course of the police investigation and
conclude that prosecution witness Evelyn de Vera
did positively and clearly identify Modesto
Cabuang and Nardo Matabang as among those
who had raped and killed and robbed the hapless
Maria Victoria Parana.
People v. San Gabriel (1996)
SUMMARY: Accused and a Ramon Doe had a
fistfight with the victim. Onlookers pacified them
and they left. They later returned to corner the
victim and stabbed such victim to death. The
accused relied on the fact that the Advance
Information Sheet prepared by Pat. Steve
only Ramon Doe as the principal suspect. HELD:
SC affirmed his conviction.
DOCTRINE: Entries in official records, as in the
case of a police blotter, are only prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. They are not
conclusive. The entry in the police blotter is not
incomplete and inaccurate, sometimes from either
partial suggestions or for want of suggestions or
inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may
be unable to recall the connected collateral
circumstances necessary for the correction of the
first suggestion of his memory and for his
accurate recollection of all that pertain to the
subject. To be admissible in evidence, 3 requisites
must concur:
a. The entry was made by a police officer or by
another person specially enjoined by law to do so;
b. 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. 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.
US v. Que Ping (1919)
Pending his appeal to the SC, he filed a bail bond
to secure his release. SC affirmed the ruling of the
! 105 of 164
!
lower court. SC ordered the sureties to produce
the body of the accused so that the judgment can
be read to him. Accused did not appear on the
date fixed. The sureties filed a motion to be
relieved from obligation because Que Ping has
died. To prove Que Ping’s death, the sureties
presented two exhibits, which the lower court did
not admit. HELD: Documents are admissible but
documents are not conclusive evidence. Their
probative value may either be substantiated or
nullified by other competent evidence.
3. Compilation is published for use by persons
DOCTRINE: The exhibits being in the nature of
entries in public records, made in the performance
of their duty by public officers of the Philippine
Islands, are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated.
Rationale:
Escobar v. Luna (2007)
SUMMARY: Escobar sisters bought 2 lots in
Tagaytay City. Clodualdo Luna filed a complaint to
have the TCTs of the Escobar sisters nullified
alleging that he was in actual possession of the
lots and that the OCT from which the sisters
derived their TCTs was fictitious and non-existent.
Luna presented various documentary evidence
proving that the OCT is non-existent and the
survey plan of the land is not recorded. RTC
dimissed the complaint holding that the sisters’
titles were already indefeasible and that the
documentary evidence of Luna were not
supported by testimonial evidence; hence it was
hearsay. CA reversed the RTC and held that the
documentary evidence of Luna, being part of
official records, are competent and admissible.
HELD: SC affirmed CA.
had requested for price quotations from dealers of
D O C T R I N E : R e s p o n d e n t s ’ e v i d e n c e a re
competent, having been issued by government
offices and certified to by authorized personnel
who were clothed with authority and duty to issue
such. Certification, without testimony of the
person giving the certification, is sufficient and
competent evidence which is an exception to the
hearsay rule as provided in Sec. 44, Rule 130 of
the Revised Rules of Court. Sec. 44 should be
read in conjunction with Sec. 28, Rule 132 which
allows the admission of the said document.
courts relied on these price quotations in
9. COMMERCIAL LISTS
RULE 130
SEC. 45. Commercial lists and the like. —
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a
list, register, periodical, or other published
compilation is admissible as tending to prove the
truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation and is generally used
and relied upon by them therein. (39)
Requisites:
1. Statements of matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation
2. The statements must be contained in a list,
register, periodical, or other published compilation
engaged in that occupation
4. Is generally relied upon by them
Class Notes
1. Necessity – because of the usual inaccessibility
of the persons responsible for the compilation of
the matters contained in the list and tremendous
inconvenience it would cause to the course if it
would issue summons to these numerous
individuals
2. Trustworthiness – unless the lists are prepared
with care and accuracy, their work will have no
commercial or probative value
What are commercial lists?
- Like brochures of prices, technical
specifications, etc.
PNOC Shipping v. CA (1998)
SUMMARY: There was a collision between two
vessels at sea. The owner of the damaged vessel
sued the owner of the vessel at fault. The plaintiff
equipment similar to those lost at the collision.
These dealers responded through private letters
that contained price quotations. Plaintiff
presented these price quotations as evidence of
the value of the equipment lost at the collision and
as actual damages it suffered, but the authors of
the letters that contained the price quotations did
not take the witness stand. The defendant
objected to the admissibility of the price
quotations but was overruled by TC. The lower
determining the value of the lost equipment and
awarded P6,438,048 as actual damages in the
plaintiff’s favour. HELD: The price quotations were
hearsay and did not fall under the exception of
commercial lists under Sec 45 because the letters
that contained them were private letters that were
not published in any list, register, periodical or
other compilation on the relevant subject matter.
SC ruled that actual damages were not
adequately proven. It set aside the award of actual
! 106 of 164
!
damages and instead ordered the defendant to
pay P2M as nominal damages.
placed by his father in the deed only because he
DOCTRINE: For the document to be under the
exception of commercial lists under Sec 45, it
must be a list, register, periodical or other
published compilation. Price quotations issued
personally to plaintiff who requested for them from
dealers of equipment similar to the ones lost at
the collision of the two vessels are not commercial
lists. These are not published in any list, register,
periodical or other compilation on the relevant
subject matter. Neither are these market reports or
quotations 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 plaintiff.
official document whose publication constituted a
10. LEARNED TREATISES
RULE 130
SEC. 46. Learned treatises. — A published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of
history, law, science, or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
therein 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. (40a)
Requisites:
1. The court can take judicial notice of it
cross-examine him.
2. A witness, expert in the subject, testifies that
the writer of the statement in the treatise is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in
the subject
1. The witness is dead or unable to testify
Class Notes
Rationale:
administrative, between the same parties or those
1. Necessity – it would be costly to refuse to
accept information from a competent source
ready at hand
that in the present case, although on different
2. Trustworthiness – the learned writers have no
motive to misrepresent
4. The issue testified to by the witness in the
Estrada v. Noble (1952)
SUMMARY: Maximino Noble sold parcel of land
to his son Proculo Noble. Deed held that
Maximino had right to repurchase. Maximino
subsequently sold the land again, this time to
Gregorio Estrada, effectively selling to him thr
right to repurchase the land. Proculo Noble
however refused to accept the repurchase price
paid by Estrada, alleging that the sale was an
absolute sale and that the right of redemption was
was afraid that his son would re-sell the land. CA
held that deed is clear and may not be defeated
by mere testimony of Proculo. CA also held that
repurchase price need not be consigned with the
court after it was refused by Proculo. Finally,
Proculo argued that CFI erred in using the
Ballantine Scale in computing the repurchase
price because no evidence was presented as to
the existence of such document and its
provisions. CA however ruled against such
argument and held that CFI rightfully and correctly
used the Ballantine scale.
DOCTRINE: HELD: The SC, CA and CFIs have
repeatedly applied the Ballantine scale and its
provisions in numerous cases. It is therefore, an
leading event of general interest and whose
provisions are widely known and have played an
important part in the contemporary political
history of the country, of which courts of justice
could take judicial cognizance.
11. PRIOR TESTIMONY
RULE 130
SEC. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding. — The testimony or deposition of a
witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a
f o r m e r c a s e o r p ro c e e d i n g , j u d i c i a l o r
administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, may be given in evidence against
the adverse party who had the opportunity to
Requisites:
2. His testimony or deposition was given in a
f o r m e r c a s e o r p ro c e e d i n g , j u d i c i a l o r
representing the same interests
3. The former case involved the same subject as
causes of action
former trial is the same issue involved in the
present case
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-
examine the witness in the former case
! 107 of 164
!
Class Notes
Why are they given high degree of reliability?
1. Opportunity to cross-examine
proceeding partook of leading questions – the
2. Made under oath
principal tool and hallmark of cross-examination.
3. Personnel present
4. Can be recorded
Should there have been an actual conduct of
cross-examination?
- No, it is enough to show that there was an
opportunity for the other party to cross-examine.
latter, counsel for respondent sought to present as
Tan v. CA (1967)
SUMMARY: Petitioners sued respondent for
acknowledgment and support twice. The first
case was dismissed on the motion of the mother
of the petitioners on the ground of amicable
settlement. The petitioners sued the respondent
again and presented the testimonies in the former
trial in evidence. This was considered inadmissble
by the TC which eventually dismissed the case on
the ground of res judicata. HELD: SC upheld the
inadmissibility of the prior testimonies.
objection shall be made at the time when an
DOCTRINE: Under Sec. 47, Article 130, “unable
to testify” does not simply mean subsequent
failure or refusal to appear at the second trial or
hostility. It means such inability proceeding from a
grave cause, almost amounting to death, as when
the witness is old and has lost the power of
speech.
reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution,
Ohio v. Roberts (1980)
SUMMARY: Roberts was charged with forgery of
checks and possession of stolen credit cards
belonging to Mr. Isaacs. At the preliminary
hearing, Robert’s defense counsel questioned
Anita, the daughter of Isaacs. Defense counsel
tried to make her admit that she gave Roberts the
checks and cards, but she denied this. Later in
trial, Anita could not be subpoenaed. Roberts
testified that Anita gave him the checks and
cards. Prosecution offered the transcript of the
preliminary hearing. Defense objected, saying this
was in violation of the Confrontation Clause hence
inadmissible. HELD: The transcripts are
ADMISSIBLE, because it bore sufficient “indicia of
reliability” i.e. the defense counsel was able to
test Anita’s statements in a manner which partook
of cross-examination.
case for the purpose of introducing additional
DOCTRINE: For a prior testimony to be
admissible, defendant must have had the
opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the
prior proceeding. However, a cross-examination
need not strictly occur. The prior testimony of a
witness presented by defendant on direct
examination may also be admissible in a
subsequent proceeding if it is shown that the
questions asked to the witness during such prior
Manliclic v. Calaunan (2007)
SUMMARY: A collision occurred between
petitioners' bus and respond's jeep. A criminal
case was filed followed by a civil case. In the
evidence, transcripts of stenographic notes of the
testimonies given during the criminal case. This
was approved by the TC along with some other
documents. TC decided in favor of respondent,
which the CA affirmed. Petitioner now questions
the validity of the admission of such transcripts.
DOCTRINE: Notwithstanding the fact that
petitioner PRBLI was not a party in said criminal
case, the testimonies of the three witnesses are
still admissible on the ground that petitioner
PRBLI failed to object on their admissibility. An
alleged inadmissible document is offered in
evidence; otherwise, the objection shall be treated
as waived.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2011)
SUMMARY: The PCGG filed a complaint for
and damages before the Sandiganbayan, alleging
that the respondents illegally manipulated the
purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable and
Wireless Limited in Eastern Telecommunications
Philippines (ETPI), which respondents Jose Africa
and Manuel Nieto, Jr. held for themselves and,
through their holdings and the corporations they
organized, beneficially for respondents Ferdinand
E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos.
In Civil Case No. 0130, the testimony of Maurice
Bane was taken by way of deposition upon oral
examination (Bane deposition), prompting the
petitioner in Civil Case No. 009 to file a motion to
adopt the said testimonies. The SB denied such,
and the petitioners did not challenge the denial.
Instead, they made a Formal Offer of Evidence
without the Bane deposition, before filing a
second motion with prayer for re-opening of the
evidence. The petitioners further requested the
court to take judicial notice of the facts
established by the Bane deposition. The SB
further denied two more motions seeking to
including the Bane deposition.
DOCTRINE: Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court lays down the following requisites for the
! 108 of 164
!
admission of a testimony or deposition given at a
former case or proceeding: 1.) The testimony or
deposition of a witness deceased or otherwise
unable to testify; 2.) The testimony was given in a
f o r m e r c a s e o r p ro c e e d i n g , j u d i c i a l o r
administrative; 3.) Involving the same parties; 4.)
Relating to the same matter, and 5.) The adverse
party having had the opportunity to cross-
examine him.

The rule also 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 notice.

! 109 of 164
!
VII. Opinion Rule SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of this
Rule, the following terms shall be defined as
follows:

“Biological sample” means any organic material

RULE 130
originating from a person’s body, even if found in
SEC. 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is
inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA
not admissible, except as indicated in the
testing. This includes blood, saliva and other body
following sections. (42)

fluids, tissues, hairs and bones;

SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The

“DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he
of the body. The totality of an individual’s DNA is
shown to posses, may be received in evidence.
unique for the individual, except identical twins;

(43a)

“DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the

SEC. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The
DNA profiles, results and other genetic information
opinion of a witness for which proper basis is
directly generated from DNA testing of biological
given, may be received in evidence regarding —

samples;

(a) the identity of a person about whom he has

“DNA profile” means genetic information derived
adequate knowledge;

from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient
from a person, which biological sample is clearly
familiarity; and

identifiable as originating from that person;

(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is

“DNA testing” means verified and credible
sufficiently acquainted.

scientific methods which include the extraction of

The witness may also testify on his impressions of
DNA from biological samples, the generation of
the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of
DNA profiles and the comparison of the
a person. (44a)

information obtained from the DNA testing of

biological samples for the purpose of determining,
RULE 132
with reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA
SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved.
obtained from two or more distinct biological
— The handwriting of a person may be proved by
samples originates from the same person (direct
any witness who believes it to be the handwriting
identification) or if the biological samples originate
of such person because he has seen the person
from related persons (kinship analysis); and

write, or has seen writing purporting to be his

“Probability of Parentage” means the numerical
upon which the witness has acted or been
estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a
charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
putative parent compared with the probability of a
handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting
random match of two unrelated individuals in a
the handwriting may also be given by a
given population.

comparison, made by the witness or the court,

SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. – The
with writings admitted or treated as genuine by
appropriate court may, at any time, either motu
the party against whom the evidence is offered, or
proprio or on application of any person who has a
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the
legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a
judge. (23a)

DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due

hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing
of the following:

RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE A biological sample exists that is relevant to the

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC
case;

SECTION 1. Scope. – This Rule shall apply
whenever DNA evidence, as defined in Section 3
hereof, is offered, used, or proposed to be offered
or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions
as well as special proceedings.
for good reasons;
The biological sample: (i) was not previously
subjected to the type of DNA testing now
requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA
testing, but the results may require confirmation

SEC. 2. Application of other Rules on Evidence. – The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid
In all matters not specifically covered by this Rule, technique;

the Rules of Court and other pertinent provisions The DNA testing has the scientific potential to
of law on evidence shall apply.
produce new information that is relevant to the
proper resolution of the case; and

! 110 of 164
!
The existence of other factors, if any, which the and compliance with the scientifically valid
court may consider as potentially affecting the standards in conducting the tests;

accuracy of integrity of the DNA testing.

T h e f o re n s i c D N A l a b o r a t o r y, i n c l u d i n g
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, accreditation by any reputable standards-setting
without need of a prior court order, at the behest institution and the qualification of the analyst who
of any party, including law enforcement agencies, conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not
before a suit or proceeding is commenced.
accredited, the relevant experience of the
SEC. 5. DNA Testing Order. – If the court finds laboratory in forensic casework and credibility
that the requirements in Section 4 hereof have shall be properly established; and

been complied with, the court shall –

The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter
Order, where appropriate, that biological samples provided.

be taken from any person or crime scene The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning
evidence;
the appreciation of evidence shall apply
Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing suppletorily.

designed to protect the integrity of the biological SEC. 8. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. –
sample, the testing process and the reliability of In evaluating whether the DNA testing
the test results, including the condition that the methodology is reliable, the court shall consider
DNA test results shall be simultaneously disclosed the following:

to parties involved in the case; and

The falsifiability of the principles or methods used,
If the biological sample taken is of such an that is, whether the theory or technique can be
amount that prevents the conduct of confirmatory and has been tested;

testing by the other or the adverse party and The subjection to peer review and publication of
where additional biological samples of the same the principles or methods;

kind can no longer be obtained, issue an order The general acceptance of the principles or
requiring all parties to the case or proceedings to methods by the relevant scientific community;

witness the DNA testing to be conducted.

The existence and maintenance of standards and
An order granting the DNA testing shall be controls to ensure the correctness of data
immediately executory and shall not be generated;

appealable. Any petition for certiorari initiated The existence of an appropriate reference
therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the population database; and

implementation thereof, unless a higher court
issues an injunctive order. The grant of DNA
testing application shall not be construed as an
automatic admission into evidence of any
component of the DNA evidence that may be
The general degree of confidence attributed to
mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA
profiles and the significance and limitation of
statistical calculations used in comparing DNA
profiles.

obtained as a result thereof.

SEC. 9. DNA Testing Results. – In evaluating the
SEC. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. – Post- results of DNA testing, the court shall consider the
conviction DNA testing may be available, without following:

need of prior court order, to the prosecution or The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA
any person convicted by final and executory evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA
judgment provided that (a) a biological sample evidence;

exists, (b) such sample is relevant to the case, and The results of the DNA testing in the light of the
(c) the testing would probably result in the reversal totality of the other evidence presented in the
or modification of the judgment of conviction.
case; and that

SEC. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA DNA results that exclude the putative parent from
evidence. – In assessing the probative value of the paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-
DNA evidence presented, the court shall consider paternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity
the following:
is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing
The chair of custody, including how the biological shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If
samples were collected, how they were handled, the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9%
and the possibility of contamination of the or higher there shall be a disputable presumption
samples;
of paternity.

The DNA testing methodology, including the
procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure,
SEC. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing. – Remedy
if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict. – The
convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the
! 111 of 164
!
results of the post-conviction DNA testing are The court may allow the physical destruction of a
favorable to the convict. In the case the court, biological sample before the expiration of the
after due hearing finds the petition to be periods set forth above, provided that:

meritorious, if shall reverse or modify the A court order to that effect has been secured; or

judgment of conviction and order the release of The person from whom the DNA sample was
the convict, unless continued detention is justified obtained has consented in writing to the disposal
for a lawful cause.
of the DNA evidence.

A similar petition may be filed either in the Court SEC. 13. Applicability to Pending Cases. Except
of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any as provided in Section 6 and 10 hereof, this Rule
member of said courts, which may conduct a shall apply to cases pending at the time of its
hearing thereon or remand the petition to the effectivity.

court of origin and issue the appropriate orders.

SEC. 14. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on
SEC. 11. Confidentiality. – DNA profiles and all October 15, 2007, following publication in a
results or other information obtained from DNA newspaper of general circulation.

testing shall be confidential. Except upon order of

the court, a DNA profile and all results or other
information obtained from DNA testing shall only General Rule: A witness can testify only to those
be released to any of the following, under such facts which he knows of his personal knowledge.

terms and conditions as may be set forth by the

court:
Exceptions:
Person from whom the sample was taken;
1. Opinion of expert witness – on a matter
Person from whom the sample was taken;
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or
Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal training which he is shown to possess

action;
2. Opinion of ordinary witness:

Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and

a. A handwriting with which he has sufficient
Other persons as determined by the court.
familiarity

Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any b. The identity of a person about whom he has
form any information concerning a DNA profile adequate knowledge

without the proper court order shall be liable for c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
indirect contempt of the court wherein such DNA sufficiently acquainted

evidence was offered, presented or sought to be d. The witness’ impression of the emotion,
offered and presented.
behavior, appearance, or condition of a person

Where the person from whom the biological

sample was taken files a written verified request Reason for Admissibility:

to the court that allowed the DNA testing for the It is for the court to form an opinion concerning
disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all the facts in proof of which the evidence is offered.

results or other information obtained from the

DNA testing, he same may be disclosed to the Dilag & Co v. Merced (1949)
persons named in the written verified request.
SUMMARY: Dilag’s truck was stolen. After
SEC. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. The trial liberation from the Japanese, Dilag found the
court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its truck in possession of Merced. Merced alleged
totality, including all biological samples, DNA that he bought the truck from Lim Ben, who
profiles and results or other genetic information alleged that he bought it from Zandueta.
obtained from DNA testing. For this purpose, the Zandueta claims that he was the owner of the
court may order the appropriate government truck by presenting his certificate of registration of
agency to preserve the DNA evidence as follows:
the truck. Dilag claims that Zandueta’s certificate
In criminal cases:
of registration has been tampered with. In proving
for not less than the period of time that any this, Dilag presented as witness Jose Aguilar who
person is under trial for an offense; or
has been with the Bureau of Public Works since
in case the accused is serving sentence, until 1930, occupied the position of inspector in charge
such time as the accused has served his of weighing and measuring trucks and verifying
sentence;
their motor numbers, chief of the registration
In all other cases, until such time as the decision division for eight years, and from 1938 to the date
in the case where the DNA evidence was of trial, chief investigator of the division of motor
introduced has become final and executory.
vehicles, charged with the duty of investigating
conflicting claims on motor vehicles. Zandueta
! 112 of 164
!
impugns the testimony of Aguilar on the ground
that this witness has not qualified as an expert on
motor numbers.
experts, is incompetent if the facts are of such a
DOCTRINE: Although a witness, in order to be
competent as an expert, must show himself to be
skilled or experienced in the business or
profession to which the subject relates, there is no
precise requirement as to the mode in which skill
or experience shall have been acquired. Scientific
study and training are not always essential to the
competency of a witness as an expert. A witness
may be competent to testify as an expert although
his knowledge was acquired through the medium
of practical experience rather than scientific study
and research.
occurred. Both contentions were supported by
US v. Trono (1904)
SUMMARY: Benito Perez was arrested along with
two other persons by Valentin Trono and two
policemen for the alleged theft of a revolver. Perez
died due to the beating received. Defense relies
on Dr. Icasiano's reports as basis. HELD: The
testimony of the expert witness cannot be given
weight as it runs counter to the evidence
available.
immaterial, calling for speculation, guess and
DOCTRINE: Expert testimony no doubt
constitutes evidence worthy of meriting
consideration, although not exclusive, on
questions of a professional character. The courts
of justice, however, are not bound to submit their
findings necessarily to such testimony; they are
free to weight them, and they can give or refuse to
give them any value as proof, or they can even
counterbalance such evidence with the other
elements of conviction which may have been
adduced during the trial.
response, defendant offered in testimony the
People v. Adoviso (1999)
SUMMARY: This case involves the murder of
Emeterio (grandfather) and Rufino (grandson).
They were shot one night while they were at home
in a small bamboo house.
pertaining to the polygraph examination of the
DOCTRINE: Polygraph test has not as yet
attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and
accurate means of ascertaining truth or
deception.
Court three competent polygraph experts other
Brunker v. Cummins (1892)
SUMMARY: Cummins leased the upper part of
his building to a lodge of Odd Fellows. On the
sidewalk, defendant’s employee left a barrel, over
which Brunker fell on his way from the lodge. The
HELD: The plaintiff was entitled to recover for the
injuries, on proof that the barrel was so negligently
placed as to render the sidewalk unsafe.
and the government.
DOCTRINE: Where the facts can be fully placed
before the jury, opinion evidence, even from
nature that jurors are as well qualified to form an
opinion upon them as the witnesses. Exception: It
is only proper to resort to opinion evidence from
non-expert witnesses if necessity requires the
introduction of that class of evidence.
Een v. Consolidated Freightways (1954) <3
SUMMARY: The automobile driven by Een
collided with a trailer-tractor owned by
Consolidated Freightways. They alleged
conflicting claims as to which lane the accident
evidence presented by both parties. Consolidated
Freightways presented in evidence the testimony
of one John Holcomb who was a deputy sheriff
and former city policeman with more than
seventeen years' experience investigating
accidents as a law enforcement officer. He
testified that he formed an opinion as to where the
accident occurred. Plaintiffs objected and said
that such testimony was incompetent, irrelevant,
conjecture, obviously invading the province of the
jury, calling for a conclusion. HELD: SC overruled
the objection.
DOCTRINE: Parties are not bound by the
opinions of expert witnesses. Their testimony is
purely advisory.
US vs. Ridling (1972)
SUMMARY: Action for perjury. Defendant had
allegedly testified falsely before a Grand Jury. In
opinion of polygraph experts which would support
defendant’s assertion that at the time he made the
statements before the grand jury, he knew or
thought them to be true.
DOCTRINE: The evidence of polygraph experts
defendant and their opinions will be admitted
subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. The parties will meet and will recommend to the
than those offered by the defendant.
2. The Court will appoint one or more of the
experts to conduct a polygraph examination.
3. The defendant will submit himself for such
examination at an appointed time.
4. The expert appointed by the Court will conduct
the examination and report the results to the
Court and to the counsel for both the defendant
! 113 of 164
!
5. If the results show, in the opinion of the expert,
either that the defendant was telling the truth or
that he was not telling the truth on the issues
directly involved in this case, the testimony of the
defendant's experts and the Court's expert will be
admitted.
convenience and comfort. Thus, Galian is
6. If the tests indicate that the examiner cannot
determine whether the defendant is or is not
telling the truth, none of the polygraph evidence
will be admitted.
SUMMARY: Respondent watched over petitoner’s
In the event the defendant declines to participate
or cooperate in the test, none of the polygraph
evidence will be admitted.
were no longer there. Respondent eventually
Ruth v. Fenchel (1956)
SUMMARY: Ruth was allowed a new trial on the
damages related to a case involving an
automobile accident. She was awarded with
damages. Fenchel appealed asserting error in
permitting cross-exam of his medical expert
witnesses, Dr. Solk and Dr. Reilly, based on
medical treatises which the experts did not rely
upon (in fact, their view is contrary to the treatise).
HELD: TC was correct in allowing such cross-
exam because the treatise were recognized by the
experts as authority; the facts in the treatise were
not admitted in evidence, it merely served the
purpose of questioning the experts’ judgment and
credibility.
Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise
DOCTRINE: When cross-examiner directs the
attention of the expert witness to the contents of
treatises expressing an opinion at variance with
the opinion of the witness, and does so, not to
prove the contrary opinion but merely to call into
question the weight to be attached by the fact
finder to the opinion of the witness, the law of this
State allows such use of the treatise even if not
relied upon by the witness in arriving at his
opinion, provided the witness admits that the
treatise is a recognized and standard authority on
the subject.
technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still
Galian v. State Assurance Co. (1915)
SUMMARY: Galian claimed proceeds from an
open fire insurance policy. The insurance
company wanted to give him a lower amount. In
determining the amount to be given, the insurance
company used the testimonies of three experts.
HELD: The testimonies of the experts were
superficial, and there was no need for expert
witnesses anymore as the articles listed were
normally used by people for their own
convenience, and the prices are readily available
in retail stores.
DOCTRINE: Sec. 49 of Rule 130 provides that
expert witnesses may be admitted on matters
requiring special knowledge. In this case, no
special knowledge was needed because the
prices of articles sought to be apprised can be
seen in retail stores, and it is most probable that
Galian himself bought them for his own
knowledgeable about the prices of said items.
Tijing v. CA (2001)
child while petitioner was in the market. When
petitioner came back, respondent and her son
moved to another place. Serious efforts to search
for their child proved futile. Four years after,
petitioner went to Hagonoy, Bulacan after reading
about the death of the alleged common law
husband of respondent whose remains lie in said
place. Petitioner claims she saw her child, now
named John Thomas Lopez, but respondent
refused to give him back. Petitioner spouses filed
a petition for habeas corpus. HELD: SC ruled in
favor of petitioner spouses for sufficiently proving
through several evidence that said child is indeed
their son, Edgardo Jr..
DOCTRINE: A final note. Parentage will still be
resolved using conventional methods unless we
adopt the modern and scientific ways available.
in using DNA test for identification and parentage
testing. The University of the Philippines Natural
Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA
Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to
conduct DNA typing using short tandem repeat
(STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the fact
that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies,
one copy from the mother and the other from the
father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged
father and child are analyzed to establish
parentage. Of course, being a novel scientific
open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate
case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on
the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said,
that courts should apply the results of science
when competently obtained in aid of situations
presented, since to reject said result is to deny
progress. Though it is not necessary in this case
to resort to DNA testing, in future it would be
useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of
parentage and identity issues. (DNA evidence was
neither raised as an issue nor was it mentioned in
resolving the issues.)
! 114 of 164
!
People v. Duranan (2001)
SUMMARY: AAA was a 25 y.o mental retard at
the time of the rape incident and finished up to
Grade 6 only. She lived in the same apartment
where Duranan Kalbo was renting a room shared
with other people. She filed an information for 2
counts of rape against the accused. RTC
convicted Duranan Kalbo. On appeal, accused
inconsistent and that she had sex with another
married man. HELD: SC remanded the case to the
RTC to subject the parties to DNA testing (the first
application of the DNA rules to a case) in order to
determine the paternity of the child. It held that
such material evidence could mean his acquittal.
It also discussed the procedure of introducing
such evidence and the reliability of such tests.

objects to the competency of AAA’s mother BBB
to testify on the mental state of AAA for being an
ordinary witness. He also objects to the
competency of AAA to testify as to the rape
incidents for being a mental retard. HELD: SC
affirmed the conviction applying the opinion rule
to BBB and as to AAA, she was nevertheless able
narrate the incident before the court despite the
mental retardation. Nevertheless, objections
deemed waived.
tests.
DOCTRINE: In assessing the probative value of
DNA evidence, the RTC shall consider, among
other things, the following data: how the samples
were collected, how they were handled, the
possibility of contamination of the samples, the
procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
whether the proper standards and procedures
were followed in conducting the tests, and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the

DOCTRINE: It is competent for an ordinary
witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or
mental condition of a person, provided the
witness had sufficient opportunity to observe the
speech, manner, habits and conduct of that
Moreover, the court a quo must ensure that the
proper chain of custody in the handling of the
samples submitted by the parties is adequately
borne in the records, i.e.: that the samples are
collected by a neutral third party; that the tested

person. He is generally required to detail the
factors and reasons upon which bases his opinion
before he can testify. The mother of an offended
party in a case of rape, though not a psychiatrist,
if she knows the physical and mental condition of
the party, how she was born, what she is suffering
from, and what her attainments are, is competent
to testify on the matter.
in relation thereto.
parties are appropriately identified at their sample
collection appointments; that the samples are
protected with tamper tape at the collection site;
that all persons in possession thereof at each
stage of testing thoroughly inspected the samples
for tampering and explained his role in the
custody of the samples and the acts he performed

Ilao-Quianay v. Mapile (2005)

SUMMARY: This is a case challenging the validity
of the deed of sale between a decedent and
respondent’s predecessor in interest because of
the allegation that decedent’s signature was
forged. HELD: The testimonies of expert
witnesses are not automatically binding upon the
court and the problem of the evaluation of expert
testimony is left to the discretion of the TC whose
ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence
of an abuse of that discretion. The sale was still
held to be valid because of other reasons.

DOCTRINE: Courts are not necessarily bound to

assign probative weight to expert witness’
testimonies even though they are deemed
admissible.

People v. Umanito (2007)

SUMMARY: AAA was raped by Umanito in La
Union. She got pregnant (eventually gave birth)
and reported it to the police. Umanito was
convicted several years later. On appeal, he
argued that the prosecution failed to prove his
g u i l t , s a y i n g t h a t A A A’s t e s t i m o n y w a s

! 115 of 164
!

VIII. Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Relate to “Burden of Evidence”
Burden of evidence Burden of proof
Shifts from party to Does not shift as it
party depending upon remains throughout the
the exigencies of the trial with the party upon
case in the course of whom it is imposed
the trial
Generally determined Generally determined
by the developments at by the pleadings filed
the trial or by the by the party
provisions of
substantive law or
procedural rules which
may relieve the party
from presenting
evidence on the fact
alleged i.e.
presumptions, judicial
notice and admissions.
Bautista v. Sarmiento (1985)
SUMMARY: After the prosecution presented its
lone witness, the accused moved for dismissal by
way of demurrer to evidence. This was denied so
they filed a petition for certiorari arguing that the
respondent judge’s finding of a mere prima facie
case against them negates the existence of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
DOCTRINE: A party who has the burden of proof
DOCTRINE: When a prima facie case is
established by the prosecution in a criminal case,
the burden of evidence shifts to the accused. The
burden of proof does not shift to the defense. The
burden of proof remains throughout the trial with
the party upon whom it is imposed—the
prosecution. It is the burden of evidence which
shifts from party to party depending upon the
exigencies of the case in the course of the trial.
This burden of going forward with the evidence is
met by evidence which balances that introduced
by the prosecution. Then the burden shifts back.
murder for blowing up with an explosive the
Asian Construction v. Tulabut (2005)
SUMMARY: Asian Construction and
Develeopment Corp. was contracted by the
government for the Philippine Centennial
Exposition. They subcontracted it to Tulabut.
Tulabut did the works in the Food Plaza and gave
progress billing to ACDC in amount of 3.4M.
ACDC again sought the help of Tulabut for two
additional cafeterias. Purchase Order given to
ACDC worth 400k. ACDC did not pay, claiming
that Tulabut did not complete the work they are
obligated to do. Tulabut filed complaint,
presenting testimonial and documentary evidence;
ACDC did not adduce any. HELD: ACDC is
estopped from denying liability because they
merely denied without showing evidence.
DOCTRINE: Once plaintiff makes out a prima
facie case in his favor, the burden of evidence
shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff’s prima
facie case, otherwise a verdict must be returned in
favor of plaintiff. Party having burden of proof
must produce preponderance of evidence.
EQUIPOSE DOCTRINE (See cases below)
Marubeni v. Lirag (2001)
SUMMARY: Lirag filed for specific performance in
RTC claiming that Marubeni owed him P6M for
the consultancy services he rendered under an
oral consultancy agreement. Lirag alleged that
because of his services the Bureau of Posts
project was awarded to the Marubeni-Sanritsu
tandem. Marubeni denied having entered the
consultancy agreement. RTC and CA found that
the evidence supports the existence of the
Consultancy Agreement. HELD: SC reversed
holding that the burden of proof was upon Lirag to
show that there is indeed an agreement and that
the latter has failed to show a preponderance of
evidence that such an agreement exists. The
testimonial evidence of Lirag’s witnesses only
show that they learned of the agreement because
Lirag told them about it.
in a civil case must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. When the evidence of
the parties is in equipoise, or when there is a
doubt as to where the preponderance of evidence
lies, the party with the burden of proof fails and
the petition must thus be denied.
Malana v. People (2008)
SUMMARY: Three men, Messrs Dominador
Malana, Rodel Tiaga and Elenito Malana, were
charged with murder and two counts of frustrated
residence of the Roxases, which left the mother,
Betty, dead and her daughter, Suzette, and
granddaughter, Jenny, injured. The prosecution
presented the father, Vicente, and the daughter as
witnesses. The father testified that he woke up
one night at 11:30 and saw the kitchen door on
fire. He tried to put out the fire with water, but the
fire spread out. He said that he smelled gasoline.
He woke up his wife and told her to ask for help.
She ran to their front door, but when she opened
! 116 of 164
!
it, the three accused entered their house. Since
these three men had previously threatened to kill
his family, the father, upon seeing them, ran
through the fire and got out through the kitchen
door to seek help. The daughter testified that she
saw three men inside their house near the front
door. She identified Messrs Dominador and Rodel
Tiaga and said that they were holding a matchbox
and matchstick in their hands and were standing
behind an unidentified tall, fat man who was
carrying a one-gallon container with a wick
sticking out of its hole. Mr Tiaga lit the wick with a
match, and the tall, fat man threw the container in
their direction, causing an explosion. The mother
instantly died; her legs and one of her arms were
blown apart. The daughter’s left leg was shattered
and had to be amputated below the knee, and her
front teeth were knocked out. Eight-month old
Jenny, who was in her mother’s arms, suffered
burns in her arms. Vicente and Suzette pointed to
Messrs Dominador Malana and Rodel Tiaga
during their testimony in open court, but they
failed to identify Mr Elenito Malana. The accused
denied these allegations, raised alibi as their
defence and imputed ill motives behind the
accusations. The TC, as affirmed by the appellate
court, found Messrs Dominador Malana and
Rodel Tiaga guilty of murder and frustrated
murder but acquitted Mr Elenito Malana on the
ground of reasonable doubt because he was not
sufficiently identified as the third man. HELD: SC
affirmed the convictions. It rejected the
appellants’ assertion that the equipoise doctrine
should be applied to overturn their convictions.
Suzette, as a victim herself and who saw her
baby’s arms get seared and her mother blown
apart, would not have made haphazard
accusations. Her accusations could have no other
reason than that of making sure justice was done.
Though Vicente did not see the act of throwing
the explosive, his testimony placed the appellants
at the scene of the crime and corroborated his
daughter’s testimony.
installments. IFC's counsel wrote Tobias to
DOCTRINE: Where the evidence of the parties in
a criminal case is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence should
tilt the scales in favor of the accused. There is,
therefore, no equipoise if the evidence is not
evenly balanced. Said rule is not applicable in the
case before us because the evidence here
presented is not equally weighty.  The equipoise
rule cannot be invoked where the evidence of the
prosecution is overwhelming.
truck (similar to extrajudicial foreclosure).


As an aside: Justice Edolsa proclaims the
importance of the burdens: we must not stymie
the wheels of justice from rolling along!
RULE 131: Burden of Proof and Presumptions
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. (1a, 2a)
1. Civil Cases
Pornellosa v. Land Tenure Admin. (1961)
SUMMARY: Pronellosa purchased the right to
occupy a parcel of land from a certain Vicenta San
Jose. Entirety of lot was subsequently bought by
the government and administration of the same
was entrusted to the LTA. Pornellosa claimed to
have continued to pay for the lot when Pornellosa
found out that the subject lto was already
subdivided to two and one half was sold Private
Respondent Herminio Guzman. Pornellosa thus
filed an action to annul the sale and to compel the
LTA to execute a deed of sale in her favor. HELD:
Pornellosa failed to establish any right to the
subject lot.
DOCTRINE: A party claiming a right granted or
created by law must prove his claim by competent
evidence. A plaintiff is duty bound to prove his
allegations in the complaint. He must rely on the
strength of his evidence and not on the weakness
of that of his opponent.
IFC v. Tobias (1977)
SUMMARY: Tobias bought, on installment basis,
a Dodge truck from Leelin Motors, Inc. From the
sale, the latter got 36 promissory notes and a
chattel mortgage (on the same truck), with Tobias
as drawer/debtor/mortgagor. Leelin indorsed the
promissory notes and assigned the chattel
mortgage to petitioner IFC. Thereafter, Tobias
directly paid IFC but defaulted after six
demand payment or surrender the truck. Tobias
replied that he was surrendering the truck
because it met an accede nt and the same is
with Leelin Motors for repairs. IFC changed its
mind and instead sued for the debt balance. RTC,
as later affirmed by the CA, dismissed the case on
the ground that IFC is now barred/estopped under
Art. 1484 (Civil Code) from filing a collection suit
when it had earlier asked Tobias to surrender the
Petitioner argues that it had no knowledge that
the truck was in an accident when it made the
demand, thus, it had the right to choose the more
! 117 of 164
!
prudent route which was to file a collection suit
upon being informed of the accident. HELD: When
IFC said it had no knowledge that the truck was in
an accident, this was a negative allegation, and
needs no evidence to support it. The burden of
proof therefore of disproving petitioner's claim of
non-knowledge shifted to respondent, which the
latter failed to do.
illegal possession of firearm. Although not stated
DOCTRINE: An allegation of having no knowledge
(of the accident) is a negative allegation and
needs no evidence to support it, not being an
essential part of the statement of the right on
which the cause of action is founded. It is
therefore the other party (respondent Tobias) who
has the burden of disproving the claim of
petitioner that he has no knowledge of such
(accident).
alleged by the prosecution must be proven if "it is
Sambar v. Levi Strauss (2002)
SUMMARY: Levi Strauss filed a complaint against
Sambar, owner of CVSGIC, claiming he infringed
on their copyright of the arcuate back pocket
design. CVSGIC claims their design is original
under Copyright Registration No. 1-1998. Sambar
denies he is connected with CVSGIC. He, admits
the copyright registration is under his name, but
denies authorizing its use. He claims Levi Strauss
has the burden of proving his connection to
CVSGIC and that he authorized the use of the
design. HELD: Sambar has the burden of proof
because his defense was an affirmative defense.
be revived by Verzola. Both Josefina and Verzola
DOCTRINE: In civil cases, the burden of proof
may be on either the plaintiff or the defendant. It is
on the defendant, if in his answer he alleges an
affirmative defense, which is not a denial of an
essential ingredient in the plaintiffs cause of
action, but is one which, if established, will be a
good defense i.e., an avoidance of the claim,
which prima facie, the plaintiff already has
because of the defendants own admissions in the
pleadings.
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.
Prudential Guarantee v. TransAsia Shipping
(2006)
SUMMARY: TRANS-ASIA’s insured vessel caught
fire, so it sought to claim on its insurance policy
with PRUDENTIAL, but the latter denied such
claim alleging that TRANS-ASIA was in breach of
one of the warranty’s conditions. HELD: Upon
TRANS-ASIA’s establishment of its prima facie
case of loss and policy coverage, the burden of
evidence shifted to PRUDENTIAL in proving its
special & affirmative defense that TRANS-ASIA
cannot claim since it violated warranty conditions.
But PRUDENTIAL didn’t.
adduced by Verzola.
DOCTRINE: A party which alleges a fact as a
matter of defense has the burden of proving it.
2. Criminal Cases
People v. Pajenado (1970)
SUMMARY: Defendant was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and
in the case, it seems like the prosecution did not
present evidence as to the illegal possession
charge. HELD: SC reversed the defendant’s
conviction of illegal possession for failure of the
prosecution to present evidence to prove it.
DOCTRINE: Under Sec. 2 of Rule 131, in criminal
cases the burden of proof as to the offense
charged lies on the prosecution. | A negative fact
an essential ingredient of the offense charged"
People v. Verzola (1977)
SUMMARY: Verzola clubbed Bernardo Molina,
Josefina's husband, to death. Josefina helped
Verzola bring Bernardo's bloodstained body down
the stairs of her house. Verzola then went to the
police and reported that Bernardo died in an
accident. In Verzola's extra-judicial confession, he
admitted to clubbing Bernardo. Josefina said she
witnessed the crime. Later, Verzola said he killed
Bernardo in self-defense. Josefina said she didn't
witness the crime but she saw Bernardo trying to
claimed that they weren't aware of the contents of
their extra-judicial confession and that they were
made to sign them by the police without being
able to read the contents of their confession. CFI
said they were both guilty of murder, Verzola as
the principal and Josefina as the accessory.
HELD: Verzola was the only one guilty. Acquitted
Josefina, stating that Verzola DID NOT present
proof that he was justified in killing Bernardo with
DOCTRINE: Once an accused has admitted the
killing of a human being, the burden is on him to
establish the existence of nay circumstance which
may justify the killing or at least attenuate the
offense committed. To establish his exculpation,
or the justification for the act, he must prove such
affirmative allegation by clear, satisfactory, and
convincing evidence: He must rely on the strength
of his own weakness and not on the weakness of
that for the prosecution, for even if the
prosecution was weak, it could not be disbelieved
after the accused himself had admitted the killing.
In this case, it is evident that no such proof was
! 118 of 164
!
Patterson v. New York (1977)
SUMMARY: Patterson shoots wife’s lover and
was charged with murder. Accused raised defense
of acting under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance. Under New York law, accused must
prove affirmative defense by preponderance of
evidence. Jury found accused guilty. Appeal
pending, SC decided Mullaney and struck down
Maine’s statute requiring accused to prove
defense that he acted in heat of passion under
provocation. Patterson argues that New York law
is also unconstitutional based on Mullaney. Court
held that Mullaney is different as the defense
raised was related to an element of the crime
charged. New York affirmative defense bears no
relationship to element of murder. Also, due
process only requires prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt all elements of crime
charged. Prosecution need not disprove and rebut
all affirmative defenses raised by accused. Burden
is on accused to prove affirmative defense by
preponderance of evidence.
convincing evidence. || In parricide, the best proof
DOCTRINE: Due Process Clause does not put
New York to the choice of abandoning such an
affirmative defense or undertaking to disprove its
existence in order to convict for a crime which is
otherwise within the State's constitutional powers
to sanction by substantial punishment. If the State
chooses to recognize a factor that mitigates the
degree of criminality or punishment, it may assure
itself that the fact has been established with
reasonable certainty, and to recognize at all a
mitigating circumstance does not require the State
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt its
nonexistence in each case in which the fact is put
in issue if, in its judgment, this would be too
cumbersome, expensive, and inaccurate.
RULE 131
People v. Macalaba (2003)
SUMMARY: Abdul was convicted of violating the
dangerous drugs act. In his appeal, he argued that
the prosecution failed to present any evidence
that he did not have the authority to possess
shabu. HELD: The negative averment that he had
no authority to possess shabu is indicated by the
positive testimonies of the prosecution (i.e. that he
was driving a suspected carnapped vehicle when
he was caught, that the police found the shabu in
an open bag in the car, etc.) With these facts
having been established by the prosecution, the
burden was on Abdul to prove that he had the
authority or license to possess the shabu but he
failed to do so.
overcome by other evidence:
DOCTRINE: The general rule is that if a 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. The exception is where the
negative of an issue does not permit of direct
proof, or where the facts are more immediately
within the knowledge of the accused, the onus
probandi rests upon him to prove it.
People v. Florendo (2003)
SUMMARY: Imong hacked his wife with a bolo.
He was convicted of parricide, with the
aggravating circumstance of cruelty and
sentenced to death. On review to the SC, he
claims the RTC erred in not appreciating his
defense was that he was insane, in appreciating
cruelty as an aggravating circumstance, and for
upholding his marriage to his wife as legitimate.
HELD: SC ruled against him on the first and third
count, but agreed on the second.
DOCTRINE: The onus probandi rests upon him
who invokes insanity as an exempting
circumstance, and he must prove it by clear and
of relationship between appellant and the
deceased is the marriage certificate, and in the
absence thereof, oral evidence of the fact of
marriage may be considered. The testimony of
appellant that he was married to the deceased is
an admission against his penal interest. It is a
confirmation of the sem per praesumitur
matrimonio and the presumption that a man and a
woman deporting themselves as husband and
wife have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage.
3. Presumptions
SEC. 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. (3a)
SEC. 3.  Disputable presumptions. — The
following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
(a)That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b)That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful
intent;
! 119 of 164
!
(c)That a person intends the ordinary age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years
consequences of his voluntary act;
shall be sufficient in order that his succession may
(d)That a person takes ordinary care of his be opened.

concerns;
The following shall be considered dead for all
(e)That evidence willfully suppressed would be purposes including the division of the estate
adverse if produced;
among the heirs:

(f)That money paid by one to another was due to (1)A person on board a vessel lost during a sea
the latter;
voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not
(g)That a thing delivered by one to another been heard of for four years since the loss of the
belonged to the latter;
vessel or aircraft;

(h)That an obligation delivered up to the debtor (2)A member of the armed forces who has taken
has been paid;
part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for
(i)That prior rents or installments had been paid four years;

when a receipt for the later one is produced;

(3)A person who has been in danger of death
(j)That a person found in possession of a thing under other circumstances and whose existence
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the has not been known for four years;

taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, (4)If a married person has been absent for four
that things which a person possess, or exercises consecutive years, the spouse present may
acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has
(k)That a person in possession of an order on well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
himself for the payment of the money, or the already death. In case of disappearance, where
delivery of anything, has paid the money or there is a danger of death the circumstances
delivered the thing accordingly;
hereinabove provided, an absence of only two
(l)That a person acting in a public office was years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
regularly appointed or elected to it;
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in
(m)That official duty has been regularly performed;
any case, before marrying again, the spouse
(n)That a court, or judge acting as such, whether present must institute a summary proceedings as
in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the provided in the  Family Code  and in the rules for
lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
(o)That all the matters within an issue raised in a without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of
case were laid before the court and passed upon the absent spouse. 

by it; and in like manner that all matters within an (x)That acquiescence resulted from a belief that
issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the
were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon law or fact;

by them;
(y)That things have happened according to the
(p)That private transactions have been fair and ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature
regular;
habits of life;

(q)That the ordinary course of business has been (z)That persons acting as copartners have entered
followed;
into a contract of copartnership;

(r)That there was a sufficient consideration for a (aa)That a man and woman deporting themselves
contract;
as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
(s)That a negotiable instrument was given or contract of marriage;

indorsed for a sufficient consideration;

(bb)That property acquired by a man and a
(t)That an endorsement of negotiable instrument woman who are capacitated to marry each other
was made before the instrument was overdue and and who live exclusively with each other as
at the place where the instrument is dated;
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage
(u)That a writing is truly dated;
or under void marriage, has been obtained by
(v)That a letter duly directed and mailed was their joint efforts, work or industry.

received in the regular course of the mail;

(cc)That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a
(w)That after an absence of seven years, it being woman who are not capacitated to marry each
unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, other and who have acquire properly through their
he is considered dead for all purposes, except for actual joint contribution of money, property or
those of succession.
i n d u s t r y, s u c h c o n t r i b u t i o n s a n d t h e i r
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the corresponding shares including joint deposits of
purpose of opening his succession till after an money and evidences of credit are equal. 

absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the

! 120 of 164
!
(dd)That if the marriage is terminated and the prove the same; in the absence of proof, they
mother contracted another marriage within three shall be considered to have died at the same time.
hundred days after such termination of the former (5a)

marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence SEC. 4.  No presumption of legitimacy or
of proof to the contrary:
illegitimacy. — There is no presumption of
(1)A child born before one hundred eighty days legitimacy of a child born after three hundred days
after the solemnization of the subsequent following the dissolution of the marriage or the
marriage is considered to have been conceived separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the
during such marriage, even though it be born legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove
within the three hundred days after the termination his allegation. (6)

of the former marriage.

(2)A child born after one hundred eighty days

following the celebration of the subsequent Class Notes
marriage is considered to have been conceived Presumptions: an inference of the existence or
during such marriage, even though it be born non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted
within the three hundred days after the termination to draw from the proof of other facts

of the former marriage.

(ee)That a thing once proved to exist continues as Proponent proves FACT A. FACT B arises, which
long as is usual with things of the nature;
then puts burden on other party to dispute FACT
(ff)That the law has been obeyed;
B, otherwise FACT B is proved.

(gg)That a printed or published book, purporting

to be printed or published by public authority, was Effect – establish prima facie case, proponent
so printed or published;
need not prove FACT B, if he proves FACT A.

(hh)That a printed or published book, purporting Ratio of presumptions

contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of - Necessity,

the country where the book is published, contains - Correct imbalance of the advantage of the
correct reports of such cases;
other party e.g. common carrier

(ii)That a trustee or other person whose duty it - Preserve social and economic policies

was to convey real property to a particular person

has actually conveyed it to him when such Conclusive presumptions – not really
presumption is necessary to perfect the title of presumptions but are matters of substantive law

such person or his successor in interest;

(jj)That except for purposes of succession, when Presumption cannot be sole basis of guilty – must
two persons perish in the same calamity, such as be corroborated by other evidence. Still have to
wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown prove proof beyond reasonable doubt (Country
who died first, and there are no particular Court Ulster v Allen)

circumstances from which it can be inferred, the

survivorship is determined from the probabilities Pascual v. Angeles (1905)
resulting from the strength and the age of the SUMMARY: Angeles was occupying the subject
sexes, according to the following rules:
land as a tenant. When Pascual filed an action for
1.If both were under the age of fifteen years, the the former to vacate said land for non-payment of
older is deemed to have survived;
rents, defendant denied the lease and alleged that
2.If both were above the age sixty, the younger is he had acquired ownership over said land by
deemed to have survived;
acquisitive prescription. HELD: SC recognized the
3.If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, due execution of the lease contract and held that
the former is deemed to have survived;
by virtue thereof, Angeles cannot thus deny the
4.If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the title of his landlord.

sex be different, the male is deemed to have DOCTRINE: This action arises out of the contract
survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
of lease and presupposes in the lessor a right to
5.If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the the ownership or possession of the property. For
other between those ages, the latter is deemed to this reason he can not be compelled to prove his
have survived.
title thereto. The tenant can not deny the title of
(kk)That if there is a doubt, as between two or his landlord at the time of the commencement of
more persons who are called to succeed each the relation of landlord and tenant between them.

other, as to which of them died first, whoever

alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall
! 121 of 164
!
Ormachea v. Trillana (1909)
SUMMARY: Petitioner is a partner with Queco in
different businesses in Bulacan with their agent
Lawa as the manager of the businesses.
Respondent who was operating a distillery
contracted a loan with the partnership as
evidenced by valles the terms of payment being
payment in tuba at a set period. The partnership
was dissolved and the assets of the partnership
were divided between the partners, petitioner
became the owner of the debts of the respondent
as evidenced by valles. Petitioner tried to collect
on the loan but respondent refused to pay,
arguing that he had already paid for the loan.
Petitioner filed a collection case in court and
offered as evidence the valles, lower court for
petitioner. HELD: SC affirmed. Petitioner offered
no evidence that he had already paid his debts
and since the valles exist and and are in the
possession of the creditor, the debt that they
represent have yet to be extinguished.
denial of equal protection of law. Every accused
DOCTRINE: 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
proof, but, in many cases, when the facts
People v. Padiernos (1976)
SUMMARY: In this parricide case, the wife killed
the husband by stabbing him. Outside the room
where this happened were their family driver and
Letty Basa, a cousin of the husband. Letty Basa’s
written statement was not presented. The
defense argues that non-presentation of the
written statement of this witness to the police
which she allegedly did not sign, gave rise to the
presumption that it "contained declarations
disastrous to the prosecution case." HELD: SC
found this argument without merit.
assailed the constitutionality of such statute.
DOCTRINE: The presumption that suppressed
evidence is unfavorable does not apply where the
evidence was at the disposal of both the defense
and the prosecution.
Yee Hem v. United States (1925)
SUMMARY: Yee Hem was convicted of
concealing a quantity of smoking opium after
importation, with knowledge that it has been
imported in violation of a long-standing act. Yee
Hem appeals on the ground that the Act is
unconstitutional for violating due process of law
and compulsory self-incrimination clauses of the
Fifth Amendment based on Sections 2 and 3. The
said Sections provide for a presumption that the
possession of opium is sufficient evidence for
conviction and shifts the burden of proof on the
defendant, contrary to the presumption of
innocence provided by the Constitution. The
Court ruled that the Act is not unconstitutional. It
is well within the power of the Congress to enact
provisions in respect of the presumptions arising
from unexplained possession of such opium.
HELD: The legislation providing that proof of one
fact shall constitute  prima facie  evidence of the
main fact in issue is but to enact a rule of
evidence, and quite within the general power of
government. A legislative presumption may not
constitute a denial of due process of law or a
denial of equal protection of law. Every accused
person, of course, enters upon his trial clothed
with the presumption of innocence. But that
presumption may be overcome not only by direct
proof, but, in many cases, when the facts
standing alone are not enough, by the additional
weight of a countervailing legislative presumption.
DOCTRINE: A legislative presumption may not
constitute a denial of due process of law or a
person, of course, enters upon his trial clothed
with the presumption of innocence. But that
presumption may be overcome not only by direct
standing alone are not enough, by the additional
weight of a countervailing legislative presumption.
County Court of Ulster v. Allen (1979)
SUMMARY: 3 males and a 16-year-old girl (Jane
Doe) were stopped for speeding on the NY
Thruway. 2 loaded handguns (found in Jane Doe’s
handbag/pocketbook), a loaded machine gun and
over a pound of heroin were found in their car.
They were convicted by the lower court on the
basis of a presumption of possession created by a
certain NY statute. Respondents (minus the girl)
HELD: SC ruled against them. Statute is
constitutional. Presumption as applied to them in
this case was entirely rational – they weren’t
casual passengers; one of the guns was in plain
view and w/in access of respondents; hardly likely
guns were in Jane Doe’s sole possession; and so
on.
DOCTRINE: Several circumstances made it highly
improbable that Jane was the sole custodian of
the weapons. | Presumption in this case was a
permissive presumption. Prosecution didn’t have
to rely entirely on it to convict respondents as long
as it met the “more likely than not” standard/test
laid down in Leary.
Sandstrom v. Montana (1979)
SUMMARY: Sandstrom confessed to the killing of
Annie Jessen, and was charged with deliberate
! 122 of 164
!
homicide. His counsel argues that since
Sandstrom did not do it purposely or knowingly,
he cannot be convicted of said crime. TC
instructed the jury that “the law presumes that a
person intends the ordinary consequences of his
voluntary acts.” Petitioner objected on the ground
that such presumption shifted the burden of proof
on the defense. HELD: Such instruction was
unconstitutional, because regardless if the jury
interpreted such instruction as permissive or
mandatory, It cannot discount the possibility that
the jurors will actually proceed upon one or the
other of those interpretations.
discretion on the part of Sandiganbayan,
DOCTRINE: A state must prove every ingredient
of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and
may not shift the burden of proof to the defendant
by means of such a presumption.
presumption is not violated by RA 1379, Section
People v. Magbanua (2004)
SUMMARY: Magbanua allegedly shot Diaz. The
prosecution presented eyewitness testimonies
which show Magbanua shot Diaz from close
range face to face. However, the medico-legal’s
findings show that the bullets entered from behind
both ears of Diaz. RTC convicted Magbanua of
murder, so he appealed the decision. His defense
is that the findings of the medico-legal and the
witness testimonies are contradictory, which
raises doubts as to the veracity of the testimonies.
HELD: The findings of the medico-legal are
rebuttable because of his being remiss in his
duties.
because PB applied them to a loan contracted by
DOCTRINE: Government doctor’s post-mortem
examination is presumed by law to have been
regularly performed. This rebuttable presumption,
however, cannot be successfully invoked when it
appears that the doctor was remiss in the
performance of his duties as medico-legal officer.
DOCTRINE: PB claims that the stipulation is valid,
Mabunga v. People (2004)
SUMMARY: Moody was accused of stealing the
typewriter of the BFP in Romblon. He was
allegedly seen carrying a HOPE cigarettes box,
which he left under a bench in the PPA terminal.
The box was opened by PPA officers and they
found the typewriter. The RTC and CA found him
guilty of robbery with force upon things, but the
HELD: Acquitted.
Surtida v. Rural Bank of Malinao (2006)
DOCTRINE: Before an inference of guilt arising
from possession of recently stolen goods can be
made, however, the following basic facts need to
be proven by the prosecution: (1) that the crime
was committed; (2) that the crime was committed
recently; (3) that the stolen property was found in
the possession of the defendant; and (4) that the
defendant is unable to explain his possession
satisfactorily. For purposes moreover of
conclusively proving possession, the following
considerations have to be emphasized: (1) the
possession must be unexplained by any innocent
origin; (2) the possession must be fairly recent;
and (3) the possession must be exclusive.
Ong v. Sandiganbayan (2005)
SUMMARY: Ong was charged of violating RA
1379 by acquiring properties grossly
disproportionate to his lawful income and
declared sources. He alleged grave abuse of
particularly asailing SB’s order by alleging that RA
1379 is unconstitutional for violating the
presumption of innocence. HELD: The
2.
DOCTRINE: In case of statutory crimes, no
constitutional provision is violated by a statute
providing that proof by the State of some material
fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence
of guilt, and that then the burden is shifted to the
defendant for the purpose of showing that such
act or acts are innocent and are committed
without unlawful intention.
Pilipinas Bank v. Glee Chemical (2006)
SUMMARY: GCL applied for a loan from PB,
secured by a real estate mortgage. GCL claims
that they never received the proceeds of the loan
a third person. PB claims that the real estate
mortgage had a stipulation in favor of a third
person. HELD: The stipulation is not valid because
it was not proven that such was added with the
approval of GCL’s president.
contending that it was notarized, and thus, validly
executed. SC said that notarization only creates a
presumption of the due execution of a document,
and such may still be overcome by other
evidence. In this case, the presumption cannot
even be used by PB in its favor because the clerk
admitted that GCL’s president and manager were
not present during its notarization.
SUMMARY: Petitioners acquired several loans
from respondent. Their receipt of the proceeds
was evidenced by their signature at the dorsal
portion of the cashier’s checks. Two Dacion en
Pago were executed by them over their properties
when they failed to pay. Respondent informed
them of their preferential right to repurchase which
they rejected. Respondent filed a complaint for
! 123 of 164
!
unlawful detainer against petitioners because they
refuse to vacate a portion of the land they ceded
to respondent. Petitioners, in turn, filed a
complaint against respondent to annul the
documents involved in their transactions on the
ground that they were simulated. RTC ruled in
favor of petitioners. CA reversed. HELD: SC
affirmed. Petitioners failed to overcome the
presumption that a contract has sufficient
consideration. The complaint was only meant to
derail the unlawful detainer case filed against
them.

DOCTRINE: Under Sec. 3, Rule 131 of the Rules

of Court, the following are disputable
presumptions: (1) private transactions have been
fair and regular; (2) the ordinary course of
business has been followed;  and  (3) there was
sufficient consideration for a contract.  A
presumption may operate against an adversary
who has not introduced proof to rebut it.  The
effect of a legal presumption upon a burden of
proof is to create the necessity of presenting
evidence to meet the legal presumption or
the prima facie case created thereby, and which if
no proof to the contrary is presented and offered,
will prevail.  The burden of proof remains where it
is, but by the presumption, the one who has that
burden is relieved for the time being from
i n t ro d u c i n g e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f t h e
averment, because the presumption stands in the
place of evidence unless rebutted.

! 124 of 164
!
IX. Presentation of Evidence SEC. 3.  Storage of electronic evidence.  – The
electronic evidence and recording thereof as well
as the stenographic notes shall form part of the
Rule on the Conduct of Pre-Trial (AM No. 03-1-09- record of the case. Such transcript and recording
SC); Judicial Affidavit Rule; Rule on Examination shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such
of A Child Witness
proceedings.  

(SEE APPENDICES AT THE END OF

THIS REVIEWER) Class Notes
Examination of witness – open court, under oath,
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES orally

Exceptions:

RULE 132 - PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

1. Summary procedure cases

SECTION 1.  Examination to be done in open

2. Depositions

court. — The examination of witnesses presented

3. Judicial affidavit

in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court,

4. Testimony of dead witness

and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness

is incapacitated to speak, or the questions calls
Most important witness rule – present the most
for a different mode of answer, the answers of the
important one first, and the others after.

witness shall be given orally. (1a)

SEC. 2. Proceedings to be recorded. — The entire

One day examination of witness rule – try to
proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the
examine him in only one day, para hindi pabalik-
questions propounded to a witness and his
balik

answers thereto, the statements made by the

judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses
Judicial affidavit rule – takes the place of
with reference to the case, shall be recorded by
testimony, but witness must still appear. For all
means of shorthand or stenotype or by other
civil cases, not for criminal cases for penalties
means of recording found suitable by the court.

more than 6 years, unless parties agree

A transcript of the record of the proceedings

made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or
Electronic testimony – may be allowed after court
recorder and certified as correct by him shall be
determines necessity, and prescribes terms and
deemed  prima facie  a correct statement of such
conditions. Transcript will be stored and kept as
proceedings. (2a)

part of records of the case

Rules on Electronic Evidence, Rule 10

GR: witness cannot refuse to take witness stand

EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES 
Ex: Criminal cases, the accused, objects to
SECTION 1.  Electronic testimony.  – After
question when propounded, on ground of self-
summarily hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9
incrimination

of these Rules, the court may authorize the

presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic
DIRECT (why no leading questions allowed) –
means. Before so authorizing, the court shall
Facts should come from the witness, he will tell
determine the necessity for such presentation and
his/her story, as a matter of fairness, BUT
prescribe terms and conditions as may be
narration is frowned upon (Judge Jatty: Don’t
necessary under the circumstance, including the
waste the fucking time of the court!).
protection of the rights of the parties and
CROSS-EXAMINATION – examine witness as all
witnesses concerned. 

important facts (ENGLISH RULE), test credibility

SEC. 2.    Transcript of electronic testimony.  –
and ensure reliability and accuracy of testimony,
When examination of a witness is done
Exceptions:

electronically, the entire proceedings, including

- Hostile witness, rule 132 sec 12, only on
the questions and answers, shall be transcribed
examination in chief

by a stenographer, stenotypes or other recorder

- When the witness is the accused himself,
authorized for the purpose, who shall certify as
rule 115 sex 1(d), only on direct matters

correct the transcript done by him. The transcript

REDIRECT – clarify or repel any adverse
should reflect the fact that the proceedings, either
statement in the cross, and Rehabilitate the
in whole or in part, had been electronically
witness. No leading questions allowed.

recorded. 

RECROSS – as to matters in redirect.

! 125 of 164
!
LEADING QUESTIONS – Rule of thumb: if it is De los Reyes was subsequently apprehended.
answerable by yes or no, it’s probably a leading The case was reassigned to Brach 15 as it was
question.
designated as the heinous crimes court. Trial
IMPEACH WITNESS – Discredit witness by ensued (Trial 2) and the prosecution presented the
attacking CREDIBILITY of witness
same witnesses in Trial 1 with the exception of
SPO4 Bonavente. When Adela was called to the
Do prior statements have to be absolutely true to witness stand, the private prosecutor started
use as a statement for impeachment to present rereading the questions and answers as recorded
testimony? NO. You only need to show that the in the transcript of her testimony given in Trial
prior statement (regardless of truth) is inconsistent 1.  Before he could go over the entire transcript,
with present testimony.
however, the defense counsel objected.  The
private prosecutor thereupon asked Adela, if she
2 types of evidence in rule 132 sec 16
affirmed all her answers appearing in the
- Refresh memory, witness looks at transcript of stenographic notes taken during her
document, testimony is still the evidence
testimony in Trial

- N o r e c o l l e c t i o n , b u t s w e a r s t h e The prosecution subsequently offered the

memorandum is correctly stated, the evidence presented in Trial 1, including the
memorandum is the evidence, which must testimonies of their witnesses. The defense
be offered
objected arguing that they were not formally
offered and presented in Trial 2, and that de los
People v. Estenzo (1976) Reyes was not a party in Trial 1. The RTC
SUMMARY: Resp. Judge issued an order admitted the evidence and found de los Reyes
sustaining the procedure proposed by defense guilty.

that in lieu of the testimony of witnesses on direct
examination in open court, he was filing their
affidavits subject to cross-examination. Pet.
contends that this violates Rule 132, Sections 1
and 2 that testimony of witnesses should be given
HELD: SC ordered a retrial. The procedure done in
Trial 2 was in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of Rule
132, and section 1 of Rule 131. Witnesses must
be asked questions and they must answer the
questions propounded to them orally.

orally in open court. HELD: SC granted the The main and essential purpose of requiring a
petition and set aside the order.
witness to appear and testify orally at a trial is to
DOCTRINE: Personal appearance and testimony secure for the adverse party the opportunity of
of witnesses before an open court gives the c ro s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . R u l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e
adverse party an opportunity for cross- examination of witness are intended to protect the
examination for direct and personal putting of rights of litigants and to secure orderly dispatch of
questions and obtaining immediate answers. It the business of the courts.

also enables the judge to observe and ascertain DOCTRINE: Witnesses must give their
the credibility of witnesses making him more likely testimonies orally in open court.

to reach a correct result than reviewing evidence

from a written transcript. Lastly, it protects the
rights of litigants and secures orderly dispatch of
business in courts.
5-year old girl named Angela Michelle who was
People v. Go (2002)
SUMMARY: Go and de los Reyes were accused
of raping Imelda Brutas. Initially, only Go was
arrested and de los Reyes remained at large. Go,
however, jumped bail after arraignment and he
was tried in absentia (Trial 1). Evidence presented
by the prosecution in Trial 1 consists of the
testimonies of Imelda, her mother Adela, her sister
Clara, the examining doctor Dr. Saguinsin, and
SPO4 Bonavente. Also presented were other
pieces of evidence including Imelda’s panty and
watch, the police blotter, and the medical report.
RTC (Branch 16) found Go guilty and sentenced
him to death.
on Angela's testimony is misplaced because the
People v. Bisda (2003)
SUMMARY: The case involves the kidnapping of
kidnapped by the 2 accused after her dismissal
while she was on her way to her school bus. The
accused in this case were Jenny Rose, an aunt of
one of the yayas of the victim and Alma Bisda.
The two accused were charged with kidnapping
for ransom and were found guilty by lower court
sentencing them to suffer the extreme penalty of
DOUBLE DEATH by lethal injection, having
conspired in the commission thereof. The
prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of
Angela Michelle, the 5-year old victim which the
lower court gave credence to (she was 6 years old
when she testified). During the automatic review
with SC the accused argued that the TC's reliance

! 126 of 164
!
records do not show that Angela had the capacity
to distinguish right from wrong when she testified
in open court. The appellants point out that she
was merely six years old at the time. Although
Angela took an oath before she testified, the trial
judge failed to ask any questions to determine
whether or not she could distinguish right from
(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)

wrong, and comprehend the obligation of telling

the truth before the court. Hence, one of the
standards in determining the credibility of a child RA 1379, Section 8

witness was not followed. HELD: SC affirmed the AN ACT DECLARING FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF
ruling of the lower court convicting Bisda and THE STATE ANY PROPERTY FOUND TO HAVE
Basilan.
BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY ANY
DOCTRINE: It cannot be argued that simply PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AND
because a child witness is not examined on the PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEEDINGS
nature of the oath and the need for her to tell the THEREFOR.

whole truth, the competency of the witness and S E C T I O N 8 .  P r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t s e l f -

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 voir dire
examination on such witness to test his
competency. The court may motu proprio conduct
the voir dire examination. In United States v.
Buncad, this Court held that when a child of
tender age is presented as a witness, it is the duty
of the judge to examine the child to determine his
competency. If a party admits proof to be taken in
a case without an oath, after the testimony has
been acted upon by the court, and made the
basis of a judgment, such party can no longer
object to the admissibility of the said testimony.
incrimination.  Neither the respondent nor any
other person shall be excused from attending and
testifying or from producing books, papers,
correspondence, memoranda and other records
on the ground that the testimony or evidence,
documentary or otherwise, required of him may
tend to incriminate him or subject him to
prosecution; but no individual shall be prosecuted
criminally for or on account of any transaction,
matter or thing concerning which he is compelled,
after having claimed his privilege against self-
incrimination, to testify or produce evidence,
documentary or otherwise, except that such
individual so testifying shall not be exempt from
prosecution and conviction for perjury or false
testimony committed in so testifying or from
administrative proceedings.

He is estopped from raising the issue in the

appellate court. In this case, Bisda and Basilan PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 749 July 18, 1975

only assailed the testimony of the 6 year old GRANTING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION TO
victim when the case was already with the SC. GIVERS OF BRIBES AND OTHER GIFTS AND TO
THEIR ACCOMPLICES IN BRIBERY AND OTHER
B. Rights of a Witness
GRAFT CASES AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS

SECTION 1.  Any person who voluntarily gives

RULE 132 information about any violation of Articles 210,
SEC. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A 211, and 212 of the Revised Penal Code; Republic
witness must answer questions, although his Act Numbered Three Thousand Nineteen, as
answer may tend to establish a claim against him. amended; Section 345 of the Internal Revenue
However, it is the right of a witness:
Code and Section 3604 of the Tariff and Customs
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or Code and other provisions of the said Codes
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the
demeanor;
public officials concerned; and other laws, rules
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of and regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption
justice require;
and other forms of official abuse; and who
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters willingly testifies against any public official or
pertinent to the issue;
employee for such violation shall be exempt from
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to prosecution or punishment for the offense with
subject him to a penalty for an offense unless reference to which his information and testimony
otherwise provided by law; or
were given, and may plead or prove the giving of

! 127 of 164
!

such information and testimony in bar of such
prosecution: Provided; that this immunity may be
enjoyed even in cases where the information and
testimony are given against a person who is not a
public official but who is a principal, or
accomplice, or accessory in the commission of
any of the above-mentioned violations: Provided,
process. (With regard rights of a witness, this case
does not mention the rule specifically, but it is
most likely connected with Rule 132, Sec 3 par. 4.
In this case, although the law provides that the
witness must answer to questions which may
subject him to a penalty, this case teaches us that
the law that provides such must still ultimately be
in accordance with our constitutional rights)

further, that this immunity may be enjoyed by such DOCTRINE: Pleadings, annexes, oral arguments,
informant or witness notwithstanding that he manifestations and admissions, to be admissible
offered or gave the bribe or gift to the public in evidence must meet the standards under the
official or his accomplice for such gift or bribe- Due Process Clause and under the Exclusionary
giving; and Provided, finally, that the following Rule in Sec. 20, Article IV of the Constitution - No
conditions concur:
person shall be compelled to be a witness against
1. The information must refer to consummated himself. Any person under investigation for the
violations of any of the above-mentioned commission of an offense shall have the right to
provisions of law, rules and regulations;
remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed
2. The information and testimony are necessary of such right. No force, violence, treat,
for the conviction of the accused public officer;
intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the
3. Such information and testimony are not yet free will shall be used against him. Any confession
in the possession of the State;
obtained in violation of this section shall be
4. Such information and testimony can be inadmissible in evidence.

corroborated on its material points; and

5. The informant or witness has not been Herrera v. Alba (2005)

previously convicted of a crime involving moral SUMMARY: Resp claims to be the son of pet. Pet
turpitude.
denied filiation. RTC ordered DNA testing. HELD:
SEC. 2. The immunity granted hereunder shall not This does not violate the right of the witness
attach should it turn out subsequently that the against self-incrimination.

information and/or testimony is false and DOCTRINE: The right against self incrimination
malicious or made only for the purpose of can only be invoked against testimonial evidence.
harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing the DNA tests do not involve communicative
public officer denounced. In such a case, the evidence.

public officer so denounced shall be entitled to

any action, civil or criminal, against said informant
or witness.
SUMMARY: The petitioners are being sued for
SEC. 3.  All preliminary investigations conducted
by a prosecuting fiscal, judge or committee, and
all proceedings undertaken in connection
therewith, shall be strictly confidential or private in
order to protect the reputation of the official under
investigation in the event that the report proves to
be unfounded or no prima facie case is
established.
examination. Petitioners claim that this goes
Galman v. Pamaran (1985)
SUMMARY: An ad hoc Fact Finding Board was
formed for the exhaustive investigation on the
killing of Ninoy Aquino and Ronaldo Galman. The
respondents were summoned to testify in the
course of investigation. The respondents sought
to exclude from the evidence their respective
Rosete v. Lim (2006)
annulment and specific performance because of
the sale of real property made by AFP-RSBS to
Espreme Realty of parcels of land which allegedly
belong to the respondents Lims. The respondents
want to take the deposition of the petitioners, but
the petitioners refuse to do so by filing a motion
and objection to take deposition upon oral
against their right against self-incrimination since
they have pending criminal cases involving the
same facts, and that they can completely refuse
to testify. The TC and the CA denied their motion.
HELD: The present case is a civil case, not a
criminal one. The pending criminal cases do not
give them the right to refuse to testify in the civil
cases.

testimonies, alleging that such violate their rights
to be witness against themselves and to remain
silent. HELD: SC excluded the respondents’
testimonies, ruling that a contrary view violates
the latter’s constitutional rights and right to due
DOCTRINE: Only an accused in a criminal case
can refuse to take the witness stand. Or in cases
which partake of the nature of a criminal
proceeding or analogous thereto. Or in civil
actions which are criminal in nature. It is the

! 128 of 164
!
nature of the proceedings that controls, not the
character of the suit involved.
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of
feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;

(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or

C. Order of Examination
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an
RULE 132 officer, director, or managing agent of a
SECTION 4. Order in the examination of an public or private corporation or of a
individual witness. — The order in which the partnership or association which is an
individual witness may be examined is as follows;
adverse party.

(a) Direct examination by the proponent;

A misleading question is one which assumes as
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
contrary to that which he has previously stated. It
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. is not allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a)

(4)

SEC. 5. Direct examination. — Direct examination

is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the RULE 115
party presenting him on the facts relevant to the SECTION 1(d). Rights of accused at the trial. — In
issue. (5a)
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
SEC. 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and entitled to the following rights:

extent. — Upon the termination of the direct (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf
examination, the witness may be cross-examined but subject to cross-examination on matters
by the adverse party as to many matters stated in covered by direct examination. His silence
the direct examination, or connected therewith, shall not in any manner prejudice him.

with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his

accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all Dela Paz v. IAC (1987)
important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
SUMMARY: Loreto filed a complaint for judicial
SEC. 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and declaration of ownership of a piece of land
extent. —  After the cross-examination of the allegedly included in an approved partition order.
witness has been concluded, he may be re- Petitioners opposed stating that the land was not
examined by the party calling him, to explain or part of the probate proceedings. Loreto took the
supplement his answers given during the cross- witness stand and offered her direct testimony.
examination. On re-direct-examination, questions Cross-examination was repeatedly postponed.
on matters not dealt with during the cross- Loreto died. CFI allowed the presentation of
examination, may be allowed by the court in its evidence of the respondents. In the trial, CFI
discretion. (12)
issued an order giving the petitioners 10 days to
SEC. 8. Re-cross-examination.  —  Upon the file their objections in the evidence presented.
conclusion of the re-direct examination, the However, the CFI promulgated a decision in favor
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness of the respondents. In the said decision, the order
on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and was changed deleting the portion allowing the
also on such other matters as may be allowed by petitioners 10 days to file their objection. Thus,
the court in its discretion. (13)
petitioners file the present petition alleging GAOD.

SEC. 9. Recalling witness.  —  After the DOCTRINE: The right of a party to cross-examine
examination of a witness by both sides has been opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it
concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before
leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers,
leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice is a fundamental right which is part of due
may require. (14)
process. However, such right may be waived
SEC. 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a
question which suggests to the witness the renunciation of the right. Thus, where a party has
answer which the examining party desires is a had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness
leading question. It is not allowed, except:
but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily
(a) On cross examination;
forfeits the right to cross-examine and the
(b) On preliminary matters;
testimony given on direct examination of the
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct witness will be received or allowed to remain in
and intelligible answers from a witness who is the record.

! 129 of 164
!
Fulgado v. CA (1982)
SUMMARY: In 1967, the plaintiff filed a civil case
against the defendants. TC declared the
defendants in default and allowed the plaintiff to
present his two witnesses—himself and a certain
Mr Jose Fulgado—ex parte. In 1972, TC rendered
its decision in the plaintiff’s favor. On appeal, CA
held that the defendants were unjustly denied
their motion to lift the order of default. It ordered
the case to be remanded for trial and granted the
defendants the opportunity to present their
evidence and to cross-examine the plaintiff’s two
witnesses. This decision became final and
executory in June 1974, but defendants moved to
set hearing with the TC only in July 1975, more
than a year later. The case was set for hearing in
September 1975. Unfortunately, the presiding
judge went on official leave, and the hearing was
postponed anew to January and February 1976.
In the meantime, the plaintiff and witness Mr
Ruperto Fulgado died in November 1975, and his
other witness Mr Jose Fulgado migrated to the US
in September 1974. They could no longer be
cross-examined. TC granted the defendants’
motion to strike out the testimonies of plaintiff’s
two witnesses on the ground that they they were
deprived of their right to cross-examine the
witnesses. The TC then dismissed the civil case,
which the CA affirmed. HELD: SC reversed and
held that the defendants had renounced their right
to cross-examine the plaintiff’s two witnesses by
their belated motion to set the case for hearing
despite knowledge of Mr Ruperto Fulgado’s very
old age and Mr Jose Fulgado’s imminent
departure to the US.
offense. (15)
DOCTRINE: Where the defendant is deprived of
his right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses,
their testimonies shall be excluded from the
record. But, where a party has had the opportunity
to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail
himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to
cross-examine. The task of recalling a witness for
cross examination is, in law, imposed on the party
who wishes to exercise said right.
unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having
Capitol Subdivision v. Province of Negros
Occidental (1956)
SUMMARY: Petitoner and Respondent both
assert claim over a parcel of land on which stood
the Provincial Hospital. Petitioner claimed to have
purchased it from parties who bought the same
from the original owners. Respondent Province
claims that the land was expropriated and was
covered by a deed of sale and donation in their
favor and that petitioners had been aware of the
operations of the hospital at the time of their
alleged acquisition. SC did not rule on the merits
of the case after it found errors in the trial at the
TC level. SC found that the TC wrongfully
sustained the objections of the Capitol
Subdivions’ counsel as to the cross-examination
of Capitol Subd.’s GM, Mr. Montelibano, by the
Provincial Fiscal. TC found that Mr. Montelibano
was the witness of Capitol Subd. and could not
be questioned by the Provincial fiscal in such a
way that makes him their witness. HELD: SC ruled
against such finding by the TC.
DOCTRINE: Adverse party may cross-examine a
witness for the purpose among others, of eliciting
all-important facts bearing upon the issue. From
this provision it may clearly be inferred that a party
may cross- examine a witness on matters not
embraced in his direct examination. But this does
not mean that a party by doing so is making the
witness his own.
D. Impeachment of Witnesses
RULE 132
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
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 of his adverse interest,
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)
! 130 of 164
!
SEC. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements.  —  Before a witness can
be impeached by evidence that he has made at
other times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony, the statements must be related
to him, with the circumstances of the times and
places and the persons present, and he must be
asked whether he made such statements, and if
so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be
in writing they must be shown to the witness
before any question is put to him concerning
them. (16)
require him to introduce all of it which is
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. (17)
SEC. 15. Exclusion and separation of
witnesses.  —  On any trial or hearing, the judge
may exclude from the court any witness not at the
time under examination, so that he may not hear
the testimony of other 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)
objected to the question, but judge overruled
RULE 23
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;
or from the record of the judgment that he has
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for
the purpose of contradicting or impeaching
the testimony of deponent as a witness;
Office of the Court Administrator v. Morante
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at
the time of taking the deposition was an
officer, director, or managing agent of a public
or private corporation, partnership, or
association which is a party may be used by
an adverse party for any purpose;
the latter works, as shown by a news clipping that
(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; and
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered in
evidence by a party, the adverse party may
relevant to the part introduced, and any party
may introduce any other parts. (4a, R24)
US v. Mercado (1913)
SUMMARY: The case involves unlawful coercion
by the defendants to prevent Claro Mercado from
rendering aid to Maria Mateo, so that Santiago
Mercado could maltreat her. The prosecutor asked
Santiago how many times he has been convicted
of assault upon other persons. Defendants
holding that it was relevant. HELD: The objections
should have been sustained as it did not conform
to the grounds for impeaching a witness.
DOCTRINE: A witness cannot be impeached by
the party against whom he has been called,
except by showing: (a) He has made contradictory
statements or (b) his general reputation for the
truth, honesty, or integrity is bad. While you
cannot impeach the the credibility of a witness
except upon those 2 grounds cited above, you
may show an examination of the witness himself
been convicted of a high crime.
(2004)
SUMMARY: The Office of the Chief Justice of the
SC received an anonymous letter alleging that
Atty. Morante extorted money from one of the
defendants of a pending case in the court where
he was caught by NBI officers red-handed. An
investigation into the matter was conducted. Atty.
Morante argues that the private complainant's
witness made statements in his sworn affidavit
a n d s u p p l e m e n t a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t w e re
inconsistent with his answer to questions during
cross-examination. As such, Atty. Morante argues
that such person should be impeached as a
witness. HELD: SC disagrees. The mere
p re s e n t a t i o n o f t h e p r i o r c o n t r a d i c t i n g
declarations of a witness without the same having
! 131 of 164
!
been read to the witness while he was testifying is
INSUFFICIENT for the desired impeachment of conversation, writing or record is given in
the testimony.
evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation,
DOCTRINE: In order to impeach Olavere’s writing or record necessary to its understanding
testimony to be inconsistent with the sworn may also be given in evidence. (11a)

statement, the sworn statement alleged to be SEC. 18. Right to respect writing shown to
inconsistent with the subsequent one should have witness.  —  Whenever a writing is shown to a
been shown and read to him and, thereafter, he witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party.
should have been asked to explain the apparent (9a)

inconsistency.

CSC v. Belagan (2004), supra
SUMMARY: Magdalena filed a case against
Belagan for sexual indignities. Belagan attacked
Magdalena’s credibility using 22 crimincal cases
and 23 barangay complaints filed against
Magdalena in the 70s and 80s. Despite this, the
HELD: She is a credible witness.
claim, RTC ruled for (and CA affirmed) Socor as
DOCTRINE: Evidence of one's character or
reputation must be confined to a time not too
remote from the time in question. What is to be
determined is the character or reputation of the
Canque v. CA (1999)
SUMMARY: After entering into subcontracting
agreements with Socor for some government
projects, Socor sent Canque the remaining
balance left for the latter to pay/ However, Canque
refused on the ground that Socor itself failed to
submit delivery receipts. Upon Socor’s filing of a
the court admitted in evidence the latter’s Book of
Collectible Accounts. HELD: SC affirmed RTC
decision, but on the basis of other pieces of
evidence.

person at the time of the trial and prior thereto, DOCTRINE: The reason for the rule [now Sec. 16,
but not at a period remote from the Rule 132 ] is that it is the duty of a party to select
commencement of the suit. 3. Character evidence the competent from the incompetent in offering
must be limited to the traits and characteristics testimony, and he cannot impose this duty upon
involved in the type of offense charged.
the TC. Where the evidence is inadmissible for the
purpose stated in the offer, it must be rejected,
E. Reference to Writing though the same may be admissible for another
purpose.

RULE 132
SEC. 16. When witness may refer to
People v. Dela Cruz (2002)
memorandum.  —  A witness may be allowed to
SUMMARY: Accused was charged with rape of a
refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything
mentally deficient female. During trial, the
written or recorded by himself or under his
prosecution had to propound the mentally
direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
deficient victim with leading questions, and would
immediately thereafter, or at any other time when
sometimes have to refer to her Sinumpaang
the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that
Salaysay. The accused challenged not only the
the same was correctly written or recorded; but in
credibility of the witness, but also the propriety of
such case the writing or record must be produced
the leading questions. HELD: Given the
and may be inspected by the adverse party, who
circumstances of the witness, it was reasonable
may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness
for the prosecution to use leading questions and
upon it, and may read it in evidence. So, also, a
refer to her sworn statement.

witness may testify from such writing or record,

DOCTRINE: The purpose of refreshing the
though he retain no recollection of the particular
recollection of a witness is to enable both the
facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or
witness and her present testimony to be put fairly
record correctly stated the transaction when
and in their proper light before the court.

made; but such evidence must be received with

caution. (10a)

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,

! 132 of 164
!
X. Authentication & Proof of Documents
A. Public Documents
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)

RULE 132 SEC. 27. Public record of a private

SEC. 19. Classes of Documents.  —  For the document.  —  An authorized public record of a
purpose of their presentation evidence, private document may be proved by the original
documents are either public or private.
record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal
Public documents are:
custodian of the record, with an appropriate
(a) The written official acts, or records of the certificate that such officer has the custody. (28a)

official acts of the sovereign authority, official SEC. 28. Proof of lack of record.  —  A written
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, statement signed by an officer having the custody
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign of an official record or by his deputy that after
country;
diligent search no record or entry of a specified
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary tenor is found to exist in the records of his office,
public except last wills and testaments; and
accompanied by a certificate as above provided,
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of is admissible as evidence that the records of his
private documents required by law to the office contain no such record or entry. (29)

entered therein.
SEC. 29. How judicial record impeached.  —  Any
All other writings are private. (20a) judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
SEC. 23. Public documents as (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
evidence.  —  Documents consisting of entries in officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or (c)
public records made in the performance of a duty fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to
by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the the proceedings. (30a)

facts therein stated. All other public documents SEC. 30. Proof of notarial documents.  —  Every
are evidence, even against a third person, of the instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
fact which gave rise to their execution and of the certified as provided by law, may be presented in
date of the latter. (24a)
evidence without further proof, the certificate of
SEC. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of acknowledgment being  prima facie  evidence of
public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of the execution of the instrument or document
Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, involved. (31a)

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,
New Civil Code
and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Article 408.  The following shall be entered in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has
civil register:

the custody. If the office in which the record is

(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal
kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be
separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6)
made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
judgments declaring marriages void from the
consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular
beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9)
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
acknowledgments of natural children; (10)
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in
naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of
which the record is kept, and authenticated by the
citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial
seal of his office. (25a)

determination of filiation; (15) voluntary

SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must
emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of
state.  —  Whenever a copy of a document or
name. (326a)

record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the

attestation must state, in substance, that the copy
RA 842, Section 201.  Effect of Failure to Stamp
is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part
Taxable Document. - An instrument, document or
thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must
paper which is required by law to be stamped and
be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if
which has been signed, issued, accepted or
there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having
transferred without being duly stamped, shall not
a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)

be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or

SEC. 26. Irremovability of public record.  —  Any
any record of transfer of the same be admitted or
public record, an official copy of which is
! 133 of 164
!

used in evidence in any court until the requisite
stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and
cancelled.
Rule 132 Sec. 28.
Pacific Asia Overseas v. NLRC (1988)
SUMMARY: Private Respondent Rances sought
to carry out and enforce a foreign award allegedly
awarded to him by the Dubai Court in a case
against his foreign employer, Gulf East (PASCOR's
foreign principal). HELD: The POEA has no
authority and jurisdiction to enforce the judgment
of a foreign court, and assuming arguendo that it
did, the Dubai decision, as a public writing, was
NOT properly proven before the POEA in
accordance with Rule 132, Secs. 25 and 26 of the
ROC.
already dead at the time the deed of sale was
DOCTRINE: Rances failed to submit any
attestation issued by the proper Dubai official
having legal custody of the original of the decision
of the Dubai Court that the copy presented by
Rances is a faithful copy of the original decision,
which attestation must be further authenticated by
a Philippine Consular Officer for having jurisdiction
in Dubai. | The transmittal letter by Mohd Bin
Saleh, Honorary Consul for the Philippines, does
not comply with the requirements of either the
attestation under Sec. 26 nor the authentication
envisaged by Sec. 25. | Although the Dubai
decision is accompanied by a document which
purports to be an English translation of that
decision, it is legally defective. Sec. 34 of ROC
132 requires that documents written in a non-
official language (Arabic) shall not be admitted as
evidence unless accompanied by a translation
into English, Spanish or Filipino. | There is no
showing of who effected the English translation of
the Dubai decision, which Rances submitted to
the POEA. The English translation is NOT
purported to have been made by an official court
interpreter of the Philippine Government nor of the
Dubai Government. Neither the identity of the
translator nor his competence in both the Arabic
and English languages has been shown. The
English translation submitted by Rances is NOT
sworn to as an accurate translation of the original
decision in Arabic. Neither has that translation
been agreed upon by the parties as a true and
faithful one.
court.
People v. Lazaro (1999)
SUMMARY: Accused was charged with illegal
possession of firearms. To prove that he did not
have a license to carry such firearm, the
prosecutor presented a certificate from the Chief
of the Firearms and Exposives Office at Camp
Crame as evidence without presenting the issuing
officer. HELD: The certificate alone was sufficient.
DOCTRINE: Application of Rule 130 Sec. 44 and
Delfin v. Billones (2006)
SUMMARY: Respondents ascendants owned a
parcel of land allegedly sold to petitioner.
Respondents claim that the deed of sale was
forged and as evidence presented a certificate
allegedly issued byhte local registrar stating that
one of the signatories in the deed of sale was
already dead when the deed of sale was
executed. TC for petitioners. CA reversed. HELD:
SC reverses. The certification is not a public
document, no proof that the alleged signatory was
executed, the respondents were not able to
overcome the presumption of regularity of
execution of the notarized document.
DOCTRINE: Certifications are not certified true
copies and do not enjoy the presumption enjoyed
by public documents when offered as evidence.
They cannot also be used as proof of the facts
stated in the certification.
Sevilla v. Cardenas (2006)
SUMMARY: Petition for the declaration of nullity
of the marriage of Sevilla and Carmelita. Sevilla
alleged that he never applied for a marriage
license for his supposed marriage to Carmelita
and never did they obtain any marriage license
from any Civil Registry, consequently, no marriage
license was presented to the solemnizing officer
as certified three times by the Office of the Local
Civil Registrar. HELD: Marriage valid; the
certification issued by the local civil registrar did
not state that they diligently exerted effort to
locate the marriage license, it only stated that the
logbook was missing and that their workload did
not allow them to exert full effort in locating the
document
D O C T R I N E : T h e c e r t i fi c a t i o n i s s u e d i n
compliance with Rule 132 Sec. 28 must state that
the public officer has exerted diligent effort in
looking for the particular record or entry in their
records. In the absence of such a statement the
certificate will not be given probative value by the
! 134 of 164
!
B. Private Documents parents, the deed was missing a page which
contained the signature of the alleged vendors.
RULE 132 RTC Ilocos decided in favor of Ressurecion Ursula
SEC. 20. Proof of private document. — Before any appealed to the IAC and the RTC decision was
private document offered as authentic is received reversed, IAC treated the deed of sale as valid
in evidence, its due execution and authenticity evidence that no longer needs and independent
must be proved either:
authentification. HELD: SC reverses, the
(a) By anyone who saw the document document does not fall under Rule 132 Sec. 22
executed or written; or
and was not properly authenticated.

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the DOCTRINE: Rule 132 Sec. 22 has 3 requisites,
signature or handwriting of the maker.
the document: a) must be more than 30 years old,
Any other private document need only be b) must be presented by the proper custodian and
identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)
c) must not contain any alterations or
SEC. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private circumstances of suspicion. An incomplete
document not necessary.  —  Where a private document is akin to an altered document and
document is more than thirty years old, is therefore does not fall under the rule.

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)
taxation purposes in the name of Sinforoso. On
SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved.
— The handwriting of a person may be proved by
any witness who believes it to be the handwriting
of such person 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
Cequena v. Bolante (2000)
SUMMARY: Sinofroso and Margarito are brothers.
Subject property was originally declared for
the basis of an affidavit, the tax declaration in the
name of Sinforoso of the contested lot was
cancelled and subsequently declared in the name
of Margarito the brother. Dispute arose between
the two brothers' respective heirs with regard to
who the lawful owner and possessor of the land
should be. Petitioner presented an affidavit
wherein it allegedly stated that the land was
transferred to petitioners. HELD: The affidavit
contained the signature of respondent’s mother
who was illiterate. Also the affidavit did not state
how the lot was transferred to Margarito.

proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the DOCTRINE: Application of Rule 132 Sec. 21. The
judge. (23a)
document presented was attended by suspicious
SEC. 32. Seal.  —  There shall be no difference circumstances therefore it does not fall under the
between sealed and unsealed private documents Rule.

insofar as their admissibility as evidence is

concerned. (33a)
Malayan Insurance v. Philippine Nails and
SEC. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial Wires (2002)
language.  —  Documents written in an unofficial SUMMARY: Breach of insurance contract filed by
language shall not be admitted as evidence, respondent against petitioner for petitioner’s
unless accompanied with a translation into failure to reimburse respondent of its loss
English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of (shipment of steel billets). TC and CA for
proceedings, parties or their attorneys are respondent. HELD: SC reverses. The evidence
directed to have such translation prepared before presented by respondent to prove loss on its part
trial. (34a)
was a private document that was not
authenticated and is therefore inadmissible as
Bartolome v. IAC (1990) evidence.

SUMMARY: Parcel of land subject of a cadastral DOCTRINE: Due execution and authenticity of
case between Ressurecion and Ursula in 1933. private documents must first be established
Ressurecion claims ownership of the land via before they can be admitted as evidence.

inheritance while Ursula claims ownership via a

sale made to her by Ressurecion’s parents. In
1974 Ursula presented as proof a deed of sale
allegedly between herself and the Ressurecion’s
! 135 of 164
!
Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission
(2002)
SUMMARY: Petitioners were sisters & children of
the Sps. Ciriaco who wanted to nullify a deed of
sale over a certain property, which was executed
in 1936 on the ground of forgery. Such property
was sold to the UCCP. Petitioners filed their
complaint in 1982. The TC dismissed their
complaint on the ground of prescription & laches.
CA made its own examination of the signatures on
the Deed of Sale and reversed the TC. HELD: SC
affirmed the CA and gave credence to the CA’s
findings. The 6 documents containing standard
signatures, which served as a basis for the
comparison of the sps.’ signatures on the Deed of
Sale, were not executed at a point in time close to
the questioned latter signatures. The other 3
documents were just machine copies.
a report that it cannot give a definitive report since
DOCTRINE: The testimony of handwriting experts
does not bound the court as it tasked to
independently come up with their assessment of
the evidence presented. The best evidence of a
forged signature in an instrument is the instrument
itself showing the alleged forgeries. The fact of
forgery can be established by comparing the
allegedly false signature with the authentic or
genuine one which is what the CA did.
fully equated with due process in its strict judicial
Pan Pacific Industrial Sales v. CA (2006)
SUMMARY: Capistrano owned a house, gave
permission to Cruz to mortgage the house to
secure a loan. Cruz bought the house from
Capistrano with part of the loan as partial
payment and the rest to be paid via installment.
Cruz was unable to pay the loan to the bank and
instead of the bank foreclosing the property Cruz
sold it to the petitioner who paid the bank loan.
Capistrano filed a case to prevent petitioner from
acquiring ownership of the house and claimed
that his signature in the deed of sale was a fraud.
RTC and CA for Capistrano. HELD: SC reverses,
the deed of sale was notarized, bare denial
without evidence cannot overturn the presumption
of regularity enjoyed by a notarized document.
The consent form signed by his wife is a private
document but was sufficiently proved by evidence
presented by Cruz (testimony that he saw Mrs.
Capistrano sign the consent form..
SUMMARY: Petitioners owned 2 lots, they sold
DOCTRINE: A notarized document enjoys the
presumption of regularity of its execution and
cannot be disproved by the mere denial of the
signer.
not immediately sent to the registry of deeds.
Nacu v. CSC (2010)
SUMMARY: Petitioner, a PEZA employees, was
charged with dishonest and grave misconduct for
collecting overtime pay from PEZA corporations
when such was prohibited by PEZA. As evidence
PEZA presented a PNP report that petitioner’s
signature was the same as that in the overtime
charge slips sent to PEZA corporation as well as a
testimony of a co-worker of the petitioner who
verified that the signature of the petitioner was the
same as the signature in the OT charge slips.
PEZA dismissed petitioner. CSC and CA affirmed
the dismissal. HELD: CA affirmed. Petitioner’s
claim that she was not given a chance to cross-
examine the witnesses against her was rejected
by the SC. Administrative due process is different
from judicial due process. Position papers, etc.
can take the place of trials etc. Petitioner’s claim
that PNP’s handwriting comparison report should
not be given probative value since the NBI issued
the specimen signatures were insufficient was
also dismissed by the Court as the two are
separate agencies and the NBI does not hold a
position superior to the PNP when it comes to
handwriting examinations
DOCTRINE: In administrative cases, technical
rules on procedure and evidence are not strictly
applied. Administrative due process cannot be
sense.
C. Alteration in Documents
RULE 132
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)
Cabotaje v. Pudunan (2004)
one to the respondents and mortgaged the other
to secure a loan (also to the respondents). The
deed of sale and mortgage was notarized but was
Respondents were issued a CTC over the
mortgaged lot by virtue of the altered deed of sale
wherein the mortgaged lot was included as sold.
Petitioner filed a case to nullify respondents’ title
! 136 of 164
!
to the lot. HELD: The document used to register
the lot in favor of respondent was altered (in
comparison to the notarial copy of the deed of
sale where only 1 lot was sold) and such alteration
was not sufficiently explained by the party
presenting the document.
the SC or by law for authentication of electronic
DOCTRINE: Party producing an altered document
as evidence must account for its alteration.
by other evidence showing its integrity and
Cirelos v. Hernandez (2006)
SUMMARY: Petitioners own a house in Tandang
Sora. They used the house as a collateral for a
loan with respondent spouses (mortgage).
Petitioners were unable to pay the loan and sold
the house to the respondents. Respondents
demanded that they vacate the house. Petitioners
refused and claimed that petitioner’s signature in
the deed of sale was procured through fraud and
that the sale of the house was made without the
knowledge of Mr. Cirelos (wife was signatory to
the deed of sale). Respondents deny the charge
and claim that the deed was duly signed, an
attachment to the deed of sale was a SPA signed
by Mr. Cirelos wherein it was stated that he
consents to his wife selling the conjugal house.
Petitioners claim that the SPA was altered. HELD:
Lawyer who notarized the deed of sale testified
that the SPA when presented to him allowed Mrs.
Cirelos to sell the property. Respondent wins.
fro gross misconduct
DOCTRINE: Party producing an altered document
as evidence must account for its alteration.
electronic evidence under the Electronic
D. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Aznar v. Citibank (2007)
SUMMARY: Damages case filed by petitioner
against respondent for allegedly blacklisting his
credit card during a trip to Malaysia and Indonesia
when he had yet to breach his credit limit at that
time. As evidence he presented an electronic print
out of his account activity report given to him by a
travel agency based in Indonesia. Respondent
denied the allegations and held that the
petitioner’s account was never blacklisted and
g a v e c o r re s p o n d i n g e v i d e n c e . RT C f o r
respondent, on MR it was reversed. On appeal to
the CA it was reversed again. HELD: CA affirmed.
Petitioner was unable to establish his claim
against the respondent. No personal knowledge
on the part of petitioner and his card was
accepted in other establishments. Petitioner also
was unable to establish the authenticity of his
evidence as the one who signed the report was
not the one who generated the entries on it.
DOCTRINE: Party introducing electronic evidence
has the burden of proving the same. The
authenticity of electronic evidence is proved by: a)
evidence that it has been digitally signed by the
person purported to have signed the same, b) by
evidence that other appropriate security
procedures or devices as may be authorized by
documents were applied to the document; or c)
reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
Vadallon-Magtolis v. Salud (2005)
SUMMARY: Respondent is a clerk in the CA. he
was charged with inefficiency, extortion and grave
misconduct for allegedly asking for money to
facilitate the release of approval of appeal bonds.
During trial text messages to the effect that
respondent already delivered the appeal bond
approval to a representative of the accused, was
sent by the respondent to investigators were given
as evidence. During trial respondent admitted he
was the one who sent the message. During
appeal he argued that the text messages were
inadmissible as evidence. HELD: The respondent
liable for grave misconduct, text messages are
admissible as evidence and respondent already
admitted that he was the one who sent the text
messages. No proof that respondent solicited
money for the appeal bond approval but still liable
DOCTRINE: Text messages are considered as
Commerce Act.
MCC Industrial Sales v. Ssangyong (2007)
SUMMARY: contract of sale between petitioner
(vendee) and respondent (vendor) for rolled
stainless steel. Invoices were sent via fax
machine. Petitioner eventually reneged on the
deal and respondent cancelled the contract and
filed a case for damages. RTC and CA for
respondent and held that the fax copy can be
considered as electronic evidence and gave it
probative weight. HELD: SC partially reverses the
decision of the lower courts fax copies not
considered as electronic evidence and must be
authenticated to become evidence. Actual
damages removed but nominal damages were
granted.
DOCTRINE: A facsimile transmission is not
considered as electronic evidence within the
meaning of the Electronic Commerce Act since
the legislative intent excludes telexes or faxes
except computer generated faxes.
! 137 of 164
!
Torres v. PAGCOR (2011)
SUMMARY: Torres was a slot machine operator
supervisor who was dismissed by PAGCOR for
allegedly committing fraud. She filed a complaint
against PAGCOR with the CSC for illegal
dismissal. PAGCOR countered that Torres failed to
perfect the appeal within the reglementary period.
Torre countered that she sent the appeal to
PAGCOR via fax. CSC decided in favor of
PAGCOR. CA affirms the decision of the CSC.
HELD: SC affirms CA. No evidence that Torres
indeed submitted the appeal, as there was a
certification issued by PAGCOR employees that
no such document was received and the number
that Torres claims she sent the appeal to via fax
was not a PACGOR number. Even if we assume
that Torres sent the appeal via fax it was
inadmissible as evidence

DOCTRINE: A pleading submitted via a fax

machine is inadmissible as evidence and is not
considered as electronic evidence.

! 138 of 164
!
XI. Offer and Objection
RULE 132
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)
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. (n)
SEC. 36.  Objection.  —  Objection to evidence
offered orally must be made immediately after the
offer is made. 
Court, it must be formally offered. Why? What
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.
For the sake of the appellate court, for it to be
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.
proceedings, judicial notice…
In any case, the grounds for the objections must
be specified. (36a)
Identification of evidence: marking evidence as
S E C . 3 7 .  W h e n re p e t i t i o n o f o b j e c t i o n
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)
How should an offer be made? By stating nature/
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.
Must always specify ground for objections.
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)
If offer is made orally: immediately.
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. (n)
SEC. 40.  Tender of excluded evidence.  —  If
documents or things offered in evidence are
excluded by the court, the offeror may have the
same attached to or made part of the 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)
Class Notes
Sir: Before evidence can be considered by the
happens if we allow the Court to consider that
which was not offered? To give the other
Opportunity of other party to examine and object.
able to fully scrutinize evidence.
When is formal offer not required? Summary
Identification is different from offer.
exhibit, may be withdrawn, may choose not to use
evidence
Formal offer: done when other party rests its case
(except testimonial: made at the time witness is
called to testify)
When does the adversary object? Object and doc:
immediately after offer. Failure to object during the
hearing: not a waiver. Waiver when you fail to
object after formal offer.
substance/purpose
If purpose not stated, there was no formal offer.
Objections: affords adverse party opportunity to
keep inadmissible evidence out, to protect the
record (if evidence is overruled, when it goes up to
appellate court, it can be reviewed), to protect
witness, to give Court opportunity to correct itself.
Improper objection: The test is: Will the Court be
able to properly rule on the objection?
Formal v. substantial objections: Formal: leading,
etc. Substantial: based on rules
Timeliness of objection: Depends.
Offer in writing: within 3 days from notice of offer.
Question propounded during oral examination: as
soon as grounds therefor shall become
reasonably apparent.
! 139 of 164
!
Why can’t objection be raised for the first time DOCTRINE: A formal offer is necessary, since
during appeal? judges are required to base their findings of fact
What is striking out? and their judgment solely and strictly upon the
When do you move to strike out? When answer of evidence offered by the parties at the trial. To
witness is: unresponsive, premature, if witness allow parties to attach any document to their
cannot be cross-examined by no fault of witness, pleadings and then expect the court to consider it
when condition was not fulfilled (conditional as evidence, even without formal offer and
admissibility)
admission, may draw unwarranted consequences.
Waiver of objections: failure to object
Opposing parties will be deprived of their chance
Effect: evidence becomes admissible (competent to examine the document and to object to its
and relevant), but probative weight is still a admissibility. On the other hand, the appellate
different story
court will have difficulty reviewing documents not
Ruling on objections: Court must give it previously scrutinized by the court below. A
immediately after the objection is made. Must document or an article is valueless unless it is
clearly state ground for sustaining or overruling
formally offered in evidence, and the opposing
How to offer: Produce and identify, describe, counsel is given an opportunity to object to it and
m a r k , s t a t e c o n t e n t s f o r t h e re c o rd ( i f to cross-examine any witness called to present or
documentary); must be as specific as possible
identify it. Evidence not formally offered before the
Testimonial: state name of witness and personal TC cannot be considered on appeal, for to
circumstances, substantive purpose of proposed consider them at such stage will deny the other
testimony
parties their right to rebut them.

Can other party object to the tender when a piece

of evidence has already been excluded? For the Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan v. Comorposa
sake of due process, state your objections for the (2003)
record. Not prohibited by rules
SUMMARY: Francisco Comorposa is the
There can be no tender of excluded evidence if it ascendant of the Respondents. Back in 1960,
has not been formally offered.
Francisco lost his job and was looking for a place
2 requisites for evidence: Identify + authenticate to put his nipa hut home. He asked help from his
AND formally offer.
family friend Adolfo Saez who allowed Francisco
Difference between Dizon and Ramos: the to occupy their family’s land (which was allegedly
documents were marked during pre-trial in owned by Adolfo’s father). Later, Francisco left for
Ramos.
Hawaii and the respondents succeeded in
possession. In 1998, Petitioners heirs of Adolfo
Ong v. CA (1999) asked them to leave but respondents refused,
SUMMARY: This case involves the propriety of claiming that they have acquired valid ownership
RTC’s decision finding Philtranco liable to Sps. by prescription for being possessors since 1960.
Ong for the damages which the latter suffered in a One of their pieces of evidence was a CENR
two-vehicle collision which Philtranco’s bus was certification that said that during the time of their
involved, based on a Police Report not formally possession, the land was alienable and not
offered as evidence. Sps. Ong rode a bus owned allocated to any person yet. Although this
and operated by Inland Trailways. The bus was Certification was marked as evidence in the pre-
bumped from the rear by another bus owned and trial of the MTC, it was not formally offered. The
operated by Philtranco. The Sps. Ong suffered MTC found for the Petitioners, but the RTC
injuries for which they filed a claim for damages reversed and found for the Respondents, by
against Inland Services and Philtranco. In Inland’s giving weight to that Certification. The CA affirmed
answer, it said that according to the Police Report, the RTC. Now, the Petitioners assail the CA ruling,
it was Philtranco’s driver who was at fault. RTC saying that the Certification should not have been
found Philtranco as the proximate cause of the considered as evidence. HELD: The evidentiary
accident and ordered it to pay the damages. rule that requires formal offer of evidence applies
RTC’s finding of liability on the part of Philtranco only to ordinary trials but DOES NOT apply to
was based on the Police Report. When Philtranco summary procedures, as was in this case. Hence,
appealed, the CA said RTC erred in basing its the Certification is admissible.

decision on the Police Report not formally offered DOCTRINE: Neither the rules of procedure (Rule
as evidence. HELD: RTC erred in basing its 132, Sec 34) nor jurisprudence would sanction the
decision on an evidence not formally offered.
admission of evidence that has not been formally
offered during the trial. But this evidentiary rule is

! 140 of 164
!
applicable only to ordinary trials, not to cases
covered by the rule on summary procedure --
cases in which no full-blown trial is held.
Valencia. Valencia filed petition for certiorari to the
Cabugao v. People (2004)
SUMMARY: After a buy-bust, pet was found
guilty of illegal possession of shabu. Lower courts
failed to consider vital pieces of documentary
evidence (order of dismissal of arresting officer
from service and resolution demoting another for
drug use) which the respondent cannot now
object to as hearsay evidence (not certified) when
the only objection it made was on the ground of
being irrelevant/off-tangent to the issue.
DOCTRINE: Grounds for objection must be
specified orally or in writing. In failing to object to
the testimony on the proper ground, the counsel
waived his right to make such objection and,
consequently, the evidence offered may be
admitted. An appellate court will not consider any
other ground of objection not made at the time
pieces of evid were admitted.
house with plaintiff. He presented documentary
Yu v. CA (2005)
SUMMARY: Viveca filed a case for legal
separation and dissolution of conjugal partnership
against her husband Philip. She moved for the
issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad
testificandum against Insular Life to compel the
production of the insurance policy and application
of a person suspected to be Philip’s illegitimate
child. The RTC denied this saying it is
inadmissible. The CA reversed. Philip says when
Viveca tendered excluded evidence, this mooted
her petition. HELD: This is not the tender
contemplated because the evidence was not
offered nor presented to the court.
that these evidence were part of the
DOCTRINE: Before the tender of excluded
evidence is made, the evidence must have been
formally offered before the court. Before formal
offer, the evidence must have been identified and
presented before the court.
Rule 132 Section 34. (But this case involves the
Valencia v. Sandiganbayan (2005)
SUMMARY: Valncia, Governor of Oriental
Mindoro, was charged of a violation under RA
3019 for appointing Umbao, a candidate who lost
the previous election, as Councilor of Polo,
Oriental Mindoro. A joint Stipulation of Facts was
agreed by the parties but Valencia refused to sign
the same. The prosecution rested its case based
on said stipulation. Motion for leave to file
demurrer to evidence was filed by Valencia. An
order was rendered by the Sandiganbayan based
on the stipulation; however, said order was
recalled upon motion of the prosecution.
Sandiganbayan allowed the prosecution to
present evidence and denied the motion of
SC. HELD: Petition dismissed; the joint stipulation
of facts was not yet formally offered as evidence.
Hence, the motion for leave to file demurrer by
Valencia was premature.
DOCTRINE: Before an evidence may be admitted,
the rules require that the same be formally offered,
otherwise, it cannot be considered by the court. A
prior formal offer of evidence concludes the case
for the prosecution and determines the timeliness
of the filing of a demurrer to evidence.
Parel v. Prudencio (2006)
SUMMARY: Plaintiff filed a complaint for recovery
of possession and damages against defendant.
He alleges that he owns a two-storey residential
house in Baguio and that defendant is unlawfully
occupying the ground floor of the same.
Defendant argued that his parents co-owned the
evidence showing that plaintiff’s civil and criminal
cases against defendant had been dismissed and
defendant’s parents’ special power of attorney
authorizing defendant to occupy the ground floor.
He also presented testimonial evidence. The CA
did not consider the documentary evidence
presented by the defendant because he never
formally offered them. Before the SC, the
defendant cited Bravo v Borja to argue that the
documentary evidence he presented should still
be considered despite his failure to formally offer
them because they were marked during the
presentation of the testimony of petitioner’s
witnesses and were part of their testimonies and
memorandum filed by him before the trial. HELD:
Rule 132, Section 34 squarely applies. Bravo was
decided based on Rule 133, Section 7.
DOCTRINE: Rule 133 Section 7 is an exception to
general rule. SC held that the documentary
evidence was properly not considered by the CA.)
Ramos v. Dizon (2006)
SUMMARY: Petitioner sought to register and
consolidate ownership over parcel of land she
allegedly bought from Respondents through an
agent authorized by Respondents through an
SPA. Respondents however alleged that agent
was authorized to mortgage the land only and not
to sell it and thus claimed that transaction
between agent and Petitioner was actually an
equitable mortgage and not a pacto de retro sale.
During trial, after petitioners made an offer of
! 141 of 164
!
evidence, respondents manifested that they will
no longer present testimonial witnesses and thus
identified certain documents for marking.
Thereafter, the TC decided the case in favor of
respondents before the respondents were able to
make a formal offer of evidence. Petitioner now
brings case to SC alleging that RTC erred in
considering evidenced which were only identified
and marked by respondents but were not formally
offered. HELD: RTC affirmed.
against the government.
DOCTRINE: For evidence to be considered, the
same must be formally offered. Corollarily, the
mere fact that a particular document to identified
and marked as an exhibit does not mean that is
has already been offered as part of the evidence
of a party. However, in People v. Napat-a, citing
People v. Mate, SC relaxed the foregoing rule and
allowed evidence not formally offered to be
admitted and considered by the TC provided the
following requirements are present, viz: 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.
Strict adherence to the said rule is not a trivial
Tan v. People (2006)
SUMMARY: Tan was charged with six counts of
BP 22 for issuing checks that were dishonored for
insufficient funds, the Account having been
closed. He contends that a demand letter marked
as Exhibit R should not be given evidentiary
weight because although it was included in the
formal offer of evidence by prosecution, it was not
presented during trial for proper identification.
HELD: Since the letter was indeed not presented
during trial, its formal offer was indeed tainted
with irregularity. The letter not being admissible,
Tan is not guilty.
Corrupt Practices Act for refusing to implement
DOCTRINE: Objection to admissibility of
evidence, if not made at the time the evidence
was offered, is deemed waived. However, this
general rule does not apply where the evidence
was never presented at trial.
process. HELD: Due process was not violated
Dizon v. CTA (2008)
SUMMARY: Jose Fernandez died. His estate’s
appointed administrator then arranged for all
claims/debts and taxes to be determined and
paid. Because the unsettled debts (187 million) at
the time of the decedent’s death exceeded the
gross value of the estate, the estate only filed a
tax return showing a NIL estate tax liability
(meaning they paid ZERO taxes) to the BIR which
then issued a clearance. Some years after, the
creditors of the estate however partially condoned
the debts so the estate actually paid a much lower
amount compared to what it previously declared
with the BIR. This prompted the BIR to re-assess
for deficiency in tax payments. Petitioner brought
the case to the CTA, and later the CA, both of
which ruled in favor of the Commissioner. HELD:
SC set aside CTA and CA’s decisions on the
ground that procedurally, BIR did not formally
offer evidence to support its claims and that, on
the merits, the “date-of-death valuation” rule
applies since tax laws are to be strictly construed
DOCTRINE: A formal offer is necessary because
judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts
and their judgment only and strictly upon the
evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its
function is to enable the trial judge to know the
purpose or purposes for which the proponent is
presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this
allows opposing parties to examine the evidence
and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it
facilitates review as the appellate court will not be
required to review documents not previously
scrutinized by the TC.
matter. The formal offer of one's evidence is
deemed waived after failing to submit it within a
considerable period of time. It explained that the
court cannot admit an offer of evidence made
after a lapse of three months because to do so
would "condone an inexcusable laxity if not non-
compliance with a court order which, in effect,
would encourage needless delays and derail the
speedy administration of justice."
Catacutan v. People (2011)
SUMMARY: School principal Catacutan was
convicted in RTC of violation of the Anti-Graft and
the promotion of 2 employees. On appeal,
Catacutan was not allowed to present the CA
decision dismissing an administrative case
against him. He claimed this was a denial of due
because administrative cases are independent
from criminal actions.
DOCTRINE: The findings in administrative cases
are not binding upon the court trying a criminal
case, even if the criminal proceedings are based
on the same facts and incidents which gave rise
to the administrative matter. 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.
! 142 of 164
!
Aludos v. Suerte (2012)
SUMMARY: After acquiring from the Baguio City
Gov’t a permit to occupy stalls in a Baguio
market, Lomises transferred all his rights and
improvements to Johnny. Later, however, Lomises
backed out of the agreement, so Johnny filed a
case to compel the former to proceed with the
assignment and sale. SC ruled that the agreement
was not a contract of loan (and hence, an
equitable mortgage), but one involving an
assignment of lease and sale of improvements.
Lomises argued that the CA erred in upholding the
validity of the sale of improvements. HELD: SC
rejected his reliance on the lease contract as such
was never offered in evidence.

DOCTRINE: 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. Hence,
unless and until admitted by the court in evidence
for the purposes/s for which such document is
offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper
barren of probative weight.

! 143 of 164
!

XII. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
A. Civil Cases
RULE 133
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)
accurately.
Class Notes
Proof beyond reasonable doubt: subjective to the
appreciation of the judge
SUMMARY: Respondent Eung was charged for
Clear and convincing evidence: refer to the
amount of evidence itself
Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to
Preponderance of evidence: refer to the amount of
evidence itself | greater weight of evidence | which
side present the greater amount of evidence |
evidence preponderates when it is more
convincing to the trier of the fact as opposed to
that presented by adversary
because it held that since Eung and Hun had
Substantial evidence: refer to the amount of
evidence itself
necessary in this case.
H a b a g a t G r i l l v. D M C - U r b a n P ro p e r t y
Developer (2005)
SUMMARY: DMC filed a complaint for forcible
entry in 1994. During trial, it presented its real
property manager to testify that Habagat Grill was
constructed on its lot in 1993. This is to prove
that, not only did Biraogo illegally entered DMC’s
lot, but also that the case was filed within the 1-
year prescriptive period of forcible entry. MTC and
RTC dismissed testimony of Garcia since he was
not an uninterested witness, being an employee of
DMC. CA reversed saying his testimony should be
given greater weight since it is his job to know
such matters. HELD: SC agreed with CA and gave
greater weight to Garcia’s testimony.
the demurrer, proceedings on the civil aspect of
DOCTRINE: To determine which of the presented
evidence has superior weight, the court considers
the witnesses’ means and opportunity to know
the facts to which they testify
CONSIDERATIONS:
a. Actor Rule - a person’s recollection of his own
acts and of the attendant circumstances is more
definite and trustworthy than another person’s
recollection of it, especially if it was an act done in
the performance of a duty, or if the other person’s
testimony is little more than an expression of
opinion or judgment.
b. The witness who had the greater interest in
noticing and remembering the facts is to be
believed in preference to the one that had a
slighter interest to observe or was wholly
indifferent.
c. The witness who gives reasons for the accuracy
of his observations is preferred to him who merely
states the fact to be so, without adverting to any
circumstances showing that his attention was
particularly called to it.
d. The witness in a state of excitement, fear, or
terror is generally incapable of observing
e. Intoxication tends to impair accuracy both of
observation and memory of a witness.
Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Wan Choi (2007)
violating BP 22 by Petitioner Eung. Eung filed for a
Evidence which was was granted by MeTC, RTC
and CA. Ultimately, the case was ordered
remanded to the MeTC so Eung may adduce
evidence on the civil aspect of the case. SC ruled
that Hun's case against Eung has NO merit
conflicting claims as to the facts, a remand is
DOCTRINE: There is a disparity of evidentiary
value between the quanta of evidence between
the criminal and civil aspects of the case: A court
may not deny the demurrer as to the criminal
aspect and at the same time grant the demurrer
as to the civil aspect, for if the evidence so far
presented is not insufficient to prove the crime
beyond reasonable doubt, then the same
evidence is likewise not insufficient to establish
civil liability by mere preponderance of evidence.
On the other hand, if the evidence so far
presented is insufficient as proof beyond
reasonable doubt, it does not follow that the same
evidence is insufficient to establish a
preponderance of evidence. For if the court grants
the case generally proceeds. The only recognized
instance when an acquittal on demurrer carries
! 144 of 164
!
with it the dismissal of the civil aspect is when Class Notes
there is a finding that the act or omission from Presumption of evidence —> Burden of proof is
which the civil liability may arise did not exist. solely with prosecution —> Prove elements of
Absent such determination, trial as to the civil crime + participation of accused

aspect of the case must perforce continue.

What is PBRD?
There is always a margin of error

Spouses Sevilla v. CA (2010) But when it is the liberty of a person on the line,
SUMMARY: Jose Villareal was murdered by the the stakes are much higher, the PBRD
Sevillas. Now, the Villareals filed an action for requirement lessens the margin of error

damages against the Sevillas. HELD: The Less than PBRD —> Acquit

Villareals are entitled to an award of damages for

the death of Jose Villareal as the decision of the
lower courts are supported by a preponderance of
evidence.
lodging house, where he saw Orly, his long lost
DOCTRINE: 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 worthy of belief than that which is
offered in opposition thereto. If plaintiff claims a
Ungsod v. People (2005)
SUMMARY: Ronilo and his friends went to a
friend. The two began conversing and went to the
comfort room together. Napoleon, one of Ronilo’s
friends, went to the CR and saw Orly strangling
Ronilo. Napoloen went for help and when they got
back, Orly was still strangling Ronilo, and his hand
was at his waistline, as if holding something. Orly
told them to leave and so they left and called for
the police. A gunshot was heard from the CR and
Ronilo was found dead. Orly was convicted for
homicide. HELD: SC affirmed his conviction.

right granted or created by law, he must prove his DOCTRINE: No general rule can be laid down as
claim by competent evidence. He must rely on the to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which in
strength of his own evidence and not upon the any case will suffice. All the circumstances proved
weakness of that of his opponent.
must be consistent with each other, consistent
with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and
B. Criminal Cases at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis
that he is innocent, and with every other rational
RULE 133 hypothesis except that of guilt.

SEC. 2.  Proof beyond reasonable doubt.  —  In a

criminal case, the accused is entitled to an Maturillas v. People (2006)
acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond SUMMARY: Artemio Pantinople, sitting in front of
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt his store, was shot allegedly by Marturillas. The
does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding shooting was witnessed by Lito (his kumpare),
possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. whose house was only 10 meters away from the
Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of crime scene. Upon hearing the gunshot, Lito saw
p ro o f w h i c h p ro d u c e s c o n v i c t i o n i n a n Artemio clasping his chest and coming towards
unprejudiced mind. (2a)
him. Artemio said,“Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil ko ni
SEC. 3.  Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient kapitan.” [Help me, I was shot by the captain.]
ground for conviction.  —An extrajudicial Ernita, Artemio’s wife, also heard the gunshot as
confession made by an accused, shall not be she was at their house around 50 meters away.
s u ffi c i e n t g ro u n d f o r c o n v i c t i o n , u n l e s s She then went outside and heard Artemio’s
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
statement to Lito. She then saw Marturillas (Brgy.
S E C . 4 .  C i rc u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , w h e n Capt.) running away from the crime scene. RTC
sufficient.  —  Circumstantial evidence is sufficient and CA found Marturillas guilty beyond
for conviction if:
reasonable doubt. Marturillas appealed to the SC
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
arguing that the prosecution was unable to
(b) The facts from which the inferences are conclusively establish the identity of the
derived are proven; and
perpetrator as the witnesses did not see him
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is shoot Artemio, and that this doubt should be
such as to produce a conviction beyond resolved in his favor. HELD: SC disagreed: The
reasonable doubt. (5)
totality of the evidence presented by the
prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction

! 145 of 164
!
of Marturillas. The dying declaration of Artemio
immediately prior to his death constitutes
evidence of the highest order as to the cause of
his death and of the identity of the assailant. This,
coupled with the circumstances proven by the
prosecution, leads to the logical conclusion that
Marturillas is guilty of the crime charged.
of a certain event; and (2) some person's criminal
DOCTRINE: Conviction in a criminal case does
not require a degree of proof that, excluding the
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Only moral certainty is required or that degree of
proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind. | That some pieces of the abovementioned
evidence are circumstantial does not diminish the
fact that they are of a nature that would lead the
mind intuitively, or by a conscious process of
reasoning, toward the conviction of petitioner.
Circumstantial, vis-à-vis direct, evidence is not
necessarily weaker.
DOCTRINE: The rules of evidence allow a TC to
rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
People v. Villanueva (2006)
SUMMARY: Appellant was convicted of selling
shabu and was sentenced to life imprisonment at
the RTC. CA affirmed the conviction. On appeal to
the SC appellant claims that the prosecution failed
to prove evidence beyond reasonable doubt that
he was guilty. HELD: Appeal denied. Prosecution
was able to establish a prima facie case against
him through the strength of the testimony of the
police who acted as the buyer and that the bare
denial of the appellant did not overcome the
positive testimony of the policeman.
Rule on Writ of Amparo
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, the prosecution
bears the onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt
not only the commission of the crime but likewise
to establish, with the same quantum of proof, the
identity of the person or persons responsible
therefor. This burden of proof does not shift to the
defense but remains in the prosecution
throughout the trial.  However, when the
prosecution has succeeded in discharging the
burden of proof by presenting evidence sufficient
to convince the court of the truth of the
allegations in the information or has established a
prima facie case against the accused, the burden
of evidence shifts to the accused making it
incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order
to meet and nullify, if not to overthrow, that prima
facie case
People v. Del Mundo (2006)
SUMMARY: Accused was arrested for selling
shabu and is now questioning the sufficiency of
the evidence presented against him by the
prosecution. HELD: The two elements of the
Corpus Delicti have been satisfied by the
prosecution.
DOCTRINE: Corpus delicti is the body or
substance of the crime, and establishes the fact
that a crime has been actually committed. It has
two elements, namely: (1) proof of the occurrence
responsibility for the act.
People v. Padua (2007)
SUMMARY: Christopher Padua, Alejandro Padua
and Michael Dullavin were charged with Rape
With Homicide after abducting and raping a 10-
year old girl. Prosecution presented the oral
testimonies of the victim's younger brothers.
Conviction was mostly based on the testimonies
of the victim's younger brothers, who claimed to
have seen the appellants abduct their sister.
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.
C. Administrative Cases
SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of
Diligence Required. The parties shall establish
their claims by substantial evidence. The
respondent who is a private individual or entity
must prove that ordinary diligence as required by
applicable laws, rules and regulations was
observed in the performance of duty. The
respondent who is a public official or employee
must prove that extraordinary diligence as
required by applicable laws, rules and regulations
was observed in the performance of duty. The
respondent public official or employee cannot
invoke the presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed to evade responsibility or
liability.
! 146 of 164
!

RULE 133
SEC. 5.  Substantial evidence.  —  In cases filed
before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a
fact may be deemed established if it is supported
by substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)
enterprises. The evidence presented against her
Reyes v. Mangino (2005)
SUMMARY: Complainant and her husband were
the accused in a criminal case. They were
convicted of the crime of Other Deceits. They filed
an Admin Case against the judge, stating that he
had accepted bribe money from them in 2
instances and should be dismissed from the
service. HELD: Such ground for dismissal (bribery,
which was a grave offense) wasn’t proven by the
amount of evidence required by law – competent,
derived from direct evidence, more than
substantial and lastly, established beyond
reasonable doubt.
DOCTRINE: Even in administrative cases, the
Rules of Court requires that if a judge should be
disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver
offense, the evidence against him should be
competent and derived from direct knowledge.
parts. When the vehicle was ready for pick up, she
Ramos Vda de Brigino v. Ramos (2006)
SUMMARY: Hilaria seeks to nullify the Agricultural
Leasehold Contract between her and her brother
Dominador and Pedro, represented by his widow
Filomena, alleging that it was obtained through
forgery and in the absence of consent and sharing
for tenancy relationship. The agrarian court ruled
in favor of Dominador and Pedro and opined that
forgery does not suffice to render said documents
null and void inasmuch as Brigino and her spouse
are estopped from denying the existence of said
documents in view of the fact that Brigino had
issued rental receipts strongly proving that they
are occupying the subject land and an implied
tenancy was established. CA affirmed the
decision of the agrarian court. HELD: SC affirmed
CA decision and the agrarian court.
judges are by nature, highly penal in character and
DOCTRINE: A forged tenancy document does not
ipso facto contradict the factual finding of an
agrarian court if there exists other evidence on
record, taken together, which substantially
establishes the fact of implied tenancy or that the
tillage of the land was with the personal
knowledge of the landlord, who is thereby
estopped from claiming otherwise.
SUMMARY: Gutierrez, a postman, was asked to
Nacu v. Civil Service Commission (2010)
SUMMARY: Nacu, an employee of PEZA in
Bataan Economic Zone was charged with
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for
violating a Memo, which prohibited the charging
o f o v e r t i m e f e e s f ro m P E Z A - re g i s t e re d
consisted of the signatures she allegedly affixed
on the Statements of OT Services. She denied the
allegations and claimed that the signatures were
not sufficiently proven to be hers. She faulted the
respondents for giving credence to the PNP crime
lab report which was the basis of the company in
charging her with the offense. HELD: Evidence is
sufficient for the charge to prosper.
DOCTRINE: Substantial evidence, the quantum of
evidence required in administrative proceedings,
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
Duduaco v. Laquindanum (2005)
SUMMARY: Judge Lily brought her car to the
Toyota Service Center in Davao, where Mercedes
works as manager, for repairs and replacement of
was told that the vehicle would not be released
until she paid the deductible franchise. She
refused to pay, insisting that the same was to be
paid by the insurance company and asked to see
the manager, but the latter was at a meeting. She
paid the deductible franchise under protest and
was then asked to sign the Release of Claim with
Subrogation, but she refused, as she refused to
sign a blank form. She left without her car.
Mercedes filed a complaint charging Judge Lily
with grave misconduct, abuse fof judicial office,
and/or gross ignorance of the law. HELD: SC
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
DOCTRINE: In administrative proceedings,
complainants have the burden of proving by
substantial evidence the allegations in their
complaints. Administrative proceedings against
are to be governed by the rules applicable to
criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to
support the administrative charges should thus be
more substantial and they must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Gutierrez v. Belen (2008)
sign a clarificatory affidavit by the brother of
respondent judge. When he refused, Judge Belen
allegedly called him, uttered the invective,
! 147 of 164
!
Punyeta ka and threatened to file a case against
him. Because of fear of the possible threat,
Gutierrez filed an administrative complaint against
Judge Belen for Unbecoming Conduct and/or
Harassment. HELD: SC dismissed the case and
held that Gutierrez’ mere suspicion and
unfounded charges cannot be the basis of a
judgment against Judge Belen.
allegations without adducing evidence in support
DOCTRINE: Administrative charges against
members of the judiciary must be supported at
least by substantial evidence or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
rests on the complainant. Bare allegations of bias
D. Clear and Convincing Evidence
Tiu Notes
Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in
the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or
conviction as to allegations sought to be
established.
malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the
Class Notes
What is clear and convincing evidence? Lower
that PBRD but higher than preponderance of
evidence
SUMMARY: Resp. CCC is registered owner of
When is it usually applied? Specific cases: fraud,
bad faith, denial, alibi, reconveyance of land,
extradition cases (deprivations of liberty that do
not rise to the level of crimes), to prove illegality of
governmental actions, rebuttal of question as to
regularity of performance of duty
PH government from an unregistered deed of
Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia, Jr. (2007)
SUMMARY: Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region (HKSAR) requested for the extradition of
Muñoz, a Filipino national. Muñoz filed a petition
for bail, initially denied but subsequently granted
by the RTC. HELD: A potential extraditee has the
right to post bail, subject to proof of clear and
convincing evidence that s/he is not a flight risk.
failed to prove its clear title of Lot#727. The
DOCTRINE: As opined by Chief Justice Reynato
Puno, the standard clear and convincing evidence
should be used in granting bail in extradition
cases. It is not lower than proof beyond
reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance
of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove
by such standard that he is not a flight risk and
will abide by all the orders and processes of the
extradition court
buy-bust operation and were charged with
Rivera v. Mendoza (2006)
SUMMARY: Rivera charged respondents with
Manifest Bias and Partiality. Despite the directive
from Court Administrator, Rivera failed to state
clearly and concisely the acts and omissions
constituting the alleged violations of respondents.
He prayed for this Court to intercede in Civil Case
No. 23-569 by ordering the partition of the subject
property between him and Querubin. The Office of
the Court Administrator found that Rivera failed to
establish the charges as he only made bare
thereof. HELD: SC affirmed the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit.
DOCTRINE: The burden of proof that
respondents committed the acts complained of
and partiality are not enough in the absence of
clear and convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that the judge will undertake his
noble role to dispense justice according to law
and evidence and without fear or favor.  There
should be clear and convincing evidence to prove
the charge of bias and partiality.  Extrinsic
evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith,
palpable error that may be inferred from the
decision or order itself.
Alonso v. Cebu Country Club (2002)
Lot#727 of Banilad Friar Lands Estate. Petitioner
filed a complaint for declaration of nullity and non-
existence of deed/title, cancellation of certificates
of title and recovery of property against CCC after
discovering that his father acquired Lot#727 from
sale. RTC and CA held that the land belongs to
CCC. HELD: Land belongs to PH government.
DOCTRINE: Pet. failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence their imputations of fraud in
CCC’s obtaining of title to Lot#727. In this
jurisdiction, fraud is never presumed. The
strongest suspicion cannot overcome
presumption of regularity. However, CCC also
reconstitution is simply the re-issuance of a lost
duplicate certificate of title in its original form and
condition. It does not determine or resolve the
ownership of the land covered by the lost or
destroyed title.
People v. Boco (1999)
SUMMARY: Boco and Inocentes were busted in a
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. One of their
defenses was that the operation was a frame-up.
There was, however, no pieces of evidence
presented to substantiate their claim. Thus, in the
face of the presumption of performance of regular
! 148 of 164
!
duty and the absence of evidence supporting it,
this allegation fails.
out of this by claiming that the defense attorney
DOCTRINE: In the absence of proof of any ill
motive or intent on the part of the police
authorities to falsely impute a serious crime to the
appellants, what must prevail over the latter's self-
serving and uncorroborated claim that they have
been framed is the presumption of regularity in the
performance of the former's official duties, as well
as the doctrine that the findings of the TC on the
credibility of witnesses are entitled to great
respect
things. Also, her narration was straight-forward
E. Credibility of Witnesses
People v. Domingcil (2003)
SUMMARY: The case involves prosecution for
sale and delivery of marijuana against Manny
Domingcil who was caught in a buy-bust
operation after a tip by Oliver Belrey, an employee
of a furniture shop in Laoag, to Chief Investigator
SPO4 Rodrigo Ventura of Laoag PNP. When
Domingcil testified as a witness for his own
defense, he said that Oliver instigated him to buy
marijuana. According to him, the TC erred in not
giving credence and probative weight to his
testimony and in considering the testimonies of
the witnesses of the prosecution.
where no improper motive can be attributed to the
DOCTRINE: It is axiomatic that for testimonial
evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed
from the mouth of a credible witness but must
also be credible in itself such that common
experience and observation of mankind lead to
the inference of its probability under the
circumstances.  In criminal prosecution, the court
is always guided by evidence that is tangible,
verifiable and in harmony with the usual course of
human experience and not by mere conjecture or
speculation. Testimonies that do not adhere to this
standard are necessarily accorded little weight or
credence. Besides, instigation, or the appellant’s
claim of a frame-up, is a defense that has been
invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor
because the same can easily be concocted and is
a common standard defense ploy in most
prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act.
with caution. (6)
People v. Alcantara (2004)
SUMMARY: Accused Alcantara robbed and killed
Liza in the Bankerohan market. Leonila was the
lone prosecution witness who was a fruit vendor
who saw the crime. When she was interviewed by
the police, she said it was some unidentified male.
One year later, accused was arrested. Leonila
visited him in jail, and was allegedly shocked
when she saw him. (The defense made a big deal
visited her to ask about her shock, and the
witness allegedly admitted to him that the
accused was not who she had in mind – but the
SC did not find this credible) Leonila positively
identified the accused in open court. Appellant
contended she was not credible because she did
not initially identify him in the police blotter. HELD:
This fact alone does not erode credibility because
sometimes when people are shocked, they forget
and candid, and she had no motive to falsely
testify against the accused.
DOCTRINE: A truth-telling witness is not always
expected to give an error-free testimony,
considering the lapse of time and treachery of
human memory. Thus, we have followed the rule
in accord with human nature and experience that
honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial
matters serve to strengthen, rather than destroy,
the credibility of a witness, especially of witnesses
to crimes shocking to conscience and numbing to
senses. Moreover, we have ruled time and again
that where the prosecution eyewitness was
familiar with both victim and accused, and where
the  locus criminis  afforded good visibility, and
witness for testifying against the accused, then
her version of the story deserves much weight….
#2 Absent evidence to show any reason or motive
why a witness should testify falsely, the logical
conclusion is that no such improper motive exists
and [her] testimony is worthy of full faith and
credit.
F. Termination of Presentation of Evidence
RULE 133
SEC. 6.  Power of the court to stop further
evidence.  —  The court may stop the introduction
of further testimony upon any particular point
when the evidence upon it is already so full that
more witnesses to the same point cannot be
re a s o n a b l y e x p e c t e d t o b e a d d i t i o n a l l y
persuasive. But this power should be exercised
People v. Subida (2006)
SUMMARY:  When it was the accused’s turn to
adduce evidence, the trial was reset several times.
Eventually, the RTC considered him to have rested
his case and deemed the case submitted for
decision.
DOCTRINE:  Even the court’s power to stop
further evidence must be exercised with caution.
! 149 of 164
!
The prohibition is on cumulative evidence, or
evidence of the same kind to the same state of
facts and not on corroborative evidence or
additional evidence of a different character to the
same point.

G. Evidence On Motion
RULE 133
SEC 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)

Bravo v. Borja (1985)

SUMMARY: Bravo was convicted of murder and
he was applying for bail, one of the grounds being
that he is a minor, which mitigates the penalty
from death to one degree lower than death. This
was denied by the respondent judge because the
minority was allegedly not proven. HELD: Bravo’s
minority was duly proven by the birth certificate
attached with the memorandum on the motion for
bail and his MR.

DOCTRINE: When evidence is properly filed in

support of a motion, it would be a needless
formality to offer it as evidence.

People v. Monteiro (1990)

SUMMARY: Monteiro was charged for not having
Collantes, his employee, registered in the SSS.
Monteiro moved to quash the information on the
ground of prescription. The trial court granted
such motion ruling that the prescription began
from the date of the violation (June 1964).
Prosecution filed an appeal contending that
prescription should only have began on the date
of discovery (May 1974) and so the case which is
filed only on November 1975 is not barred. Date of
discovery was testified to by Collantes. HELD:
Testimony of Collantes admissible to show date of
discovery.

DOCTRINE: 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.

! 150 of 164
!
 case be set for pre-trial conference.3 If the plaintiff
APPENDICES fails to file said motion within the given period, the
Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial.

ANNEX - Rule on the Conduct of Pre-Trial (AM 2. The parties shall submit, at least three (3) days
No. 03-1-09-SC); Judicial Affidavit Rule; Rule before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs containing the
on Examination of A Child Witness following:

a. A statement of their willingness to enter into

AM No. 03-1-09-SC an amicable settlement indicating the desired
terms thereof or to submit the case to any of
RULE ON THE CONDUCT OF PRE- the alternative modes of dispute resolution;

TRIAL
b. A summary of admitted facts and proposed
RE: PROPOSED RULE ON GUIDELINES TO BE stipulation of facts;

OBSERVED BY TRIAL COURT JUDGES AND c. The issues to be tried or resolved;

CLERKS OF COURT IN THE CONDUCT OF PRE- d. The documents or exhibits to be presented,

TRIAL AND USE OF DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY stating the purpose thereof. (No evidence shall
MEASURES RESOLUTION
be allowed to be presented and offered during
the trial in support of a party’s evidence-in-
chief other than those that had been earlier
The use of pre-trial and the deposition-discovery identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial,
measures are undeniably important and vital except if allowed by the court for good cause
components of case management in trial courts. shown);

To decongest court dockets, and to further e. A manifestation of their having availed or

implement the pre-trial guidelines laid down in their intention to avail themselves of discovery
Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January procedures or referral to commissioners; and

15, 1999 and except as otherwise specifically
provided for in other special rules, the following
guidelines are issued for the observance and
guidance of trial judges and clerks of court:
decongest court dockets, and to further
f. The number and names of the witnesses, the
substance of their testimonies, and the
approximate number of hours that will be
required by the parties for the presentation of
their respective witnesses.

implement the pre-trial guidelines laid down in A copy of the Notice of Pre-trial Conference is
Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January hereto attached as Annex “B.”

15, 1999 and except as otherwise specifically The rule on the contents of the pre-trial brief must
provided for in other special rules, the following strictly be complied with.

guidelines are issued for the observance and The parties are bound by the representations and
guidance of trial judges and clerks of court:
statements in their respective pre-trial briefs.

3.  At the start of the pre-trial conference, the

I. PRE-TRIAL
judge shall immediately refer the parties and/or
A. CIVIL CASES
their counsel if authorized by their clients to the
1. Within one day from receipt of the complaint:
PMC mediation unit for purposes of mediation if
1.1 Summons shall be prepared and shall contain available.5  If mediation fails, the judge will
a reminder to defendant to observe restraint in schedule the continuance of the pre-trial
filing a motion to dismiss and instead allege the conference.  Before the continuance, the Judge
grounds thereof as defenses in the Answer, in may refer the case to the Branch COC for a
conformity with IBP-OCA Memorandum on Policy preliminary conference to assist the parties in
Guidelines dated March 12, 2002.  A copy of the reaching a settlement, to mark the documents or
summons is hereto attached as Annex “A;” and
exhibits to be presented by the parties and copies
1.2 The court shall issue an order requiring the thereof to be attached to the records after
parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under comparison and to consider such other matters as
Rule 25 and request for admission by adverse may aid in its prompt disposition.

party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make
use of depositions under Rule 23 or other
measures under Rules 27 and 28 within five days
from the filing of the answer.1 A copy of the order
shall be served upon the defendant together with
the summons and upon the plaintiff.
preliminary conference shall be recorded in the
Within five (5) days from date of filing of the reply,2
the plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the
During the preliminary conference, the Branch
COC shall also ascertain from the parties the
undisputed facts and admissions on the
genuineness and due execution of the documents
marked as exhibits. The proceedings during .the
“Minutes of Preliminary Conference” to be signed
! 151 of 164
!
by both parties and/or counsel, the form of which f. Scrutinize every single allegation of the
is hereto attached as Annex. “C”.
complaint, answer and other pleadings and
The minutes of preliminary conference and the attachments thereto and the contents of
exhibits shall be attached by the Branch COC to documents and all other evidence identified
the case record before the pre-trial.
and pre-marked during pre-trial in determining
4. Before the continuation of the pre-trial further admissions of facts and documents.  To
conference, the judge must study all the pleadings obtain admissions, the Court shall ask the
of the case, and determine the issues thereof and parties to submit the depositions taken under
the respective positions of the parties thereon to Rule 23, the answers to written interrogatories
enable him to intelligently steer the parties toward under Rule 25 and the answers to request for
a possible amicable settlement of the case, or, at admissions by the adverse party under Rule
the very least, to help reduce and limit the issues. 26. It may also require the production of
The judge should not allow the termination of pre- documents or things requested by a party
trial simply because of the manifestation of the under Rule 27 and the results of the physical
parties that they cannot settle the case. He should and mental examination of persons under Rule
expose the parties to the advantages of pre-trial. 28;

He must also be mindful that there are other
important aspects of the pre-trial that ought to be
taken up to expedite the disposition of the case.7
Uncontroverted issues and frivolous claims or
The Judge with all tact, patience, impartiality and
with due regard to the rights of the parties shall
endeavor to persuade them to arrive at a
settlement of the dispute.8 The court shall initially
ask the parties and their lawyers if an amicable
settlement of the case is possible. If not, the judge
may confer with the parties with the opposing
counsel to consider the following:
require the parties to submit their respective
a. Given the evidence of the plaintiff presented
in his pre-trial brief to support his claim, what
g. Define and simplify the factual and legal
i s s u e s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e p l e a d i n g s . 
defenses should be eliminated. For each
factual issue, the parties/counsel shall state all
the evidence to support their positions thereon.
For each legal issue, parties/counsel shall state
the applicable law and jurisprudence
supporting their respective positions thereon. If
only legal issues are presented, the judge shall
memoranda and the court can proceed to
render judgment;9

manner of compromise is considered h. Determine the propriety of rendering a

acceptable to the defendant at the present summary judgment dismissing the case based
stage?
on the disclosures made at the pre-trial or a
b. Given the evidence of the defendant judgment based on the pleadings, evidence
described in his pre-trial brief to support his identified and admissions made during pre-
defense, what manner of compromise is trial;10

considered acceptable to the plaintiff at the i. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates
present stage?
for continuous trial in accordance with Circular
If not successful, the court shall confer with the No. 1-89 dated January 19, 1989; adhere to
party and his counsel separately.
the case flow chart determined by the court,
If the manner of compromise is not acceptable, which shall contain the different stages of the
the judge shall confer with the parties without their proceedings up to the promulgation of the
counsel for the same purpose of settlement.
decision and use the time frame for each stage
5. If all efforts to settle fail, the trial judge shall:
in setting the trial dates. The One-Day
a. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference Examination of Witness Rule, that is, a witness
as part of the pre-trial proceedings and confirm has to be fully examined in one (1) day only,
markings of exhibits or substituted shall be strictly adhered to subject to the
photocopies and admissions on the courts’ discretion during trial on whether or not
genuineness and due execution of documents;
to extend the direct and/or cross-examination
b. Inquire if there are cases arising out of the for justifiable reasons. On the last hearing day
same facts pending before other courts and allotted for each party, he is required to make
order its consolidation if warranted;
his formal offer of evidence after the
c. Inquire if the pleadings are in order. If not, presentation of his last witness and the
order the amendments if necessary;
opposing party is required to immediately
d. Inquire if interlocutory issues are involved interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter, the
and resolve the same;
Judge shall make the ruling on the offer of
e. Consider the adding or dropping of parties;
evidence in open court. However the judge has

! 152 of 164
!
 the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in 9. The court shall endeavor to make the parties
writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132;
agree to an equitable compromise or settlement at
j. Determine the most important witnesses to any stage of the proceedings before rendition of
be heard and limit the number of witnesses judgment.

(Most Important Witness Rule). The facts to be
proven by each witness and the approximate B.  CRIMINAL CASES

number of hours per witness shall be fixed;

1. Before arraignment, the Court shall issue an
k. At his discretion, order the parties to use the
affidavits of witnesses as direct testimonies
subject to the right to object to inadmissible
portions thereof and to the right of cross-
order directing the public prosecutor to submit the
record of the preliminary investigation to the
Branch COC for the latter to attach the same to
the record of the criminal case.

examination by the other party. The affidavits
shall be based on personal knowledge, shall
set forth facts as would be admissible in
evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the
affiant is competent to testify to the matters
stated therein. The affidavits shall be in
question and answer form, and shall comply
with the rules on admissibility of evidence;
ten days after arraignment unless a shorter period
l. Require the parties and/or counsel to submit
Where the accused is under preventive detention,
his case shall be raffled and its records
transmitted to the judge to whom the case was
raffled within three days from the filing of the
complaint or information. The accused shall be
arraigned within ten days from the date of the
raffle. The pre-trial of his case shall be held within
is provided for by law.

to the Branch COC the names, addresses and 2. After the arraignment, the court shall forthwith
contact numbers of the witnesses to be set the pre-trial conference within thirty days from
summoned by subpoena;
the date of arraignment, and issue an order:

m. Order the delegation of the reception of (a) requiring the private offended party to
evidence to the Branch COC under Rule 30; appear thereat for purposes of plea-bargaining
and
except for violations of the Comprehensive
n.  Refer the case to a trial by commissioner Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and for other
under Rule 32.
matters requiring his presence;

During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one
to ask questions on issues raised therein and
all questions or comments by counsel or
parties must be directed to the judge to avoid
hostilities between the parties.
presented by the parties and copies thereof to
6. The trial judge shall schedule the pre-trial in the
afternoon sessions and set as many pre-trial
conferences as may be necessary.
prompt disposition; and
(b) referring the case to the Branch COC, if
warranted, for a preliminary conference to be
set at least three days prior to the pre-trial to
mark the documents or exhibits to be
be attached to the records after comparison
and to consider other matters as may aid in its

7. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be
recorded. The minutes of each pre-trial
conference shall contain matters taken up therein
more particularly admissions of facts and exhibits
and shall be signed by the parties and their
counsel.
order is hereto attached as Annex “E”. In
8. The judge shall issue the required Pre-Trial
Order within ten (10) days after the termination of
the pre-trial.  Said Order shall bind the parties,
(c) informing the parties that no evidence shall
be allowed to be presented and offered during
the trial other than those identified and marked
during the pre-trial except when allowed by the
court for good cause shown. A copy of the
mediatable cases, the judge shall refer the
parties and their counsel to the PMC unit for
purposes of mediation if available.

limit the trial to matters not disposed of and 3.  During the preliminary conference, the Branch
control the course of the action during the trial.  A COC shall assist the parties in reaching a
sample Pre-Trial Order is hereto attached as settlement of the civil aspect of the case, mark the
Annex “D.”
documents to be presented as exhibits and
However, the Court may opt to dictate the Pre- copies thereof attached to the records after
Trial Order in open court in the presence of the comparison, ascertain from the parties the
parties and their counsel and with the use of a undisputed facts and admissions on the
computer, shall have the same immediately genuineness and due execution of documents
finalized and printed. Once finished, the parties marked as exhibits and consider such other
and/or their counsel shall sign the same to matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of
manifest their conformity thereto.
the case. The proceedings during the preliminary

! 153 of 164
!
conference shall be recorded in the Minutes of d. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial
Preliminary Conference to be signed by both dates and adhere to the flow chart determined
parties and counsel. (Please see Annex “B”)
by the court which shall contain the time
The Minutes of Preliminary Conference and the frames for the different stages of the
exhibits shall be attached by the Branch COC to proceeding up to promulgation of decision and
the case record before the pre-trial.
use the time frame for each stage in setting the
4. Before the pre-trial conference the judge must trial dates;

study the allegations of the information, the
statements in the affidavits of witnesses and other
documentary evidence which form part of the
record of the preliminary investigation.
summoned by subpoena; and
e. Require the parties to submit to the Branch
COC the names, addresses and contact
numbers of witnesses that need to be

5. During the pre-trial, except for violations of the f. Consider modification of order of trial if the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the accused admits the charge but interposes a
trial judge shall consider plea- bargaining lawful defense.

arrangements. Where the prosecution and the 7. During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one
offended party agree to the plea offered by the to ask questions on issues raised therein and all
accused, the court shall:
questions must be directed to him to avoid
a. Issue an order which contains the plea hostilities between parties.

bargaining arrived at;

8. All agreements or admissions made or entered
b. Proceed to receive evidence on the civil during the pre- trial conference shall be reduced in
aspect of the case; and
writing and signed by the accused and counsel,
c. Render and promulgate judgment of otherwise, they cannot be used against the
conviction, including the civil liability or
accused.  The agreements covering the matters
damages duly established by the evidence.
referred to in Section 1 of Rule 118 shall be
6.  When plea bargaining fails, the Court shall:
approved by the court.  (Section 2, Rule 118)

a. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference 9. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be
as part of the pre- trial proceedings, confirm recorded, the transcripts prepared and the
markings of exhibits or substituted minutes signed by the parties and/or their
photocopies and admissions on the counsels.

genuineness and due execution of documents 10.  The trial judge shall issue a Pre-trial Order
and list object and testimonial evidence;
within ten (10) days after the termination of the
b. Scrutinize every allegation of the information pre-trial setting forth the actions taken during the
and the statements in the affidavits and other pre-trial conference, the  facts stipulated,  the
documents which form part of the record of the admissions made,  evidence marked, the number
preliminary investigation and other documents of witnesses to bepresented and the schedule of
i d e n t i fi e d a n d m a r k e d a s e x h i b i t s i n trial.  Said Order shall bind the parties, limit the
determining farther admissions of facts, trial to matters not disposed of and control the
documents and in particular as to the course the action during the trial.
following:

1. the identity of the accused;

2. court’s territorial jurisdiction relative to the
offense/s charged;

3. qualification of expert witness/es;

4. amount of damages;

5. genuineness and due execution of
documents;

6. the cause of death or injury, in proper cases;

7. adoption of any evidence presented during
the preliminary investigation;

8. disclosure of defenses of alibi, insanity, self-
defense,  exercise of public authority and
justifying or exempting circumstances; and

9. such other matters that would limit the facts
in issue.

c. Define factual and legal issues;

! 154 of 164
!
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC
 (a) The name, age, residence or business address, and
occupation of the witness;

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts
or supervises the examination of the witness and the
Section 1. Scope. place where the examination is being held;

(a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and (c) A statement that the witness is answering the
incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:
questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for
Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the false testimony or perjury;

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a (d) Questions asked of the witness and his
Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:

cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;

(1) Show the circumstances under which the
(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;

Courts;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to
(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the issues that the case presents; and

the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate (3) Identify the attached documentary and object
Courts;
evidence and establish their authenticity in
(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized accordance with the Rules of Court;

by the Supreme Court to receive evidence, including (e) The signature of the witness over his printed name;
the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
and

(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, (f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who
whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by
the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of law to administer the same.

procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule.1

Sec. 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. - (a) The judicial
(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi- affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end,
judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall be executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised
uniformly referred to here as the "court."
the examination of the witness, to the effect that:

Sec. 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in (1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded
lieu of direct testimonies. the questions he asked and the corresponding
(a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the answers that the witness gave; and

adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, (2) Neither he nor any other person then present or
not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary assisting him coached the witness regarding the
conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to latter's answers.

motions and incidents, the following:

(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment.

shall take the place of such witnesses' direct Sec. 5.  Subpoena.  - If the government employee or
testimonies; and
official, or the requested witness, who is neither the
(2) The parties' docun1entary or object evidence, if witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness,
any, which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or
and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the refuses without just cause to make the relevant books,
case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as documents, or other things under his control available
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the for copying, authentication, and eventual production in
respondent or the defendant.
court, the requesting party may avail himself of the
(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the issuance of a subpoena  ad testificandum  or  duces
original document or object evidence in his possession, tecum  under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules
he may, after the same has been identified, marked as governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in
exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial this case shall be the same as when taking his
affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached to such deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit
affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that shall be understood to be ex parte.

original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the Sec. 6.  Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial
original document or object evidence for comparison affidavit.  - The party presenting the judicial affidavit of
during the preliminary conference with the attached his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the
copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter purpose of such testimony at the start of the
shall not be admitted.
presentation of the witness. The adverse party may
This is without prejudice to the introduction of move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his
secondary evidence in place of the original when affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of
allowed by existing rules.
inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the
Sec. 3.  Contents of judicial Affidavit.  - A judicial motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any
affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the
witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied initials of an authorized court personnel, without
by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain
the following:

! 155 of 164
!
prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party
Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
pays a fine of not less than  P  1,000.00 nor more
Sec. 7.  Examination of the witness on his judicial than P 5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.

affidavit.  - The adverse party shall have the right to
cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and
on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who
presents the witness may also examine him as on re-
direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in
examining the witness to determine his credibility as
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any
witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of
the case as required. 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 there present.

well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the
answers that it needs for resolving the issues.
affidavits that do not conform to the content
Sec. 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits.
(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.
provided further, that public or private counsel
(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
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation
requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent submission of
the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing
or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and
would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and
responsible for their preparation and submission pays a
fi n e o f n o t l e s s t h a n  P  1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 n o r m o re
than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

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.

Sec. 9. Application of rule to criminal actions.

(a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:

(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty

does not exceed six years;

(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial

affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or

(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions,

whatever the penalties involved are.

(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of

its witnesses not later than five days before the pre-
trial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The
complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the
affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he
may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on.
No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object
evidence shall be admitted at the trial.

(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense

after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution,
he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit
as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten
days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of
each on the public and private prosecutor, including his
documentary and object evidence previously marked
as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall
serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his
witnesses when they appear before the court to testify.

Sec. 10.  Effect of non-compliance with the judicial

Affidavit Rule.
(a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial
affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have
waived their submission. The court may, however, allow
only once the late submission of the same provided,
the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly

! 156 of 164
!
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A (g) “Best interests of the child” means the totality
of the circumstances and conditions as are most
CHILD WITNESS congenial to the survival, protection, and feelings
 
of security of the child and most encouraging to
Section 1. Applicability of the Rule.— Unless his physical, psychological, and emotional
otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the development.   It also means the least detrimental
examination of child witnesses who are victims of available alternative for safeguarding the growth
crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to and development of the

crime.  It shall apply in all criminal proceedings (h)  “Developmental level”  refers to the specific
and non-criminal proceedings involving child growth phase in which most individuals are
witnesses.
 expected to behave and function in relation to the
Sec.  2. Objectives.— The objectives of this Rule advancement of their physical, socio-emotional,
are to create and maintain an environment that will cognitive, and moral abilities.

allow children to give reliable and complete (i)“In-depth investigative interview”  or  “disclosure
evidence, minimize trauma to children, encourage interview”  is an inquiry or proceeding conducted
children to testify in legal proceedings, and by duly trained members of a multi-disciplinary
facilitate the ascertainment of truth.
team or  representatives of law enforcement or
Sec. 3. Construction of the Rule.— This Rule shall child protective services for the purpose of
be liberally construed to uphold the best interests determining whether child abuse has been
o f t h e c h i l d a n d t o p ro m o t e m a x i m u m committed.

accommodation of child witnesses without

prejudice to the constitutional rights of the Sec.  5. Guardian ad litem.— 

accused.
(a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a
Sec. 4. Definitions.—
child who is a victim of, accused of, or a witness
(a) A “child witness” is any person who at the time to a crime to promote the best interests of the
of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen child.  In making the appointment, the court shall
(18) years.  In child abuse cases, a child includes consider the background of the guardian  ad
one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the litem  and his familiarity with the judicial process,
court as unable to fully take care of himself or social service programs, and child development,
protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, giving preference to the parents of the child, if
exploitation or discrimination because of a qualified.  The guardian  ad litem  may be a
physical or mental disability or condition.
member of the Philippine Bar.  A person who is a
(b)  “Child abuse”  means physical, psychological witness in any proceeding involving the child
or sexual abuse and criminal neglect as defined cannot be appointed as a guardian ad litem.

in Republic Act No. 7610 and other related laws.

(b) The guardian ad litem: 

(c) “Facilitator” means a person appointed by the (1) shall attend all interviews, depositions,
court to pose questions to a
hearings, and trial proceedings in which a child
(d)  “Record regarding a child”  or  “record”  means participates;

any photograph, videotape, audiotape, film, .(2) shall make recommendations to the court
handwriting, typewriting, printing, electronic concerning the welfare of the child;

recording, computer data or printout, or other (3) shall have access to all reports, evaluations,
memorialization, including any court document, and records necessary to effectively advocate
pleading, or any copy or reproduction of any of for the child, except privileged
the foregoing, that contains the name, description, communications;

address, school or any other personal identifying (4) shall marshal and coordinate the delivery of
information about a child or his family and that is resources and special services to the child;

produced or maintained by a public agency, (5) shall explain, in language understandable to

private agency or individual.
the child, all legal proceedings, including police
(e) A “guardian ad litem” is a person appointed by investigations, in which the child is involved;

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
subsequent criminal or non-criminal
(f) A  “support person”  is a person chosen by the
(6) shall assist the child and his family in coping
with the emotional effects of crime and
proceedings in which the child is involved;

child to accompany him to testify at or attend a (7) may remain with the child while the child
judicial proceeding or deposition to provide waits to testify;

emotional support for him.

(8) may interview witnesses; and

! 157 of 164
!
 (9) may request additional examinations by (e) Developmentally appropriate questions.— The
medical or mental health professionals if there questions asked at the competency examination
is a compelling need therefor.
shall be appropriate to the age and developmental
(c) The guardian  ad litem  shall be notified of all level of the child; shall not be related to the issues
proceedings but shall not participate in the trial.  at trial; and shall focus on the ability of the child to
However, he may file motions pursuant to remember, communicate, distinguish between
Sections 9, 10, 25, 26, 27 and 31(c).  If the truth and falsehood, and appreciate the duty to
guardian  ad litem  is a lawyer, he may object testify truthfully.

during trial that questions asked of the child are (f) Continuing duty to assess competence.—  The
not appropriate to his developmental level.
court has the duty of continuously assessing the
(d) The guardian  ad litem  may communicate competence of the child throughout his testimony.

concerns regarding the child to the court through

an officer of the court designated for that purpose.
Sec.  7. Oath or affirmation.— Before testifying, a
(e) The guardian  ad litem  shall not testify in any child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the
p ro c e e d i n g c o n c e r n i n g a n y i n f o r m a t i o n , truth.

statement, or opinion received from the child in

the course of serving as a guardian  ad litem, Sec. 8. Examination of a child witness.— The
unless the court finds it necessary to promote the examination of a child witness presented in a
best interests of the child.
hearing or any proceeding shall be done in open
(f) The guardian  ad litem  shall be presumed to court.  Unless the witness is incapacitated to
have acted in good faith in compliance with his speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
duties described in Sub-section (b).
answer, the answers of the witness shall be given
orally.

Sec.    6. Competency.— Every child is presumed The party who presents a child witness or the
qualified to be a witness.  However, the court shall guardian  ad litem  of such child witness may,
conduct a competency examination of a however, move the court to allow him to testify in
child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when the manner provided in this Rule.

it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the

ability of the child to perceive, remember, Sec.  9. Interpreter for child.—

communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or (a) When a child does not understand the English
appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.
or Filipino language or is unable to communicate
(a) Proof of necessity.— A party seeking a in said languages due to his developmental level,
competency examination must present proof of fear, shyness, disability, or other similar reason, an
necessity of competency examination. The age of interpreter whom the child can understand and
the child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a who understands the child may be appointed by
competency examination.
the court,  motu proprio  or upon motion, to
(b) Burden of proof.— To rebut the presumption of interpret for the child.

competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of (b) If a witness or member of the family of the
proof lies on the party challenging his child is the only person who can serve as an
competence.
interpreter for the child, he shall not be
(c) Persons allowed at competency examination. disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of
—  Only the following are allowed to attend a the child. The interpreter, however, who is also a
competency examination:
witness, shall testify ahead of the child.

(1) The judge and necessary court personnel;

(c) An interpreter shall take an oath or affirmation
(2) The counsel for the parties;
to make a true and accurate interpretation.

(3) The guardian ad litem;

(4) One or more support persons for the child; Sec.  10. Facilitator to pose questions to child.—

and
(a) The court may,  motu proprio  or upon motion,
(5) The defendant, unless the court determines appoint a facilitator if it determines that the child
that competence can be fully evaluated in his is unable to understand or respond to questions
absence.
asked. The facilitator may be a child psychologist,
(d) Conduct of examination.— Examination of a psychiatrist, social worker, guidance counselor,
child as to his competence shall be conducted teacher, religious leader, parent, or relative.

only by the judge.  Counsel for the parties, (b) If the court appoints a facilitator, the respective
however, can submit questions to the judge that counsels for the parties shall pose questions to
he may, in his discretion, ask the child.
the child only through the facilitator.  The

! 158 of 164
!
questions shall either be in the words used by turned to facilitate his testimony but the opposing
counsel or, if the child is not likely to understand party and his counsel must have a frontal or
the same, in words that are comprehensible to the profile view of the child during the testimony of
child and which convey the meaning intended by the child.  The witness chair or other place from
counsel.
which the child testifies may also be rearranged to
(c) The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation allow the child to see the opposing party and his
to pose questions to the child according to the counsel, if he chooses to look at them, without
meaning intended by counsel.
turning his body or leaving the witness stand.  The
judge need not wear his judicial robe.

Sec.  11. Support persons.—

Nothing in this section or any other provision of
(a) A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or law, except official in-court identification
making a deposition shall have the right to be provisions, shall be construed to require a child to
accompanied by one or two persons of his own look at the accused.

choosing to provide him emotional support.

Accommodations for the child under this section
(1) Both support persons shall remain within need not be supported by a finding of trauma to
the view of the child during his testimony.
the child.

(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.
the child is well-rested.
Sec. 14. Testimony during appropriate hours.—
The court may order that the testimony of the
child should be taken during a time of day when

(3) The court may allow the support person to

hold the hand of the child or take other Sec. 15. Recess during testimony.—

appropriate steps to provide emotional support The child may be allowed reasonable periods of
to the child in the course of the proceedings.
relief while undergoing direct, cross, re-direct, and
(4) The court shall instruct the support persons re-cross examinations as often as necessary
not to prompt, sway, or influence the child depending on his developmental level. 

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
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.

risk of influencing or affecting the content of the

testimony of the child.
Sec. 17. Emotional security item.— While
(c) If the support person who is also a witness is testifying, a child shall be allowed to have an item
allowed by the court, his testimony shall be of his own choosing such as a blanket, toy, or
presented ahead of the testimony of the child.
doll.

Sec. 12. Waiting area for child witnesses.— The Sec. 18. Approaching the witness.—  The court
courts are encouraged to provide a waiting area may prohibit a counsel from approaching a child if
for children that is separate from waiting areas it appears that the child is fearful of or intimidated
used by other persons. The waiting area for by the counsel.

children should be furnished so as to make a child

comfortable.
Sec. 19. Mode of questioning.— The court shall
exercise control over the questioning of children
Sec.  13. Courtroom environment.— To create a so as to (1) facilitate the ascertainment of the
more comfortable environment for the child, the truth; (2) ensure that questions are stated in a
court may, in its discretion, direct and supervise form appropriate to the developmental level of the
the location, movement and deportment of all child; (3) protect children from harassment or
persons in the courtroom including the parties, undue embarrassment; and (4) avoid waste of
their counsel, child, witnesses, support persons, time.

guardian ad litem, facilitator, and court personnel.  The court may allow the child witness to testify in
The child may be allowed to testify from a place a narrative form.

other than the witness chair.  The witness chair or

other place from which the child testifies may be

! 159 of 164
!
Sec.  20. Leading questions.—  The court may or counsel and shall defer to the judgment of the
allow leading questions in all stages of prosecutor or counsel regarding the necessity of
examination of a child if the same will further the applying for an order.  In case the guardian  ad
interests of justice.
litem  is convinced that the decision of the
prosecutor or counsel not to apply will cause the
Sec. 21. Objections to questions.— Objections to child serious emotional trauma, he himself may
questions should be couched in a manner so as apply for the order.

not to mislead, confuse, frighten, or intimidate the The person seeking such an order shall apply at
child.
least five (5) days before the trial date, unless the
court finds on the record that the need for such an
Sec. 22. Corroboration.—  Corroboration shall not order was not reasonably foreseeable.

be required of a testimony of a child. His (b) The court may  motu proprio  hear and
testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to determine, with notice to the parties, the need for
support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment taking the testimony of the child through live-link
subject to the standard of proof required in television.

criminal and non-criminal cases.

(c) The judge may question the child in chambers,
or in some comfortable place other than the
Sec.  23. Excluding the public.—  When a child courtroom, in the presence of the support person,
testifies, the court may order the exclusion from guardian ad litem, prosecutor, and counsel for the
the courtroom of all persons, including members parties. The questions of the judge shall not be
of the press, who do not have a direct interest in related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of
the case.  Such an order may be made to protect the child about testifying in the courtroom.

the right to privacy of the child or if the court (d) The judge may exclude any person, including
determines on the record that requiring the child the accused, whose presence or conduct causes
to testify in open court would cause psychological fear to the child. 

harm to him, hinder the ascertainment of truth, or (e) The court shall issue an order granting or
result in his inability to effectively communicate denying the use of live-link television and stating
due to embarrassment, fear, or timidity.  In making the reasons therefor.  It shall consider the
i t s o rd e r, t h e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r t h e following factors:

developmental level of the child, the nature of the (1) The age and level of development of the
crime, the nature of his testimony regarding the child;

crime, his relationship to the accused and to (2) His physical and mental health, including
persons attending the trial, his desires, and the any mental or physical disability;

interests of his parents or legal guardian.  The (3) Any physical, emotional, or psychological
court may,  motu proprio, exclude the public from injury experienced by him;

the courtroom if the evidence to be produced (4) The nature of the alleged abuse;

during trial is of such character as to be offensive (5) Any threats against the child;

to decency or public morals.  The court may also, (6) His relationship with the accused or adverse
on motion of the accused, exclude the public from party;

trial, except court personnel and the counsel of (7) His reaction to any prior encounters with the
the parties.
accused in court or elsewhere;

(8) His reaction prior to trial when the topic of

Sec. 24. Persons prohibited from entering and testifying was discussed with him by parents or
leaving courtroom.— The court may order that professionals;

persons attending the trial shall not enter or leave (9) Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by
the courtroom during the testimony of the child.
the child in the days prior to testifying;

(10) Testimony of expert or lay witnesses;

Sec.  25. Live-link television testimony in criminal (11) The custodial situation of the child and the
cases where the child is a victim or a witness.—
attitude of the members of his family regarding
(a) The prosecutor, counsel or the guardian  ad the events about which he will testify; and

litem may apply for an order that the testimony of (12) Other relevant factors, such as court
the child be taken in a room outside the atmosphere and formalities of court procedure.

courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by (f)  The court may order that the testimony of
live-link television.
the child be taken by live-link television if there
Before the guardian  ad litem  applies for an order is a substantial likelihood that the child would
under this section, he shall consult the prosecutor suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of

! 160 of 164
!
 the accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as courtroom, the courtroom shall be arranged to
the case may be.  The trauma must be of a enable the accused to view the child.

kind which would impair the completeness or

truthfulness of the testimony of the child.
Sec . 27. Videotaped deposition.—

(g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by (a) The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian  ad
live-link television:
litem may apply for an order that a deposition be
(1) The child shall testify in a room separate taken of the testimony of the child and that it be
from the courtroom in the presence of the recorded and preserved on videotape.  Before the
guardian  ad litem;  one or both of his support guardian  ad litem  applies for an order under this
persons; the facilitator and interpreter, if any; a Section, he shall consult with the prosecutor or
court officer appointed by the court;  persons counsel subject to the second and third
necessary to operate the closed-circuit paragraphs of Section 25(a).

television equipment; and other persons whose (b) If the court finds that the child will not be able
presence are determined by the court to be to testify in open court at trial, it shall issue an
necessary to the welfare and well-being of the order that the deposition of the child be taken and
child;
preserved by videotape.

(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
(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 the 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:

excluded.
(1) The prosecutor;

(3) If it is necessary for the child to identify the (2) The defense counsel;

accused at trial, the court may allow the child (3) The guardian ad litem;

to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose (4) The accused, subject to sub-section (e);

of identifying the accused, or the court may (5) Other persons whose presence is
allow the child to identify the accused by determined by the court to be necessary to the
observing the image of the latter on a television welfare and well-being of the child;

monitor.
(6) One or both of his support persons, the
(4) The court may set other conditions and facilitator and interpreter, if any;

limitations on the taking of the testimony that it (7) The court stenographer; and

finds just and appropriate, taking into (8) Persons necessary to operate the videotape
consideration the best interests of the child.
equipment.

(h) The testimony of the child shall be preserved (d) The rights of the accused during trial,
on videotape, digital disc, or other similar devices especially the right to counsel and to confront and
which shall be made part of the court record and cross-examine the child, shall not be violated
shall be subject to a protective order as provided during the deposition.

in Section 31(b).
(e) If the order of the court is based on evidence
that the child is unable to testify in the physical
Sec. 26. Screens, one-way mirrors, and other presence of the accused, the court may direct the
devices to shield child from accused.—
latter to be excluded from the room in which the
(a) The prosecutor or the guardian  ad litem  may deposition is conducted.  In case of exclusion of
apply for an order that the chair of the child or that the accused, the court shall order that the
a screen or other device be placed in the testimony of the child be taken by live-link
courtroom in such a manner that the child cannot television in accordance with Section 25 of this
see the accused while testifying.  Before the Rule.  If the accused is excluded from the
guardian  ad litem  applies for an order under this deposition, it is not necessary that the child be
Section, he shall consult with the prosecutor or able to view an image of the accused.

counsel subject to the second and third (f) The videotaped deposition shall be preserved
paragraphs of Section 25(a) of this Rule.  The and stenographically recorded.  The videotape
court shall issue an order stating the reasons and and the stenographic notes shall be transmitted to
describing the approved courtroom arrangement.
the clerk of the court where the case is pending
(b) If the court grants an application to shield the for safekeeping and shall be made a part of the
child from the accused while testifying in the record.

! 161 of 164
!
(g) The court may set other conditions on the (7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the
taking of the deposition that it finds just and declarant child is remote; and

appropriate, taking into consideration the best (8) The circumstances surrounding the
interests of the child, the constitutional rights of statement are such that there is no reason to
the accused, and other relevant factors.
suppose the declarant child misrepresented
(h) The videotaped deposition and stenographic the involvement of the accused.

notes shall be subject to a protective order as (c) The child witness shall be considered
provided in Section 31(b).
unavailable under the following situations:

(i) If, at the time of trial, the court finds that the (1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity,
child is unable to testify for a reason stated in lack of memory, mental illness, or will be
Section 25(f) of this Rule, or is unavailable for any exposed to severe psychological injury; or

reason described in Section 4(c), Rule 23 of (2) Is absent from the hearing and the
the  1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may proponent of his statement has been unable to
admit into evidence the videotaped deposition of procure his attendance by process or other
the child in lieu of his testimony at the trial.  The reasonable means.

court shall issue an order stating the reasons (d) When the child witness is unavailable, his
therefor.
hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if
(j) After the original videotaping but before or corroborated by other admissible evidence.

during trial, any party may file any motion for

additional videotaping on the ground of newly Sec. 29. Admissibility of videotaped and
discovered evidence.  The court may order an audiotaped in-depth investigative or disclosure
additional videotaped deposition to receive the interviews in child abuse cases.—  The court may
newly discovered evidence.
admit videotape and audiotape in-depth
investigative or disclosure interviews as evidence,
Sec. 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. under the following conditions:

— A statement made by a child describing any act (a) The child witness is unable to testify in court on
or attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise grounds and under conditions established under
admissible under the hearsay rule, may be Section 28 (c).

admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-
criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:
duly trained members of a multidisciplinary team
(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
(b) The interview of the child was conducted by
or representatives of law enforcement or child
protective services in situations where child abuse
is suspected so as to determine whether child
abuse occurred.

to object.  If the child is available, the court shall, (c) The party offering the videotape or audiotape
upon motion of the adverse party, require the child must prove that:

to be present at the presentation of the hearsay (1) the videotape or audiotape discloses the
statement for cross-examination by the adverse identity of all individuals present and at all
party.  When the child is unavailable, the fact of times includes their images and voices;

such circumstance must be proved by the (2) the statement was not made in response to
proponent.
questioning calculated to lead the child to
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay make a particular statement or is clearly shown
statement, the court shall consider the time, to be the statement of the child and not the
content and circumstances thereof which provide product of improper suggestion;

sufficient indicia of reliability.  It shall consider the (3) the videotape and audiotape machine or
following factors:
device was capable of recording testimony;

(1) Whether there is a motive to lie;

(4) the person operating the device was
(2) The general character of the declarant child;
competent to operate it;

(3) Whether more than one person heard the (5) the videotape or audiotape is authentic and
statement;
correct; and

(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;

(6) it has been duly preserved.

(5) The timing of the statement and the The individual conducting the interview of the
relationship between the declarant child and child shall be available at trial for examination by
witness;
any party.  Before the videotape or audiotape is
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack offered in evidence, all parties shall be afforded an
of knowledge of the declarant child;
opportunity to view or listen to it and shall be

! 162 of 164
!
furnished a copy of a written transcript of the (6) Other persons as determined by the court.

proceedings.
(b) Protective order.— Any videotape or audiotape
The fact that an investigative interview is not of a child that is part of the court record shall be
videotaped or audiotaped as required by this under a protective order that provides as follows:

Section shall not by itself constitute a basis to (1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties, their
exclude from evidence out-of-court statements or counsel, their expert witness, and the
testimony of the child.  It may, however, be guardian ad litem.

considered in determining the reliability of the (2) No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be
statements of the child describing abuse.
divulged by any person mentioned in Sub-
section (a) to any other person, except as
Sec. 30. Sexual abuse shield rule.—
 necessary for the trial.

(a) Inadmissible evidence.—  The following (3) No person shall be granted access to the
evidence is not admissible in any criminal tape, its transcription or any part thereof unless
proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse:
he signs a written affirmation that he has
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged received and read a copy of the protective
victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
order; that he submits to the jurisdiction of the
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual court with respect to the protective order; and
predisposition of the alleged victim.
that in case of violation thereof, he will be
(b) Exception.— Evidence of specific instances of subject to the contempt power of the court.

sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that (4) Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts
a person other than the accused was the source thereof made available to the parties, their
of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall counsel, and respective agents shall bear the
be admissible.
following cautionary notice:

A party intending to offer such evidence must:

“This object or document and the contents
(1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) thereof are subject to a protective order issued
days before trial, specifically describing the by the court in (case title), (case number). They
evidence and stating the purpose for which it is shall  not be examined, inspected, read,
offered, unless the court, for good cause, viewed, or copied by any person, or disclosed
requires a different time for filing or permits to any person, except as provided in the
filing during trial; and
protective order.  No additional copies of the
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the tape or any of its portion shall be made, given,
guardian ad litem at least three (3) days before sold, or shown to any person without prior
the hearing of the motion.
court order.  Any person violating such
Before admitting such evidence, the court must protective order is subject to the contempt
conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the power of the court and other penalties
child, his guardian  ad litem, the parties, and their prescribed by law.”

counsel a right to attend and be heard.  The (5) No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or
motion and the record of the hearing must be shown to any person except as ordered by the
sealed and remain under seal and protected by a court.

protective order set forth in Section 31(b).  The (6) Within thirty (30) days from receipt, all
child shall not be required to testify at the hearing copies of the tape and any transcripts thereof
in chambers except with his consent.
shall be returned to the clerk of court for
safekeeping unless the period is extended by
Sec. 31. Protection of privacy and safety.—
the court on motion of a party.

(a) Confidentiality of records.— Any record (7) This protective order shall remain in full
regarding a child shall be confidential and kept force and effect until further order of the court.

under seal. Except upon written request and order (c) Additional protective orders.—  The court
of the court, a record shall only be released to the may,  motu proprio  or on  motion of any party, the
following:
child, his parents, legal guardian, or the
(1) Members of the court staff for guardian  ad litem, issue additional orders to
administrative use;
protect the privacy of the child.

(2) The prosecuting attorney;

(d) Publication of identity contemptuous.—
(3) Defense counsel; 
Whoever publishes or causes to be published in
(4) The guardian ad litem;
any format the name, address, telephone number,
(5) Agents of investigating law enforcement school, or other identifying information of a child
agencies; and
who is or is alleged to be a victim or accused of a

! 163 of 164
!
crime or a witness thereof, or an immediate family Sec.  33. Effectivity.—  This Rule shall take effect on
of the child shall be liable to the contempt power December 15, 2000 following its publication in two
of the court.
(2) newspapers of general circulation.

(e) Physical safety of child; exclusion of evidence.

— A child has a right at any court proceeding not
to testify regarding personal identifying
information, including his name, address,
telephone number, school, and other information
that could endanger his physical safety or his
family.  The court may, however, require the child
to testify regarding personal identifying
information in the interest of justice.

(f) Destruction of videotapes and audiotapes.—

Any videotape or audiotape of a child produced
under the provisions of this Rule or otherwise
made part of the court record shall be destroyed
after five (5) years have elapsed from the date of
entry of judgment. 

(g) Records of youthful offender.—  Where a

youthful offender has been charged before any
city or provincial prosecutor or before any
municipal judge and the charges have been
ordered dropped, all the records of the case shall
be considered as privileged and may not be
disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone for any
purpose whatsoever.

Where a youthful offender has been charged and

the court acquits him, or dismisses the case or
commits him to an institution and subsequently
releases him pursuant to Chapter 3 of  P. D. No.
603, all the records of his case shall also be
considered as privileged and may not be
disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone except to
determine if a defendant may have his sentence
suspended under Article 192 of P. D. No. 603 or if
he may be granted probation under the provisions
of P. D. No. 968  or to enforce his civil liability, if
said liability has been imposed in the criminal
action.  The youthful offender concerned shall not
be held under any provision of law to be guilty of
perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by
reason of his failure to acknowledge the case or
recite any fact related thereto in response to any
inquiry made to him for any purpose.

“Records” within the meaning of this Sub-section

shall include those which may be in the files of the GOOD LUCK, FRIENDS!
National Bureau of Investigation and with any police
department or  government agency which may have COMPILED BY:

been involved in the case. (Art. 200, P. D. No. 603)

Bernice Ares | Alex Austria | Oliver Edolsa

Sec. 32. Applicability of ordinary rules.— The
provisions of the  Rules of Court  on deposition,
conditional examination of witnesses, and evidence
shall be applied in a suppletory character.
Perez | Enzo Regondola | Dwight Tan
| Mela Fojas | Eena Fortun | Rhett Gaerlan
| Danna Ingaran | Meann Legaspi |
Hannah Manalili | Nico Mendiola | Yanna

! 164 of 164
!