CONCEPT OF EVIDENCE: the means, sanctioned by the Rules, of ascertaining in a

judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

There is no vested right in the Rules of Evidence (subject to change by the SC
pursuant to its powers to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure.
Rules may be WAIVED!
SCOPE: The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings, except as otherwise provided by the law or the Rules. (Principle of
Uniformity)
SECTION 4. In what cases not applicable. These Rules shall not apply
to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. (underscoring
supplied)

SASAN CASE: The settled rule is that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence
on appeal as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. In fact, labor officials
are mandated by the Labor Code to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the
facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or
procedure, all in the interest of due process.

ADMISSIBILITY: When it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
the Rules.
1. Relevant evidence much have such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
2. Competent evidence one that is not excluded by law in a particular case.
(eligibility)

Collateral matters connote an absence of a direct connection between the

evidence and the matter in dispute.
GR: Not allowed since it does not have direct relevance to the issue of
the case.
XPN: if it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.

KINDS / DEGREES OF EVIDENCE:

3. Direct evidence evidence which if believed, proves the existence of a fact in
issue without presumption or inference.
Proves a fact without the need to make an inference from another fact.
4. Circumstantial evidence evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence
established.
CONVICTION BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: REQUISITES
a. There is more than one circumstance;
b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.

The circumstances established must constitute an unbroken chain

leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused
as the guilty person, to the exclusion of others.

Mere suspicions, probabilities or suppositions do not warrant a conviction.

Mere presence of the accused at the locus criminis cannot be solely
interpreted to mean that he committed the killing. There should be other
corroborative evidence to prove guilt.

 Where the evidence admits of two interpretations, one of which is consistent

with the hypothesis of guilt and the other consistent with the hypothesis of
innocence, the accused must be acquitted.
All the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent
with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is
innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.
In order to support a conviction, MOTIVE must be coupled with evidence
from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused was the
malefactor.
5. Primary evidence the best available substantiation of the existence of an
object because it is the actual item.
6. Secondary evidence evidence reproduced from an original document or
substituted for an original item.
7. Positive evidence the direct proof of the fact or point in issue, proof that if
believed, establishes the truth or falsity of a fact in issue and does not arise
from presumption.
8. Negative evidence evidence with a negative value. (Admissible when a
qualified person who has examined records or documents testifies that he did
not find any reference to or entry of a particular item).
9. Corroborative evidence additional evidence or evidence of a different kind
that SUPPORTS A PROOF already offered in a proceeding. It STRENGTHENS,
ADDS, OR CONFIRMS already existing evidence.
10.Cumulative evidence synonymous with corroborative evidence.
11.PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption
of fact or to establish the fact in question UNLESS rebutted.
Not a conclusive evidence of the existence of fact; supports a
judgement until a contradictory evidence is produce in its rebuttal.
Also called PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE.
12.CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that which cannot be contradicted by any other
evidence (clear and convincing).
13.Rebuttal evidence any evidence that repels, disproves evidence given by a
witness.
14.Sur-rebuttal evidence in reply to rebuttal evidence.
15.Documentary evidence a written proof offered at trial to establish the
existence or non-existence of a fact that is in dispute.
16.Testimonial evidence oral or written assertion offered in court as a proof of
the truth of what is being stated.
17.SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT A
REASONABLE MIND MIGHT ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A
CONCLUSION.
PURPOSE: to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a
judicial proceeding.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE: In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof
must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt. Moral certainty is required, or
that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

PREPONDERANCE (superior weight) OF EVIDENCE - evidence that is more

convincing and more credible than the one offered by the adverse party.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. All the facts and circumstances of the case;
2. The witness manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing
the facts to which they testify the probability or improbability of their
testimony, interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility.
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT the moral certainty required or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE applies to cases filed before administrative or quasijudicial bodies and which requires that in order to establish a fact, the evidence
should constitute the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Required in administrative and quasi-judicial bodies.
However, in administrative proceedings against judges and judicial
employees, the standard of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt
as they are highly penal in nature.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE if it produces in the mind of the trier of
fact a firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be established. It is
intermediate; being more than mere preponderance, but not to such extent of such
certainty as is required in criminal cases.
OFFER OF COMPROMISE: In civil cases, it is not an admission of liability and is
not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases, it is an implied admission of guilt.
PROOF the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the
mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence.
EVIDENCE the medium or means by which a fact is proved or disproved.
BURDEN OF PROOF 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.
ALIBI General Rule: as a defense, it is inherently weak and crumbles in the light
of positive by truthful witnesses.
To prosper, the accused must prove that:
1. He was somewhere else when the crime was committed;
2. It was physically impossible for him to be in locus criminis or its immediate
vicinity at the time of its commission.
Exception: alibi assumes significance and strength where the evidence for the
prosecution is also intrinsically weak.
SELF-DEFENSE: also inherently weak because it can easily be fabricated. Invoking
the same is admitting authorship of the killing.
DENIAL EVIDENCE: the weakest defense and can never overcome a positive
testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.
FACTUM PROBANDUM: The fact or proposition to be established (the fact to be
proved)
FACTUM PROBANS: the facts or materials evidencing the fact or proposition to be
established.
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY: Evidence may be admissible for several purposes.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY Evidence may be admitted subject to the

condition that its relevancy or competency is established at a later time.
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible
evidence to answer the opposing partys previous introduction of inadmissible
evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the
earlier inadmissible evidence.
PRELIMINARY INQUIRY The Judge determines the existence of probable
cause for purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest.
The constitutional provision does not mandatorily require the Judge to
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. He may opt to
personally evaluate the
report and supporting documents submitted by the Prosecutor OR he
may disregard the same and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION - Prosecutor determines the existence of
probable cause.
The grant or denial of bail; is dependent on whether the evidence of
guilt is strong and is subject to judicial discretion.
The test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond
reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows EVIDENT GUILT or great
presumption of guilt.
EQUIPOISE RULE refers to a situation where the evidence of the parties is
evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates.
In this case, the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof.
In criminal cases, where the evidence is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favour of the
accused.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

An investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved

crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the
police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the
suspect in connection with an alleged offense.
Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures on custodial
investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby
appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. [35] What the
Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or
confessions. The rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the
slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused to admit
something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the
truth.

ANTI-WIRETAPPING (TORRALBA CASE)

It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible because of its

form[24] where a proper foundation has been laid to guarantee the genuineness of the
recording.[25] In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a
tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value, the following
requisites must first be established, to wit:
(1)
a showing that the recording device was capable of taking
testimony;
(2)
a showing that the operator of the device was competent;
(3)
establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording;
(4)
a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been
made;
(5)
a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording;
(6)
identification of the speakers; and
(7)
a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made
without any kind of inducement.

Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all
the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any
wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly
overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise
described. . . .
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, 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.

BANK SECRECY LAWS

Section 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 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 or invested is the subject
matter of the litigation.

NO PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY OR ILLEGITIMACY

There is no such presumption of a child born after 300 days following the
dissolution of the
marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legit or
illegit of such child must prove his allegation.
JUDICIAL NOTICE to abbreviate litigation by the admission of matters that need
no evidence because judicial notice is a substitute for formal proof as a matter of
evidence.

For a matter to be taken judicial notice of by the courts of law, it must be a

subject of common and general knowledge. Judicial notice of facts is
measured by general knowledge of the same facts.
NOTORIETY is the principal guide.
A fact is said to be generally known or recognized when its existence or
operation is accepted by the public without qualification or contention.
The test is whether the act involved is so notoriously known as to make it
proper to assume its existence without proof.
The DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE rests on the wisdom and discretion of
the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised with great
caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every
reasonable doubts upon the subject should be promptly resolved in the
negative.

THREE (3) REQUISITES:

1. The matter must be one of common and general knowledge
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain
3. It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
It is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general
notoriety.
BUT, judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge
of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court and he is not
authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact not generally or
professionally known, the basis of his action.
Things of common knowledge may be matters coming to the knowledge of
men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life or generally
accepted by mankind as true and are capable of unquestioned
demonstration.
WHEN MANDATORY:
1. Existence and territorial extent of States

2. Political history
3. Forms of government
4. Symbols of nationality
5. Law of nations
6. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals
7. Political constitution and history of the Philippines
8. Official legislative, judicial, and executive acts
9. Laws of nature
10.Measure of time
11.Geographical divisions
WHEN DISCRETIONARY:
1. Matters of public knowledge
2. Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration
3. Matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE consists of writings or any material containing
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions
offered as proof of their contents.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.
XPNS:
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody of the party against whom the evidence is
offered and the
latter fails to produce it despite reasonable notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts which cannot be examined
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole; and
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.
ALLEGATIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY DENIED ARE DEEMED ADMITTED
EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
FACTORS:
1. Reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or communicated;
2. Reliability of the manner in which its ORIGINATOR was identified.
3. Integrity of the information and communication;
4. Familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the
communication and information system;
5. Nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and
information system;
6. Other factors which the court may consider.
May be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge
of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must show the
competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained.
The rules on Electronic Evidence do not apply to criminal actions. They apply
to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and
administrative cases.
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT refers to information or the representation of
information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression 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 includes digitally signed
documents and any printout or output, readable by sight or other means,
which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic
document.
ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE refers to information generated, sent,
received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means.

ELECTRONIC DATE / DOCUMENT are considered the functional equivalent of a

written document for evidentiary purposes. Thus to be considered as the functional
equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must
foremost be an electronic data message or an electronic document.

To determine the credibility and probative weight of the testimony of a

witness, such testimony must be considered in its entirety and not in
truncated parts. To determine which contradicting statements of a witness is
to prevail as to the truth, the other evidence received must be considered.
An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable
by sight of other means, shown to reflect the data correctly.
Text
messages
are
classified
as
EPHEMERAL
ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION (telephone conversations or text messages and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained) and shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party
to the same or has personal knowledge thereof.
ENTRAPMENT ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
ensnaring and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal
plan.
INSTIGATION the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant
into the commission of the offense, and he himself becomes a co-principal.
When the subject of the inquiry are the contents of documents, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original documents themselves and the
petitioner has not shown that the non-presentation or non-production of its
original documentary pieces of evidence falls under the exceptions.
ARE PHOTOCOPIES ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS? No, since not all the
information or contents therein, such as the signatures of the persons who
purportedly signed the documents may be recorded or produced
electronically.
BUT, PHOTOCOPIES are considered secondary evidence, admissible only upon
compliance with Rule 130 Section 5.
when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, the offeror, upon proof of its existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy,
or by recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony
of witnesses in the order stated

ARE FACSIMILE PRINTOUTS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS? No, because it

is paper-based unlike a paperless data. It is at best only an exact copy
preserving the marks of an original.
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS when the presumption becomes irrebutable upon
the presentation n of the evidence and any evidence tending to rebut the
presumption is not admissible.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS if it may be contradicted or overcome by other
evidence.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
The parol evidence rule is a substantive common law rule in contract cases that
prevents a party to a written contract from presenting extrinsic evidence that
contradicts or adds to the written terms of the contract that appears to be whole.
The supporting rationale is that since the contracting parties have reduced their
agreement to a single and final writing, the extrinsic evidence of past agreements
or terms should not be considered when interpreting that writing, as the parties had
decided to ultimately leave them out of the contract. A common misconception is
that it is a rule of evidence (like the Federal Rules of Evidence), but that is not the
case. Basically, you cannot use oral testimony to contradict the terms of a signed
contract.
The rule applies to parol (oral) evidence, as well as other extrinsic evidence (such as
written correspondence that does not form a separate contract) regarding a

contract. If a contract is in writing and final to at least one term (integrated), parol
or extrinsic evidence will generally be excluded. However, there are numerous
exceptions to this general rule, including for partially integrated contracts,
agreements with separate consideration, to resolve ambiguities, or to establish
contract defenses.
WHEN CAN PAROL EVIDENCE BE INTRODUCED / APPLICABLE
GR: No oral evidence can be admitted where the terms of an agreement
have been reduced to writing.
XPN: A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of
the written agreement if he puts in issue:
1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in written agreement;
2. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
3. The validity of the written agreement.
Evidence Cases:
I. Applicability of rules of evidence
Sasan v NLRC illegal dismissal
The settled rule is that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on
appeal, as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. In fact, labor
officials are mandated by the labor code to use every and all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure.
GSIS v Villaviza administrative proceeding
It is true that Section 4 of ROC provides that the rules can be applied in a
suppletory character. Suppletory is defined as supplying deficiencies. It means
that the provisions in the ROC will be made to apply only where there is
insufficiency in the applicable rule (GSIS Amended Policy and Procedural Guidelines
No. 178-04). There is however, no such deficiency as the rules of the GSIS are
explicit in case
of failure to file the required answer. What is clearly stated there is that GSIS may
render judgment as may be warranted by the facts and evidence submitted by the
prosecution.
II. Admissibility of Evidence
People vs Andan rape w/ homicide
The bill of rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private
individual and another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual
and the state. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the state and its
agents.
Anti-Wiretapping Act
Torralba v People libel
In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a tape recording
is admissible in evidence and given probative value, the following requisites must
first be established, to wit:
(1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony;
(2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent;
(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording;
(4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made;
(5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording;
(6) identification of the speakers; and

(7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind
of inducement.
In one case, it was held that the testimony of the operator of the recording device
as regards its operation, his method of operating it, the accuracy of the recordings,
and the identities of the persons speaking laid a sufficient foundation for the
admission of the recordings. Likewise, a witness declaration that the sound
recording represents a true portrayal of the voices contained therein satisfies the
requirement of authentication. The party seeking the introduction in evidence of a
tape recording bears the burden of going forth with sufficient evidence to show that
the recording is an accurate reproduction of the conversation recorded.
Salcedo-Ortaez v CA Annulment of Marriage
RA 4200 expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence. The
relevant provisions are as follows:
Sec 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictagraph or dectaphone or walkie
talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.
Sec 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, 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.
Bank Secrecy Law
BSB Group Inc. v Go Qualified Theft
Testimony of bank employees regarding the personal account of the defendant are
inadmissible.
RA 1405 Section 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 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 or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
A final note. In any given jurisdiction where the right of privacy extends its scope to
include an individuals financial privacy rights and personal financial matters, there
is an intermediate or heightened scrutiny given by courts and legislators to laws
infringing such rights.52 Should there be doubts in upholding the absolutely
confidential nature of bank deposits against affirming the authority to inquire into
such accounts, then such doubts must be resolved in favor of the former. This
attitude persists unless congress lifts its finger to reverse the general state policy
respecting the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits.
Alibi
Lejano v People Vizconde case

To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory
evidence that (a) he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of
the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the
crime.
Dissenting Opinion
"Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time
of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be
no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense.
But, to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of
alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person
charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the
reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse
must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least
possibility of accuseds presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.
Competent and credible evidence
People v Espinosa Murder
Testimony and evidence by the medico-legal and the two sons (eyewitnesses)
sufficiently enough based on the findings of the judge.
The Court has examined the evidence of the parties and sees no reason for
overturning the findings of Judge Rosalio A. de Leon, who had the opportunity to
observe the witnesses on the stand and assess their credibility by the various
indicia available to the trial court but not reflected in the record. The demeanor of
the person on the stand can draw the line between fact and fancy. The forthright
answer or the hesitant pause, the quivering voice or the angry tone, the flustered
look or the sincere gaze, the modest blush or the guilty blanch-these can reveal if
the witness is telling the truth or lying in his teeth. Absent then a showing that the
conclusions of the trial court are arbitrary or without basis, they must be regarded
with respect and accepted as conclusive on appeal.
Burden of Proof & Burden of Evidence
Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. v Opena declaration of nullity of docs

In Jison v. Court of Appeals, we declared

The foregoing discussion, however, must be situated within the general rules on
evidence, in light of the burden of proof in civil case, i.e., preponderance of
evidence, and the shifting of the burden of evidence in such cases. Simply put, he
who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the
plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of
trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out aprima facie case in his favor, the duty
or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima
facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in
civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of
evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence
and not upon the weakness of the defendants. The concept of "preponderance of
evidence" refers to evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing, that
which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.
In other words, the proof of the existence of the prima facie evidence is still the
burden of the plaintiff. Moreover, as will be shown later, Rep. Act No. 7832 cannot
apply because it was only approved on 08 December 1994; hence, the general rules
on evidence must be applied.

Suppression of Evidence
Manila Bay Club Corp. v CA Insurance and payment of rental value
Where the evidence tends to fix a liability on a party who has it in his power to offer
evidence of all the facts as they existed and to rebut the inferences which the proof
tends to establish, and he neglects or refuses to offer such proof, the natural
inference is that the proof, if produced, instead of rebutting, would support the
inference against him.
It is a well-settled rule that when the evidence tends to prove a material fact which
imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in his power to produce evidence which
from its very nature must overthrow the case made against him if it is not founded
on fact, and he refuses to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the
evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice, and support the case of his
adversary.
Where the burden is on a party to a suit to prove a material fact in issue, the failure,
without excuse, to produce an important and necessary witness to such fact raises
the conclusive presumption that such witness's testimony, if introduced, would be
adverse to the pretensions of such party.
The ordinary rule is that one who has knowledge peculiarly within his own control,
and refuses to divulge it, cannot complain if the court puts the most unfavorable
construction upon his silence, and infers that a disclosure would have shown the
fact to be as claimed by the opposing party.
Presumption of Legitimacy or Illegitimacy
D.M Consunji Inc. v CA death of worker, negligence of the construction
firm
The Rules of Court provide that a witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his perception. A
witness, therefore, may not testify as what he merely learned from others either
because he was told or read or heard the same. Such testimony is considered
hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. This
is known as the hearsay rule.
Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony or statements; the general rule that
excludes hearsay as evidence applies to written, as well as oral statements.
The theory of the hearsay rule is that the many possible deficiencies, suppressions,
sources of error and untrustworthiness, which lie underneath the bare untested
assertion of a witness, may be best brought to light and exposed by the test of
cross-examiantion. The hearsay rule, therefore, excludes evidence that cannot be
tested by cross-examination.
The Rules of Court allow several exceptions to the rule, among which are entries in
official records. Section 44, Rule 130 provides:
Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty 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.
In Africa, et al. vs. Caltex (Phil.), Inc., et al. this Court, citing the work of Chief Justice
Moran, enumerated the requisites for admissibility under the above 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 sufficient knowledge of the
facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or
through official information.
Estate of Rogelio Ong v Diaz support and recognition of minor
A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is presumed
legitimate.21 As a guaranty in favor of the child and to protect his status of
legitimacy, Article 167 of the Family Code provides:
Article 167. The children shall be considered legitimate although the mother
may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an
adulteress.
The law requires that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy.
We explained the rationale of this rule in the recent case of Cabatania v. Court of
Appeals22:
The presumption of legitimacy does not only flow out of a declaration in the statute
but is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the
mother. The presumption is grounded on the policy to protect the innocent offspring
from the odium of illegitimacy
The presumption of legitimacy of the child, however, is not conclusive and
consequently, may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary. Hence, Article 255 of
the New Civil Code23 provides:
Article 255. Children born after one hundred and eighty days following the
celebration of the marriage, and before three hundred days following its
dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be
legitimate.
Against this presumption no evidence shall be admitted other than that of the
physical impossibility of the husbands having access to his wife within the
first one hundred and twenty days of the three hundred which preceded the
birth of the child.
This physical impossibility may be caused:
1) By the impotence of the husband;
2) By the fact that husband and wife were living separately in such a way that
access was not possible;
3) By the serious illness of the husband.
Del Carmen Jr. v Bacoy Reckless Imprudence resulting in multiple
homicide(jeep/stolen)
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, "[w]here the thing that caused the injury
complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his
servants; and the accident, in the ordinary course of things, would not happen if
those who had management or control used proper care, it affords reasonable
evidence in the absence of a sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation by
defendant that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendants want of
care."40 Res ipsa loquitur is "merely evidentiary, a mode of proof, or a mere
procedural convenience, since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of,
the burden of producing a specific proof of negligence." 41 It "recognizes that parties
may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows the
principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It permits the plaintiff to
present along with proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to
invoke the doctrine, create an inference or

presumption of negligence and thereby place on the defendant the burden of

proving that there was no negligence on his part." 42 The doctrine is based partly on
"the theory that the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes the
injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of
ascertaining it while the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and is therefore compelled
to allege negligence in general terms." 43
The requisites of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as established by jurisprudence
are as follows:
1) the accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is
negligent;
2) the cause of the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in
charge and
3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the part of the person injured.
Equipoise Rule/Liberal construction of the rules of evidence
Del Castillo v Sabili Residency in candidacy
In this regard, we reiterate our ruling in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections that
"(t)o successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, the petitioner must
clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional
and legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the
apparent will of the people, would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very
democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so
zealously protect and promote."
Similarly, in Japzon v. Commission on Elections, we concluded that "when the
evidence of the alleged lack of residence qualification of a candidate for an elective
position is weak or inconclusive and it clearly appears that the purpose of the law
would not be thwarted by upholding the victor's right to the office, the will of the
electorate should be respected. For the purpose of election laws are to give effect
to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voters."
Dado v People cattle rustler case
The doubt entertained by NBI Ballistician Elmer D. Piedad, as to whether the 2 other
metallic fragments (marked as exhibit "SB-2" and "SB-3") are indeed parts of the
lead core of the "SB-1", which is part of a copper jacket of a caliber 5.56 mm.
jacketed bullet, must be resolved in favor of petitioner; that is, said metallic
fragments cannot be presumed to be particles of a .45 caliber bullet fired from the .
45 caliber pistol of petitioner. Under equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue
of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates,
the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if, as
in the present case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused
and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test
of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the
needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found
lacking.
Evidently, the prosecution failed to prove that the metallic fragments found in the
fatal wound of the victim are particles of a .45 caliber bullet that emanated from the
.45 caliber pistol fired by petitioner. For this reason, the Court cannot in good
conscience affirm his conviction for the crime of homicide.
In the same vein, petitioner cannot be held responsible for the wound inflicted on
the victims right outer lateral arm for the same reason that there is no evidence
proving beyond moral certainty that said wound was caused by the bullet fired from
petitioners .45 caliber pistol.
Nevertheless, petitioner is not completely without liability
English Exchequer Rule
People v Teehankee Murder

Appellant cannot hope to exculpate himself simply because the trial judge violated
the rule on res inter alios acta when he considered his involvement in previous
shooting incidents. This stance is a specie of a mid-1800 rule known as the English
Exchequer Rule pursuant to which "a trial court's error as to the admission of
evidence was presumed to have caused prejudice and therefore, almost
automatically required a new trial." The Exchequer rule has long been laid to rest for
even English appellate courts now disregard an error in the admission of evidence
"unless in its opinion, some substantial wrong or miscarriage (of justice) has been
occasioned." American courts adopted this approach especially after

the enactment of a 1915 federal statute which required a federal appellate court to
"give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, without
regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial
rights of the parties." We have likewise followed the harmless error rule in our
jurisdiction. In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its
damaging quality and its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. If the
impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not overcome the
weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party.
In the case at bar, the reference by the trial judge to reports about the troublesome
character of appellant is a harmless error. The reference is not the linchpin of the
inculpatory evidence appreciated by the trial judge in convicting appellant. As
aforestated, the appellant was convicted mainly because of his identification by
three (3) eyewitnesses with high credibility.
Subject to two interpretations
People v Coderes Rape (Socorro, mindoro)
Her above-quoted statements are open to different interpretations. Was she
bothered by her conscience ("nakunsiyensya") because she was afraid that
appellant would also rape her sisters; or was she bothered by her conscience
because she realized that what she and her father were doing was a sin against her
mother?
In a criminal case, every circumstance or evidence favoring a mans innocence must
be taken into account. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two
or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with innocence and the other
with guilt, then the evidence does not pass the test of moral certainty and is not
sufficient to support a conviction. Thus, the presumption of innocence founded on
the basic principle of justice as embodied in our Constitution prevails in the present
case.
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
People v Sasota Murder (corpus delicti - absent)
. . . the rule now established by the weight of authority is that the element of
death in the corpus delicti may be established by circumstancial evidence.
Hence, in the case of the destruction of the body, or in the case of its
disappearance, as in murder upon the high seas, where the body is rarely, if
ever, found, death may be proved circumstantially. To establish the corpus
delicti by circumstancial evidence, facts are admissible, to show the
impossibility of rescue, as at sea; to show the existence and extent of
wounds, and deceased's condition of health; and to show that the wound was
sufficient to cause death, and that the party was reported dead. Death is
sufficiently shown by the testimony of a witness that he saw the flash and
heard the report, and that the deceased fell to the ground, declaring he was
shot, and that accused did the shooting.
Francisco in his book on Criminal Evidence, Vol. III section 27, 1517, also has the
following to say:
A conviction of murder cannot be supported unless the body has been found or
there is equivalent proof of death. The more modern rule is that the fact of death as
well as the other branch of the corpus delicti may be established by circumstancial
or presumptive evidence. Thus is held that, where the body has been destroyed or

is not recovered, it is competent to establish both elements by presumptive

evidence . . .
People v Roluna kidnapping w/murder (corpus delicti-absent)
The pivotal issues are: (a) whether or not the circumstances proved by the
prosecution are sufficient to establish the death of Anatalio Moronia, and; (b) if in
the affirmative, whether or not accused-appellants and his companions could be
held liable therefor.
Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance of the crime and, in its
primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. As
applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the
particular crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two (2)
things, viz: the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal
charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result.

the early case of People v. Sasota the Court affirmed the conviction of the accused
for murder although the body of the victim was not found or recovered. In said case,
we ruled that in case of murder or homicide, it is not necessary to recover the body
of the victim or show where it can be found. It is enough that the death and the
criminal agency causing death is proven. The Court recognized that there are cases
where the death and intervention of the criminal agency that caused it may be
presumed or established by circumstantial evidence.
However, the ruling in the Sasota case cannot be applied to the case at bench. In
the Sasota case, the prosecution witnesses saw the four (4) armed accused forcibly
take the victim from his house to a lake, beating him up all the way to the boat.
While sailing, the accused continued ill-treating the victim until the latter died. The
body of the victim was never found.
In this case, however, the prosecution witnesses testified that they merely saw one
of the accused, Carlos Daguing, tie up the hands of Moronia. He was then taken in
the direction of barangay Monterico and was never seen or heard from since. At no
point during the trial was it ever established that any of the eight (8) accused beat
up Moronia or in any way laid a violent hand on him. Nogalada even testified that he
did not hear any shot fired by any of the eight (8) armed accused so as to warrant a
reasonable conclusion that Moronia was killed by accused-appellant or any of his coconspirators. Indeed, even the possible motive of accused-appellant and his group
for abducting Moronia was not definitively established. To be sure, the
circumstances proved are insufficient to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt for the serious crime of kidnapping with murder.
There being no evidence to the contrary, the disputable presumption under Section
5 (x) (3), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court would apply, but only insofar as to establish
the presumptive death of Moronia. Whether accused-appellant is responsible for the
death of Moronia is a different matter. The Rules did not authorize that from this
disputable presumption of death, it should be further presumed that the person with
whom the absentee was last seen shall be responsible for the subsequent
unexplained absence/disappearance of the latter. The conviction of accusedappellant for the serious crime of kidnapping with murder cannot be allowed to rest
on the vague and nebulous facts established by the prosecution. As discussed
earlier, the evidence presented by the prosecution surrounding the events of that
fateful day are grossly insufficient to establish the alleged liability of accusedappellant for the death of Moronia.
It is a well-entrenched principle in criminal law that an accused is presumed
innocent until proven otherwise. No less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is
required to convict him. On the whole, the evidence adduced by the prosecution
would not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that accused-appellant should be
convicted for the serious crime of kidnapping with murder.
Filing the Information

Allado v Diokno Jovito Salong; Lawyers pinned for mastermind

This petition gives us an opportunity to revisit the concept and implication of
probable cause, the existence of which is necessary for the prosecutor to have an
accused held for trial and for a trial judge to issue a warrant for his arrest. It is
mandatory therefore that there be probable cause before an information is filed and
a warrant of arrest issued. Unfortunately, however, at times a criminal case is filed,
a warrant of arrest issued and a person consequently incarcerated on
unsubstantiated allegations that only feign probable cause.
In Soliven v. Makasiar, we said that the judge (a) shall personally evaluate the
report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or,
(b) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, may disregard the fiscal's
report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion on the existence of probable cause.
In People v. Inting, we emphasized the important features of the constitutional
mandate: (a) The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge; it is
not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. Only the judge and the judge
alone makes this determination; (b) The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor
does not bind the judge. It merely assists him in making the determination of
probable cause. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents to
him. By itself, the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the
report, the affidavits, the transcript of

stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the
prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge in his
determination of probable cause; and, (c) Judges and prosecutors alike should
distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which
ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released. Even if the two
inquiries be conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding, there should
be no confusion about their objectives. The determination of probable cause for the
warrant
is
made
by
the
judge.
The
preliminary
investigation
proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is
guilty of the offense charged and therefore, whether or not he should be subjected
to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial is a function of the prosecutor.
In Lim v. Felix, where we reiterated Soliven v. Makasiar and People v. Inting, we said

[T]he Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and
his witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a
commissioner for the taking of the evidence. However, there should be
a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscal's bare
certification. All these should be before the Judge.
The extent of the Judge's personal examination of the report and its
annexes depends on the circumstances of each case. We cannot
determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the Judge's
examination should be. The Judge has to exercise sound discretion for,
after all, the personal determination is vested in the Judge by the
Constitution. It can be as brief or as detailed as the circumstances of
each case require. To be sure, the judge must go beyond the
Prosecutor's certification and investigation report whenever necessary.
He should call for the complainant and witnesses themselves to answer
the court's probing questions when the circumstances of the case so
require.
Clearly, probable cause may not be established simply by showing that a trial judge
subjectively believes that he has good grounds for his action. Good faith is not
enough. If subjective good faith alone were the test, the constitutional protection
would be demeaned and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects" only in the fallible discretion of the judge. On the contrary, the
probable cause test is an objective one, for in order that there be probable cause

the facts and circumstances must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonably
discreet and prudent man that the accused is guilty of the crime which has just
been committed. This, as we said, is the standard. Hence, if upon the filing of the
information in court the trial judge, after reviewing the information and the
documents attached thereto, finds that no probable cause exists must either call for
the complainant and the witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case. There is
no reason to hold the accused for trial and further expose him to an open and public
accusation of the crime when no probable cause exists.
Issuing a Warrant of Arrest
People v Grey Murder (accused ex mayor)
It is well to remember that there is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry
which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the
preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be
held for trial or be released. The determination of probable cause for purposes of
issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation
proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is
guilty of the offense charged is the function of the investigating prosecutor.
What the law requires as personal determination on the part of a judge is that he
should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. This means that
the judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but
also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit
of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes
taken during the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the
investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information.
The Court has also ruled that the personal examination of the complainant and his
witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable in the determination of probable
cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The necessity arises only when there
is an utter failure of the evidence to show the existence of probable cause.
Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report of the investigating prosecutor,
provided that he likewise evaluates the documentary evidence in support thereof

Granting bail to capital offenses

People v Cabral Rape (marijuana and 4 shots of gin)
The 1987 Constitution in Article III, Section 13 of the Bill of Rights provides:
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. (Emphasis supplied)
In view of the above exception to the constitutional guarantee on bail and in
accordance with its rule-making powers, the Supreme Court, in promulgating the
Rules of Court, adopted the following provision:
Sec. 7. No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be
admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.
The present Constitution, as previously adverted to, provides that in crimes
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, bail is not matter
of right. This Court has reiterated this mandate in Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court. Recently, this Court laid down the following rules in Basco v. Judge Rapatalo
which outlined the duties of a judge in case an application for bail is filed:
(1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or
require him to submit his recommendation;
(2) Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether
or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the

guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
exercise its discretion;
(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based
on the summary of evidence of the prosecution; (Emphasis supplied)
(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon
the approval of the bailbond. Otherwise, petition should be denied.
Based on the above-cited procedure and requirements, after the hearing, the court's
order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for
prosecutions. A summary is defined as "a comprehensive and usually brief abstract
or digest of a text or statement."
There are two corollary reasons for the summary: First, the summary of the
evidence in the order is an extension of the hearing proper, thus, a part of
procedural due process wherein the evidence presented during the prior hearing is
formally recognized as having been presented and most importantly, considered.
The failure to include every piece of evidence in the summary presented by the
prosecution in their favor during the prior hearing would be tantamount to not
giving them the opportunity to be heard in said hearing, for the inference would be
that they were not considered at all in weighing the evidence of guilt. Such would
be a denial of due process, for due process means not only giving every contending
party the opportunity to be heard but also for the Court to consider every piece of
evidence presented in their favor. Second, the summary of the evidence in the order
is the for the basis for the judge's exercising his judicial discretion. Only after
weighing the pieces of evidence as contained in the summary will the judge
formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence of guilt against the
accused is strong based on his discretion (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the above-stated reasons, the summary should necessarily be a complete
compilation or restatement of all the pieces of evidence presented during the
hearing proper. The lower court cannot exercise judicial discretion as to what pieces
of evidence should be included in the summary. While conceding that some
prosecution evidence were enumerated, said enumeration was incomplete. An
incomplete enumeration or selective inclusion of pieces of evidence for the
prosecution in the order cannot be considered a summary, for a summary is
necessarily a reasonable recital of any evidence presented by the prosecution. A
"summary" that is incomplete is not a summary at all. According to Borinaga v.
Tamin, the absence of a summary in the order would make said order defective in
form and substance. Corollarily, an order containing an incomplete "summary"
would likewise be defective in form and substance which cannot be sustained or be
a semblance of validity. In Carpio v. Maglalang, said order was considered defective
and voidable. As such, the order granting or denying the application for bail may be
invalidated