Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Francisco Book
Francisco Book
EVIDENCE defined-
The decision of a barrio council, respecting the settlement of ownership and possession
of a parcel of land, is ultra vires because a barrio councils, which are not courts, have no
judicial powers. –Miguel v Catalino,20 SCRA 234
PROOF-
Refers to the degree or kind of evidence which will produce full conviction, or establish
the proposition to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Proof is the effect or result of
evidence while evidence is the medium of proof.
TESTIMONY-
That kind of evidence which in a trial is presented by witnesses verbally. Evidence is the
generic term and testimony that of the species.
ARGUMENT-
Argument and evidence, taken together, represent the means by which the tribunal is
sought to be persuaded as to some fact-in-issue.
FACTUM PROBANS-
DIRECT EVIDENCE – that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any
interference or presumption (Lake County vs. Nellon.)
PRIMARY EVIDENCE – that which the law regards as affording the greatest
certainty of fact in question. Also referred to as the best evidence
POSITIVE EVIDENCE – when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur.
Entitled to a greater weight since the witness represents of his personal
knowledge the presence or absence of a fact
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE – when the witness did not see or know of the occurrence
of a fact. There is a total disclaimer of personal knowledge, hence without any
representation or disavowal that the fact in question could or could not have
existed or happened. It is admissible only if it tends to contradict positive
evidence of the other side or would tend to exclude the existence of fact sworn
to by the other side.
Case:
“The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the victims died because of
stab wounds inflicted by the armed men who entered their residence on the night
of December 4, 1965 remain uncontroverted. XXX Their death certificates
therefore are only corroborative of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.”
(People vs. Watson (1965))
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE – evidence of the same kind and to the same stale of
facts.
Case:
“Thus, on the issue of the capacity of a boy to write a certain paper, evidence of
his school fellows as to his capacity is cumulative to that of his teachers and
medical men upon the same question.” (Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray (Mass. 434))
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE – is that which suffices for the proof of a particular fact,
until contradicted and overcome by other evidence
Cases:
“Accordingly, a party introducing in evidence a letter written by his agent to the
adverse party, is bound by the statements contained therein.” (Lilian Realty Co.
v. Erdum, 120 N.Y.S. 749)
Competent Evidence:
Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by law in a particular case (Porter
v. Valentine)
Directly addressed to the senses of the court and consist of tangible things
exhibited or demonstrated in open court, in an ocular inspection, or at place
designated by the court for its view of observation of an exhibition, experiment
or demonstration. This is referred to as autoptic preference.
Documentary Evidence:
Testimonial Evidence:
Expert Evidence:
Substantial Evidence:
What part does the Rules of Evidence play in the whole system of law?
All rights and liabilities are dependent upon and arise out of facts.
Every judicial proceeding whatever has for its purpose the ascertaining of some
right or liability. If the proceeding is Criminal, the object is to ascertain the
liability to punishment of the person accused. If the proceeding is Civil, the
object is to ascertain some right of property or status, or the right of one party
and the liability of other to some form of relief.
NECESSITY FOR RULES OF EVIDENCE:
It is necessary that we have Rules of Evidence which will limit the field of matters
that can properly be taken into consideration in determining the guilt or
innocence of the accused, and the law of evidence, as we have, is in the shape of
a set of primary rules for the exclusion of evidence that is logically probative,
which but for such exclusionary rules would be legal evidence, and a further set
of exceptions to these rules.
Cases are not always won by the righteousness of the client’s cause but by the
evidence which his counsel presents in court to support his claim or defense
Rules of Evidence…are not static. They are constantly undergoing change, in the
interest of the successful development of the truth. The changes are sometimes
made by the legislatures, sometimes by the Courts.
Section 2. Scope- The Rules of Evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials
and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules.
The Rules of Evidence must be applied in all courts and in all trials and hearings
for the following:
CIVIL CRIMINAL
Parties attend by The accused
accord attends by
compulsion
There is no Presumption of
presumption as to innocence attends
either party the accused
throughout the
trial until the
same has been
overcome by
prima facie
evidence of his
guilt
An offer to It is an implied
compromise does admission of guilt
not, as a general
rule, amount to an
admission of
liability
Must prove by Guilt beyond
preponderance of reasonable doubt
evidence: Reason
is that there is no
presumption ad
due to the fact that
the proof will only
result in a
judgment of
pecuniary damages
The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before the Labor
Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (Del Rosario & Sons
Logging Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC, 136 SCRA 669); Employees’ Compensation
Commission (Philippine Overseas Drilling and Oil Development Corporation vs.
Minister of Labor, 146 SCRA 79); Securities and Exchange Commission;
Commission on Elections (Geromo v. COMELEC, et al., 118 SCRA 165); Agrarian
Cases (Bagsican v. CA, 141 SCRA 226); Immigration Proceedings (Moy Yoke Shue
v. Johnson, 290 Fed. 621); Court of Tax Appeals (Celestino Co. & Company v.
Collector of Internal Revenue, BTA Case No. 195, Oct. 4, 1954, affirmed by the
Supreme Court on Aug. 31, 1956, G.R. No. L 8506); Probation Court; Board of
Transportation; Police Commission; Oil Industry Commission; and other similar
bodies (Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, 2 Phil. 500; Ayala de Roxas v. Case, 8 Phil. 197)
The parties may waive such rules during the trial of a case
The can also make the waiver in a contract
Case:
Reception of evidence of doubtful admissibility is in the long run the less harmful
course, since all materials necessary for final adjudication would come before
the appellate tribunals (Obispo, et. Al. vs. Obispo, 50 O.G. 614)
Case:“Trial courts are enjoined to observe the strict enforcement of the rules of
evidence which crystallized through constant use and practice and are very useful
and effective aids in the search for truth and for the effective administration of
justice. But in connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful
relevancy or incompetency or admissibility, it is the safest policy to be liberal, not
rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them…xxx” (Banaria
v. Banaria, et. al., CA. No. 4142, May 31, 1950)
Cases:
People vs. Soriaga (G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011). The non-compliance with
Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs
inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule
which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be
admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the
courts.
BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010). The testimony of
Marasigan on the particulars of respondent’s supposed bank account with
Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks
adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by
operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as
they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the
prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.
b. All facts having rational probative value are admissible, unless some
specific rule forbids. – This principle does not mean that anything that has
probative value is admissible. But everything having a probative value is ipso
facto entitled to be assumed to be admissible, and therefore any rule of
policy which may be valid to exclude it is a superadded and abnormal rule.
ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by way of defense, he attempts to
establish an alibi.
1. His mother testifies that he was at home in bed at the time the
murder was committed; or
2. A distinguished physician testifies that he was attending the
defendant in his home at the time the murder was committed.
As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally admissible. But it is likely that
the court would give greater weight to the testimony of a disinterested physician
than of a mother, who might be expected to commit perjury in an effort to save
her son.
Case:
Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011). Admissibility of evidence
refers to the question whether or not the circumstance or evidence is to be
considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to
the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
4. Types of Admissibility
Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19, 2004). Note that Rule 24,
Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for sanctions against
persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it
state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render said
records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence
only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal
searches and seizures. Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from
evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents are, therefore,
admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this
administrative case against the respondent.
Proof of Identity – through witness’ recognition of the voice of the person with
whom he was speaking, however, it may be established by means other than the
recognition of the voice.
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.
3. Section 2.
Any person who wilfully 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.
B. EXEMPTED ACTS
1. Section 3, par 1. Any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order
of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases
involving:
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
Requirements:
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.
C. Admissibility
Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112. The law refers to a “tap” of wire or cable
or the use of a device or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly overhearing,
intercepting, or recording the communication… The extension telephone cannot
be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices
enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be
considered as “tapping” the wire not installed for that purpose.
Rights protected under Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution:
1. Right against unreasonable search and seizure. ( Sec. 2)
2. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication ( Sec. 3)
3. Right of a person under investigation for an offense (Sec. 12)
4. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17)
Case:
Ambre vs. People (G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012). Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or
on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable
cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the
meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and confiscated on
the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the language of the
fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.
This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of
the recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a
lawful arrest. In this exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must
precede the search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.
1. Relevancy of Evidence
Case:
Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005). Evidence is admissible when it
is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the
Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule 130,
which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the opinion of
a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not
pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed,
even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
2. Test of Relevancy
Case:
People vs. Yatar (G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004). Generally, courts should only
consider and rely upon duly established evidence and never on mere conjectures
or suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes "something more than
a minimum of probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must
contain a "plus value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from
being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being exaggerated by
prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence without "plus value" may be logically
relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court
to balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely harm that
would result from its admission.
5. Issue defined.
It is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the pleadings which one
side affirms, and the other denies. Issues arise upon the pleading where a fact or
conclusion of law is maintained by one party, and is controverted by the other.
6. Fact defined
Those facts which are outside of the controversy, or are not directly connected
with the principal matter in issue in dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the
parties.
General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they tend to draw away the
mind of the court and to prejudice and mislead it.
The truth of any statement of fact may be considered from the standpoint of the
probability or improbability of the fact per se. Its probability or improbability is to be
measured by the degree with which the fact as stated accords with the general
experience of mankind.
Cases:
People vs. Soriaga (G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011). The non-compliance with
Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs
inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule
which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be
admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the
courts.
BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010). The testimony of
Marasigan on the particulars of respondent’s supposed bank account with
Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks
adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by
operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as
they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the
prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.
b. All facts having rational probative value are admissible, unless some
specific rule forbids. – This principle does not mean that anything that has
probative value is admissible. But everything having a probative value is ipso
facto entitled to be assumed to be admissible, and therefore any rule of
policy which may be valid to exclude it is a superadded and abnormal rule.
8. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from weight of evidence
As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally admissible. But it is likely that
the court would give greater weight to the testimony of a disinterested physician
than of a mother, who might be expected to commit perjury in an effort to save
her son.
Case:
Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011). Admissibility of evidence
refers to the question whether or not the circumstance or evidence is to be
considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to
the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
9. Types of Admissibility
When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as it satisfies all
rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other
rule which would be applicable to it if offered for another purpose does not exclude
it.
Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected under the issues that the
relevancy of one depends upon another not yet received, and the party is unable to
introduce them both at the same moment, the offering counsel may be required by
the court as a condition precedent (1) to state the supposed connecting facts, and
(2) to promise to give the evidence later.
Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one party and received without
objection and the opponents afterwards, for the purpose of negativing or explaining
or otherwise counteracting, offers a fact similarly inadmissible, such fact is
admissible if it serves to remove an unfair effect upon the court which might
otherwise ensue from the original fact.
Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19, 2004). Note that Rule
24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for sanctions against
persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it
state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render
said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of
Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of
illegal searches and seizures.Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1,
series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the
exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public
documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into
consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against the
respondent.
D. UNLAWFUL ACTS
4. Section 1, par 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 dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described
5. Section 1, par 2.
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.
6. Section 2.
Any person who wilfully 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.
E. EXEMPTED ACTS
3. Section 3, par 1.Any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order
of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases
involving:
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
Requirements:
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.
F. Admissibility
Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112.The law refers to a “tap” of wire or cable or
the use of a device or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly overhearing,
intercepting, or recording the communication… The extension telephone cannot
be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices
enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be
considered as “tapping” the wire not installed for that purpose.
Rights protected under Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution:
5. Right against unreasonable search and seizure. ( Sec. 2)
6. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication ( Sec. 3)
7. Right of a person under investigation for an offense (Sec. 12)
8. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17)
Case:
Ambre vs. People (G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012).Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or
on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable
cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the
meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and confiscated on
the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the language of the
fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.
This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of
the recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a
lawful arrest. In this exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must
precede the search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.
Case:
Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005).Evidence is admissible when it
is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the
Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule 130,
which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the opinion of
a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not
pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed,
even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
12. Test of Relevancy
Whether evidence offered is relevant does not, as a general rule, depend upon its
source. Neither does relevancy depend upon the importance or weight of the
evidence, weight being a matter for the court.
It is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the pleadings which one side
affirms, and the other denies. Issues arise upon the pleading where a fact or
conclusion of law is maintained by one party, and is controverted by the other.
Those facts which are outside of the controversy, or are not directly connected
with the principal matter in issue in dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the
parties.
General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they tend to draw away the
mind of the court and to prejudice and mislead it.
The truth of any statement of fact may be considered from the standpoint of the
probability or improbability of the fact per se. Its probability or improbability is to be
measured by the degree with which the fact as stated accords with the general
experience of mankind.
For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to
the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts.
FACTS:
Pursuant to a buy-bust operation conducted by the police, Soriaga was placed under
arrest and brought to the office of the Anti-illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force.
The evidence seized was turned over to police investigator PO2 Reynaldo Juan. An
examination was conducted on the contents of the plastic sachet which tested positive
for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.Soriaga was charged with Violation of Section 5,
Art. II, RA 9165. In addition to the above-mentioned charge, Soriaga was indicted for
illegal use of dangerous drugs under Section 15, Article II, also of R.A. No. 9165. The trial
court rendered a decision acquitting Soriaga of this charge of illegal use of dangerous
drugs but finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegally selling
dangerous drugs. Soriaga appealed the decision arguing that that buy-bust team failed
to comply with the requisites of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its
implementing rules requiring the immediate inventory and photograph of the items
seized in the buy-bust operation. Further, Soriaga proceeds to question the chain of
custody of the seized shabu.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the non-compliance with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of
seized drugs render the items seized or confiscated inadmissible as evidence.
HELD:
No. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are
resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution
of their criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to
be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken."
The that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the
inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render
the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule which forbids
its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only
to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts.
There is no provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the
non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with
said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight — evidentiary merit or probative value
— to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence
depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.
The testimony and the documentary evidence presented are not only incompetent for
being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case,
inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the
prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.
FACTS:
Respondent Sally Go, cashier of petioner BSB Group, Inc. was charged with qualified
theft. On the premise that respondent had allegedly encashed the subject checks and
deposited the corresponding amounts thereof to her personal banking account, the
prosecution moved for the issuance of subpoena ducestecum /ad testificandum against
the respective managers or records custodians of Security Bank and Metrobank which
was granted by the trial court. The prosecution was able to present in court the
testimony of ElenitaMarasigan, the representative of Security Bank whose testimony
sought to prove that respondent, while engaged as cashier at the BSB Group, Inc., was
able to run away with the checks issued to the company by its customers, endorse the
same, and credit the corresponding amounts to her personal deposit account with
Security Bank. In the course of the testimony, the subject checks were presented to
Marasigan for identification and marking as the same checks received by respondent,
endorsed, and then deposited in her personal account with Security Bank. But before
the testimony could be completed, respondent filed a Motion to Suppress, seeking the
exclusion of Marasigan’s testimony and accompanying documents thus far received,
bearing on the subject Security Bank account. This time respondent invokes, in addition
to irrelevancy, the privilege of confidentiality under R.A. No. 1405. The trial court in its
order denied respondent’s motion to suppress.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of Marasigan and the accompanying documents are
irrelevant to the case, and whether they are also violative of the absolutely confidential
nature of bank deposits and, hence, excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405.
HELD:
Yes. In taking exclusion from the coverage of the confidentiality rule, petitioner in the
instant case posits that the account maintained by respondent with Security Bank
contains the proceeds of the checks that she has fraudulently appropriated to herself
and, thus, falls under one of the exceptions in Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 that the money
kept in said account is the subject matter in litigation. What indeed constitutes the
subject matter in litigation in relation to Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 has been pointedly
and amply addressed in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, in which the
Court noted that the inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No. 1405 must be
premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the
action. Given this perspective, the subject matter of the action in the case at bar is to be
determined from the indictment that charges respondent with the offense, and not
from the evidence sought by the prosecution to be admitted into the records. In the
criminal Information filed with the trial court, respondent, unqualifiedly and in plain
language, is charged with qualified theft by abusing petitioner’s trust and confidence
and stealing cash. The said Information makes no factual allegation that in some
material way involves the checks subject of the testimonial and documentary evidence
sought to be suppressed. Neither do the allegations in said Information make mention
of the supposed bank account in which the funds represented by the checks have
allegedly been kept. It comes clear that the admission of testimonial and documentary
evidence relative to respondent’s Security Bank account serves no other purpose than
to establish the existence of such account, its nature and the amount kept in it. It
constitutes an attempt by the prosecution at an impermissible inquiry into a bank
deposit account the privacy and confidentiality of which is protected by law. On this
score alone, the objection posed by respondent in her motion to suppress should have
indeed put an end to the controversy at the very first instance it was raised before the
trial court. In sum, the Court holds that the testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of
respondent’s supposed bank account with Security Bank and the documentary evidence
represented by the checks adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for
being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case,
inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the
prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.
G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011
RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA, vs. BOARD OF MEDICINE and EDITHA SIOSON
FACTS:
A complaint for gross negligence was filed before the Board of Medicine against the
doctors, including the petitioner Atienza, who allegedly participated in the fateful kidney
operation which led to the removal of the private respondent’s functional right kidney
instead of the left non-functioning kidney. The complaint was heard by the BOM. Private
respondent Editha filed her formal offer of documentary evidence, which is offered for
the purpose of proving that her kidneys were both in proper anatomical locations at the
time she was operated. Petitioner objected to the formal offer of exhibits alleging that
they are inadmissible because the same are mere photocopies, not properly identified
and authenticated, and intended to establish matters which are hearsay and
incompetent to prove the purpose for which they are offered. However, the BOM
admitted the documentary exhibits. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the
petitioner but was denied by the BOM. Hence, a petition for certiorari was filed before
the Court of Appeals but was dismissed by the Court.Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
HELD:
No. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, admissibility of evidence is distinguished from probative
weight of evidence, as:
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or not the
circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all. On the other hand, the
probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it
proves an issue.
The fact sought to be established by the admission of Editha’s exhibits, that her "kidneys
were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time" of her operation, need not
be proved as it is covered by mandatory judicial notice. The rules of evidence are merely
the means for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact. Thus, they likewise
provide for some facts which are established and need not be proved, such as those
covered by judicial notice, both mandatory and discretionary. Laws of nature involving
the physical sciences, specifically biology, include the structural make-up and
composition of living things such as human beings. In this case, the Court may take
judicial notice that Editha’s kidneys before, and at the time of, her operation, as with
most human beings, were in their proper anatomical locations.
Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on
Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in
question, said public documents are, therefore, admissible as evidence.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not birth certificates are inadmissible in evidence for having been obtained
in violation of Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 which provides for
strict confidentiality of a person’s birth record.
HELD:
No. Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that "evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules."
There could be no dispute that the subject birth certificates are relevant to the issue.
The only question, therefore, is whether the law or the rules provide for the
inadmissibility of said birth certificates allegedly for having been obtained in violation of
Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993.
Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for sanctions
against persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does
it state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render said
records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence only
provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and
seizures. It should be emphasized; however, that said rule against unreasonable
searches and seizures is meant only to protect a person from interference by the
government or the state.
Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on
Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in
question, said public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken
into consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against respondent.
The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of the
recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest.
FACTS:
Ambre was charged with the crime of violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165. From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it appeared that on
April 20, 2005, the Caloocan Police Station Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Unit
conducted a buy-bust operation pursuant to a tip from a police, the buy-bust operation
resulted in the arrest of Ambre having pot session, in particular, was caught sniffing
what was suspected to be shabu in a rolled up aluminum foil. The trial court rendered
its decision declaring that the prosecution was able to establish with certitude the guilt
of Ambre for illegal use of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or violation of Section 15,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, however, acquitted Ambre on the crime of violation of
Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for failure of the prosecution to prove with
particularity the drug paraphernalia found in her possession.
ISSUE:
Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of her person was valid; and
whether the items seized are admissible in evidence.
HELD:
Yes. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be
carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the
existence of probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes
"unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained
and confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted
and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the
language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in
any proceeding.
This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of the
recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest.
In this exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a
person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a
valid warrant of arrest.
In this case, there is no gainsaying that Ambre was caught by the police officers in the
act of using shabu and, thus, can be lawfully arrested without a warrant. His conviction
stands.
G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005
ROSENDO HERRERA vs. ROSENDO ALBA
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise
excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
FACTS:
Thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before the
trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against
petitioner. Petitioner Herrera denied that he is the biological father of respondent and
denied physical contact with respondent’s mother.Respondent filed a motion to direct
the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings.Petitioner opposed
DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability and further
argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. The trial
court granted respondent’s motion to conduct DNA paternity testing on petitioner.
Petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
asserting that the trial court acted "in excess of, or without jurisdiction and/or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction”, in issuing the
order of DNA testing, however, the petition was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a DNA test is a valid probative tool to determine filiation and as such be
admissible in evidence in a paternity suit.
HELD:
Yes. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise
excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section
49 of Rule 130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or
training which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not
pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even
evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue."
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should 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 tests. DNA
analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be conclusive proof of
non-paternity. If the value of Probability of Paternity (W) is less than 99.9%, the results
of the DNA analysis should be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of
Probability of Paternity (W) is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable presumption of
paternity.
The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity
and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the
right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid
this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology,
such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules,
and jurisprudence.
G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"
FACTS:
Joel Yatar was convicted by the trial court with rape with homicide defined and
penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353,
otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, and was accordingly, sentenced to
Death. Pursuant to Article 47 of the revised Penal Code, an automatic review was made,
the appellant alleging that the trial court gravely erred in giving weight to the evidence
presented by the prosecution notwithstanding their doubtfulness and thereby he should
be acquitted from the crime charged due to reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in convicting the accused of
the crime charged on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
HELD:
The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only when there is relevant evidence
from which the court can properly find or infer that the accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty of guilt in
order to sustain a conviction. Moral certainty is that degree of certainty that convinces
and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are
bound to act conscientiously upon it. It is certainty beyond reasonable doubt. This
requires that the circumstances, taken together, should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency; leading, on the whole, to a satisfactory conclusion that the accused, and no
one else, committed the offense charged. In view of the totality of evidence appreciated
thus far, we rule that the present case passes the test of moral certainty.
However, as a matter of procedure, and for the purpose of meeting the requirement of
proof beyond reasonable doubt, motive is essential for conviction when there is doubt
as to the identity of the culprit. Thus, appellant’s motive to sexually assault and kill the
victim was evident in the instant case. It is a rule in criminal law that motive, being a
state of mind, is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of
the accused before or immediately after the commission of the offense, deeds or words
that may express it or from which his motive or reason for committing it may be
inferred. Accordingly, the Court is convinced that the appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Appellant
sexually assaulted KathylynUba, and by reason or on the occasion thereof, in order to
conceal his lustful deed, permanently sealed the victim’s lips by stabbing her repeatedly,
thereby causing her untimely demise.
RULE 129
-It is the cognizance of certain facts Note: The application of the doctrine of
which judges may properly take and act on judicial notice is not confined to the courts
without proof because they already know of record. Certain special tribunals which
them. are not strictly courts but which partake of
their nature and the findings of which
partake of the nature of judgments may
-It is the notice taken by the court, take judicial notice on certain matters.
without the production of evidence, of Points to Remember:
facts, which are within common knowledge
and experience. a. All courts of justice are bound to take
judicial notice of the territorial extent of the
jurisdiction exercised by the government
the laws of which they administer and of
the extent and boundaries of the territory
under which they themselves can exercise
jurisdiction;
Note: It is well settled that foreign laws do 3. Judiciary The Supreme Court
not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and Department has taken judicial
our courts are not authorized to take notice of its record
judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, in a previous case in
they must be alleged and proved. connection with the
conduct of the
f. No proof need be given of the seals of litigant or witness in
foreign maritime and admiralty courts. By a similar matter.
common consent and general usage, the
General Rule: Courts
seal of a court of admiralty has been are not authorized
considered as sufficiently authenticating its to take judicial
records; knowledge of
contents of the
other cases, in the
adjudication of cases
g. pending before
them, even though true that, as pontificated by the Court a
the trial judge in fact quo, factual defenses on the part of the
knows or remember accused are evidentiary matters which
the contents may be presented only during trial on
thereof; the merits, the facts alleged by the
accused are facts admitted, whether
directly or impliedly, in pleadings of the
i. Courts judicially recognize all public prosecution.( Lopez v. Sandiganbayan,
matters which will affect the GR No. 103911)
government of the country. On this
principle, the accession and death of Section 2. Judicial notice, when
the sovereign and principal officers discretionary, generally:
of the state are recognized;
j. Judicial Notice is taken of the a. Matters which are of public
familiar and unquestionable laws of knowledge;
nature and of the existence of fact
which happened according to the - Judicial knowledge of facts is
course of nature; measured by general knowledge of the
k. Courts will judicially notice the same fact. A fact is generally known
things belonging to the almanac. when its existence or operation when it
Calendar of the periods within the is accepted by public without
calendar. qualification or contention.
l. Judicial Notice is taken of the fact
that the Philippines is divided into The doctrine of judicial notice rests on
provinces, municipalities, cities, and the wisdom and discretion of the courts.
cities is divided into lots, blocks, The power to take judicial notice is to be
streets; exercised by courts with caution; care
must be taken that the requisite
JURISPRUDENCE notoriety exists; and every reasonable
doubt on the subject should be
Judicial notice may be taken of promptly resolved in the negative.
petitioner's oath taking as evidenced by Generally speaking, matters of judicial
a certification from the Records Officer notice have three material requisites:
of the office of the Provincial Governor. (1) the matter must be one of common
The oath taking partakes of an official and general knowledge; (2) it must be
act, while the certification is an official well and authoritatively settled and not
act of an official of the Executive doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be
Department of the government.( Lopez known to be within the limits of the
v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 103911) jurisdiction of the court. The principal
guide in determining what facts may be
We uphold the submission that the assumed to be judicially known is that
factual defenses of petitioner are of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that
matters within the concept of judicial notice is limited to facts
mandatory judicial notice. While it is
evidenced by public records and facts of Exception:
general notoriety. (Latip vs. Chua)
1. When in the absence of any
Things of "common knowledge," of which objection, with the knowledge of the
courts take judicial notice, may be matters opposing party, the contents of said
coming to the knowledge of men generally other case are clearly referred to by title
in the course of the ordinary experiences of and number in a pending action and
life, or they may be matters which are adopted or read into the record of the
generally accepted by mankind as true and latter;
are capable of ready and unquestioned 2. when the original record of the
demonstration. Thus, facts which are other case or any part of it is actually
universally known, and which may be found withdrawn from the archives at the
in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other court’s discretion upon the request, or
publications, are judicially noticed, provided with the consent of the parties and
they are of such universal notoriety and so admitted as part of the record of the
generally understood that they may be pending case.
regarded as forming part of the common
knowledge of every person.( Latip vs. Chua, Note: Judicial notice is not judicial
GR NO. 177809) knowledge. The mere personal
knowledge of the judge is not judicial
b. Matters capable of Unquestionable knowledge of the court; judicial
Demonstration cognizance is taken only of those
matters which are “commonly” known.
- This refers o facts, theories and
conclusions which have come to be SECTION 3 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN
established and accepted by the HEARING NECESSARY
specialists in the areas of natural
science, natural phenomena, During the trial, the court on its own
technology, history, geography, initiative, or on request of a party,
scientifically facts and other fields of may announce its intention to take
scientific knowledge.
judicial notice of any matter and
c. Matters ought to be known by allow the parties to be heard
judges by reason of their judicial thereon.
function
After the trial, and before judgment
Judicial Notice of Proceedings in Another or on appeal, the proper court, or its
Case. own initiative or on the request of a
party, may take judicial notice of any
GENERAL RULE: Court is not authorized to matter and allow the parties to be
take judicial notice of the contents of
heard thereon if such matter is
another case even if said case was heard by
he same judge. decisive of a material issue or in the
case.
PURPOSE OF HEARING the court is required to pursue
inquiries sufficient to make that
To afford the parties reasonable knowledge real as far as
opportunity to present possible.
information relevant to the
SECTION 4 – An admission, verbal or
propriety of taking such judicial
written, made by or a party in the course of
notice or to the tenor of the
the proceedings in the same case, does not
matter to be noticed.
require proof of the admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was
TIME WHEN JUDICIAL NOTICE
made through palpable mistake or that no
MAY BE TAKEN:
such admission was made.
(a) The original of the document is For the application of the best evidence, it
one the contents of which are the is essential that:
subject of inquiry; the original writing or if it is a private
document, be first duly identified, and a
(b) When a document is in two or sufficient and a sufficient foundation be
more copies executed at or about laid, so as to entitle the writing to be
the same time, with identical admitted in evidence, and it must be
contents, all such copies are equally available to the opposite party for cross-
regarded as originals; and examination.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the Best Evidence Rule in Criminal Cases- In
regular course of business, one criminal cases, where the issue is not only
being copied from another at or with respect to the contents of the
near the time of the transaction, all document but also as to whether such
the entries are likewise equally document actually existed, the original itself
regarded as originals. must be presented.
US vs Gregorio c) Blueprints and vellum tracings-
17 Phil 522 have been held to be originals
For only only presenting the Xerox copy of rather than copies
the falsified documents, prosecution failed d) Telegraph and cable messages-
to prove the corpus delicti of the crime if the issue is the contents of
charged. In the absence of the original the telegram
document, it Is improper to conclude, with as received by the
only copy of the said original in view, that addressee- then the original
there has been a falsification of the dispatch is the copy of the
document which was neither found nor message sent to the
exhibited, because in such a case, even the addressee;
existence of such document may be as sent by the sender- the
doubted. original is the message
delivered
Non-production of the original document if the issue is the inaccuracy
unless justified in Section 3, gives rise to the of transmission,
presumption of suppression of evidence. both telegrams as sent and
received are originals
Amended Documents- where a duplicate or e) Letter press copies- merely
copy is amended or altered by the party or secondary evidence as its prone
parties, it becomes the original. to improper reproduction and
are not produced simultaneously
Document executed in two or more as the original
identical contents each one of the parts is f) Thermofax- merely secondary
primary evidence and the other need not be evidence as it lacks satisfactory
proved. reproduction as some portions
are not clearly printed
Mechanically reproduced copies: g) Photographs and Xerox- merely
a) Carbon copy- admissible as secondary evidence since they
duplicate original when executed are reproduced at a latter time
at the same time or about the but if authenticated photostatic
same time. Imperfect carbon copy of income tax returns,
copies, although made at the public and business records are
same time as the original but if allowed as evidence
there is something else to be
done for it to be binding or there
is incomplete signature, it’s not
the best evidence.
b) Reproduction from the same
matrix i.e. mimeograph,
hectograph- admissible as
duplicate original when
produced from the same matrix
as original
People vs Mangulabnan And certainly the copies of the weekly
52 OG 6532 where the libelous article was published,
At the trial, presented as evidence a post- and its translation, constitute the best
mortem report of the injuries received by evidence of the libel charged. The
the deceased. This was admitted over the newspaper itself is the best evidence of an
objection of the accused, who contend that article published in it.
a mere carbon copy is inadmissible. The
court ruled that the fact the post-mortem Thus if the issue is the contents of the
report is a mere carbon copy is also of no articles sent for publication, the best
moment for it has been signed by the evidence is the manuscript. But is if issue is
physician who executed the same and his on what was actually published, then the
signature was identified b him at the best evidence is the copy of the news
witness stand. paper.
Issue: Whether the exhibits are admissible. EXCEPTIONS: When secondary evidence be
admitted
Ruling: The rule of procedure which 1. When the original has been lost or
requires the production of the best destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
evidence, is applicable to the present case. without bad
faith on the part of the offeror; CM assailed that the termination of the
2. When the original is in the custody or contract was due to Union worker’s
under the control of the party against inefficiency and that the Company suffered
whom the evidence is offered, and the financial losses due to such service. To
latter fails to produce it after reasonable ascertain its annual losses, CM’s manager
notice; hired auditors. CM relied only upon such
3. When the original consists of numerous auditors’ report and presented in court only
accounts or other documents which cannot a summary of damages. The sales invoices
be examined in court without great loss of were not produced.
time and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the Issue: WON the non-submission as evidence
whole; and of the records of the alleged losses of the
4. When the original is a public record in the Company is excused because of the rule
custody of a public officer or is recorded in exempting voluminous records from being
a public office produced in court.
Compania Maritima vs Allied Free Workers Ruling: The best evidence of the Company’s
Union losses would have been the sales invoices
77 SCRA 24 (1977) instead of the Manager’ oral testimony. The
rule that when the original consists of
Facts: In 1952, Compania Maritima (CM) numerous accounts or other documents
and Allied Free Workers Union (AFWU) which cannot be examined in court without
entered into a written contract whereby the great loss of time and the fact sought to be
Union agreed to perform arrastre and established in only the general result of the
stevedoring work in Iligan, effective for one whole, the original writings need not be
month. produce, CANNOT BE APPLIED because the
voluminous character f the records was
It was stipulated that the Company would NOT DULY ESTABLISHED. It is also a
revoke the contract before the expiration of requisite for the application of the rule that
the agreed term, if the Union failed to the records of accounts should be made
render proper service. After a month, the accessible to the adverse party so that the
contract was verbally renewed. In 1954, the correctness of the summary may be tested
Union sent a letter to CM requesting to on cross-examination.
recognize it as the exclusive bargaining unit,
to load and unload he cargo of its vessels in When an entry is repeated in the regular
Iligan. CM ignored the request. The Union course of business, one being copied from
subsequently filed in CIR a petition for another at or near the time of the
certification election. Despite the transaction, all the entries are regarded as
certification case, CM sent notice to the originals. For as long as they are made
Union for termination of their contract and within reasonable time, it is sufficient. A
entered into a new contract with another much longer but reasonable delay and
stevedoring association. when entries appear to have been made
while the memory as to the transaction as
clear or the source of such knowledge was “examined” have been added in the
unimpaired, still makes it admissible. present provision.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
evidence supplied by written instruments,
Constitutional Right not violated by
or derived from the conventional symbols,
inspection of scene of crime – Provided
such as letters, by which ideas are
that the same is with consent of and
represented on material substances;
accompanied by counsel for the accused, it
documents; documents produced for the
further appearing that no evidence was
inspection of the court or judge.
taken during the inspection.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUEMNTARY
Information obtained on a view is
EVIDENCE- subject to the same basic rules
independent evidence –To be taken into
on relevancy, materiality, exclusionary rules
consideration by the curt in determining the
issues in the case. and court discretion as determined by the
issues in the particular case. Identity and
Order denying or granting view not authenticity of the document must be
reasonably established as a pre-requisite to
reviewable –When it appears that the
its admission.
condition of the premises or property has
changed since the time of occurrence in IMPORTANT RULES ON
issue and before the demand for a view, or DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
that the facts involved are such that they
can be accurately described to the court by 1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Rule on Secondary Evidence
oral testimony, or by the use of maps or
3. Parol Evidence Rule
diagrams with proper explanations, or view
4. Rule on Authentication and
would be unreasonable expensive or cause Proof of Documents
unreasonable delay, or serve no useful 5. Inadmissibility of written
purpose, unless here appears a clear abuse document in an unofficial
of discretion. language unless translated in
English and Filipino
2. Best Evidence Rule successfully invoked if proper and timely
objection had been taken
BEST EVIDENCE or PRIMARY EVIDENCE-
particular means of proof which is indicated WHAT CONSTITUTES THE ORIGINAL:
by the nature of the fact under
(a) The original of the document is
investigation as the most natural and
one the contents of which are the
satisfactory that affords the greatest subject of inquiry;
certainty of the fact in question and on its
face indicates that no better evidence (b) When a document is in two or
remains behind. more copies executed at or about
the same time, with identical
BEST EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule which contents, all such copies are equally
requires the highest grade of evidence regarded as originals; and
obtainable to prove a disputed fact.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the
Purpose of the rule requiring the regular course of business, one
production of the best evidence: being copied from another at or
prevention of fraud, because if the best near the time of the transaction, all
evidence is not presented then the the entries are likewise equally
presumption of suppression of evidence will regarded as originals.
be present.
Note:
Best evidence rule applies only when > Original may depend on the
the purpose of the proof is to establish the substantive law applicable
terms of writing, therefore NOT applicable > Original may depend on the act of
to external or collateral facts about the the parties
document such as its existence, execution >where there may be duplicate
or delivery. original, either is an original ad may
be used without accounting for
People v. Tandoy another
(1990) >Whenever a document is executed
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when in several parts, each part is primary
the contents of the document are the evidence
subject of inquiry. It does not apply when > Whenever a document is executed
the issue is only as to whether or not such in counterpart, each part executed
document was actually executed or in the by one or more of the parties only,
circumstances relevant to its execution. An each counterpart is primary
objection by the party against whom evidence as against the parties who
secondary evidence is sought to be executed it
introduced is essential to bring the best
evidence rule into application. Where
secondary evidence has been admitted, the
rule of evidence might have been
People vsSto. Tomas Amended Documents- where a
138 SCRA 206 duplicate or copy is amended or altered by
The trial court correctly rejected the xerox the party or parties, it becomes the original.
copy of the marriage certificate, since the
admission would violate the best evidence Document executed in two or more
rule. identical contents each one of the parts is
primary evidence and the other need not be
proved.
For the application of the best evidence, it
is essential that: Mechanically reproduced copies:
the original writing or if it is a private h) Carbon copy- admissible as
document, be first duly identified, and a duplicate original when executed
sufficient and a sufficient foundation be at the same time or about the
laid, so as to entitle the writing to be same time. Imperfect carbon
admitted in evidence, and it must be copies, although made at the
available to the opposite party for cross- same time as the original but if
examination. there is something else to be
done for it to be binding or there
Best Evidence Rule in Criminal is incomplete signature, it’s not
Cases – In criminal cases, where the issue is the best evidence.
not only with respect to the contents of the i) Reproduction from the same
document but also as to whether such matrix i.e. mimeograph,
document actually existed, the original itself hectograph- admissible as
must be presented. duplicate original when
produced from the same matrix
US vs Gregorio as original
17 Phil 522 j) Blueprints and vellum tracings-
For only only presenting the Xerox copy of have been held to be originals
the falsified documents, prosecution failed rather than copies
to prove the corpus delicti of the crime k) Telegraph and cable messages-
charged. In the absence of the original if the issue is the contents of
document, it Is improper to conclude, with the telegram
only copy of the said original in view, that as received by the
there has been a falsification of the addressee- then the original
document which was neither found nor dispatch is the copy of the
exhibited, because in such a case, even the message sent to the
existence ofsuch document may be addressee;
doubted. as sent by the sender- the
original is the message
delivered
Non-production of the original
document unless justified in Section 3, gives
rise to the presumption of suppression of
evidence.
if the issue is the inaccuracy with malicious intent, published on page 9
of transmission, of the weekly paper IngMagumasid. The
both telegrams as sent and defendant demurred on the ground of
received are originals duplicity of informations, he having
l) Letter press copies- merely published only one libelous article in
secondary evidence as its prone the IngMagumasid for July 13, 1930. The
to improper reproduction and fiscal attempted to present as evidence for
are not produced simultaneously the prosecution Exhibits A, B, C, and D,
as the original which are copies of
m) Thermofax- merely secondary the IngMagumasid containing the libelous
evidence as it lacks satisfactory article with the innuendo. Counsel for the
reproduction as some portions defendant objected to this evidence, which
are not clearly printed objection was sustained. Petitioner
n) Photographs and Xerox-merely contends that the exhibits in question are
secondary evidence since they the best evidence of the libel, the subject
are reproduced at a latter time matter of the information, and should
but if authenticated photostatic therefore be admitted.
copy of income tax returns,
public and business records are Issue: Whether the exhibits are admissible.
allowed as evidence
Ruling: The rule of procedure which
People vsMangulabnan requires the production of the best
evidence, is applicable to the present case.
52 OG 6532 And certainly the copies of the weekly
where the libelous article was published,
At the trial, presented as evidence a post-
and its translation, constitute the best
mortem report of the injuries received by
evidence of the libel charged. The
the deceased. This was admitted over the
newspaper itself is the best evidence of an
objection of the accused, who contend that
article published in it.
a mere carbon copy is inadmissible. The
court ruled that the fact the post-mortem
Thus if the issue is the contents of the
report is a mere carbon copy is also of no
articles sent for publication, the best
moment for it has been signed by the
evidence is the manuscript. But is if issue is
physician who executed the same and his
on what was actually published, then the
signature was identified b him at the
best evidence is the copy of the news
witness stand.
paper.
- 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 a 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. Lechugas vs.
CA, 143 SCRA 335
- That means that there is no evidence on the terms of the will and of its
attestation clause other than the contents of the same
- If the ambiguity is patent (one which appears upon the face of the instrument)
o extrinsic evidence not admissible
o testator’s intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will, taking
into consideration the circumstances under which it was made, excluding
oral declarations
- If the ambiguity is latent (one which is not discoverable from a perusal of the
will)
o extrinsic evidence admissible
when it names a person as the object of a gift or a thing as the subject
of it and there are two persons or things that answer such name or
description
where there is a mis-description of the object or subject
Exceptions
- A good test of the difference between the two forms of ambiguities is to put the
instrument into the hands of an ordinarily intelligent educated person. If on
perusal he sees no ambiguity, but there is nevertheless an uncertainty from
merely reading the instrument, it is patent.
Latent or intrinsic ambiguity defined
- An uncertainty which does not appear on the face of the instrument, but which
is shown to exist for the first time by the matter outside the writing – may be
explained or clarified by parol evidence
a. where the description of the devises or the property devised is clear upon
the face of the will, but it turns out that there is more than one estate or
person to which the description applies
b. where the devisee or property devised is imperfectly or, in some respects,
erroneously described, so as to leave it doubtful what person or property is
meant
- The contest and every legitimate rule of exposition may be listed and used in
obedience to the maxim ut res magisvaleat quam pereat (That the thing may
rather have effect than be destroyed) but parol testimony or extraneous proof of
any kind, is deemed to be inadmissible
- The rule expressly mentions intrinsic or latent ambiguity and not extrinsic or
patent ambiguity as one of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule.
- Reason for the rule: if the language be too doubtful for any settled construction,
by the admission of parol evidence, you create and do not merely construe the
contract; you attempt to do that for the party which he has not chosen to do for
himself.
- Where the words are all sensible, and have a settled meaning but the same time
consistently admit of two interpretations.
- In such a case, parol evidence may be admitted to show the circumstances under
which the contract was made, and the subject-matter to which the parties
referred
a. Where the instrument itself seems to be clear and certain the ambiguity arises
from some extrinsic or collateral matter, the ambiguity may be helped by parol
evidence. (latent ambiguity)
b. Where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words designating the
person or subject-matter, parol evidence of collateral or extrinsic matter may be
introduced for the purpose of aiding the court in arriving at the meaning of the
language used. (intermediate ambiguity)
c. Where the ambiguity is such that a perusal of the instrument shows plainly that
something more must be added before the reader can determine what of
several things are meant, the rule is inflexible that parol evidence cannot be
admitted to supply the deficiency.
Written agreement does not express the true intent and agreement of the parties
Proof of Fraud
- The rule which prefers written to unwritten evidence does not so apply as to
exclude the latter when its object to prove that the writing was fraudulently
obtained and thereby avoid the contract evidenced by it.
- Furthermore, the rule does not extend to evidence offered to show that the
contract was made in furtherance of objects forbidden by statute, by the
common law or by public policy.
- The prohibition does not apply where the purpose of the parole evidence is to
show that no written contract ever existed and that there never existed any
consideration upon which such an agreement could be founded.
- Parole Evidence Rule finds no application where the validity of the document is
the very fact in dispute.
Subsequent Agreements
- The parole evidence rule does not apply so as to prohibit the establishment by parole
an agreement between the parties to a writing entered into subsequent to the time
when the written instrument was executed regardless such agreement varies or
contradicts.
- Reason: parties cannot be presumed to have intended the written instrument to cover
all their possible subsequent agreements which for that reason may be considered as
separate transactions.
RECENTLY DECIDED CASES
The applicability of the parol evidence rule requires that the case be between parties to the
written instrument in question and their successors-in-interest.
Facts:
In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta (Alfonso) begot 14 children, namely, Policronio, Liberato,
Narciso, Prudencia, Vicente, Francisco, Inocensio, Roque, Adela, Wenefreda, Merlinda,
Benedicto, Jorge, and Andres. The children of Policronio (Heirs of Policronio), are opposed to
the rest of Alfonso's children and their descendants (Heirs of Alfonso). Alfonso and four of his
children, namely, Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco, met at the house of Liberato.
He executed four (4) Deeds of Sale covering several parcels of land in favor of his four children
in order to reduce the inheritance taxes. No monetary consideration was given, Alfonso
continued to own, possess and enjoy the lands and their produce. Years after Alfonso’s and
Policronio’s death, the former’s heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, which
included all the lands that were covered by the four (4) deeds of sale that were previously
executed by Alfonso for taxation purposes.
Believing that the six parcels of land belonged to their late father, and as such, excluded
from the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, the Heirs of Policronio filed a Complaint for
Declaration of Ownership, Recovery of Possession, Annulment of Documents, Partition, and
Damages against the Heirs of Alfonso. The RTC ruled in favor of the Heirs of Alfonso. Likewise,
the CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that the Deed of Sale was void. It found the Deed of Sale
to be absolutely simulated as the parties did not intend to be legally bound by it.
Issue: Whether or not parol evidence rule may be properly invoked by either party in the
litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a 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.
Held:
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:
(b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
The failure of the Deed of Sale to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
was clearly put in issue in the Answer of the Heirs of Alfonso to the Complaint. It was alleged
that the Deed of Sale was only made to lessen the payment of estate and inheritance taxes and
not meant to transfer ownership. The exception in paragraph (b) is allowed to enable the court
to ascertain the true intent of the parties, and once the intent is clear, it shall prevail over what
the document appears to be on its face. As the true intent of the parties was duly proven in the
present case, it now prevails over what appears on the Deed of Sale.
The validity of the Deed of Sale was also put in issue in the Answer, and was precisely
one of the issues submitted to the RTC for resolution. The operation of the parol evidence
rule requires the existence of a valid written agreement. It is, thus, not applicable in a
proceeding where the validity of such agreement is the fact in dispute, such as when a contract
may be void for lack of consideration. Considering that the Deed of Sale has been shown to be
void for being absolutely simulated and for lack of consideration, the Heirs of Alfonso are not
precluded from presenting evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement.
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 and the Heirs of
Policronio are successors-in-interest of the parties to the Deed of Sale as they claim rights
under Alfonso and Policronio, respectively. The parol evidence rule excluding evidence
aliunde, however, still cannot apply because the present case falls under two exceptions to the
rule, as discussed above.
Theparol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence, should not be strictly applied in labor cases.
Facts:
The then Acting Secretary of Labor Manuel G. Imson ruled that the wage increases to be
given are P10 per day effective January 1, 2004 and P15 per day effective January 1, 2005.
Respondent averred that the Secretary of Labor cannot insist on a ruling beyond the
compromise agreement entered into by the parties.
Issue: Whether or not the parol evidence rule should be strictly applied in labor cases.
Held:
In determining arbitral awards then, aside from the MOA, courts considered other
factors and documents including, as in this case, the financial documents submitted by
respondent as well as its previous bargaining history and financial outlook and improvements
as stated in its own website.
The appellate court's ruling that giving credence to the "Pahayag" and the minutes of
the meeting which were not verified and notarized would violate the rule on parol evidence is
erroneous. Theparol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence, should not be strictly applied in
labor cases. Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc. teaches:
Based on theparol evidence rule, there can generally be noevidence of the terms other than the
contents of the written agreement
Facts:
Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of violation of R.A. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) for acting
in evident bad faith in the purchase of the property sold by Glicerio Plaza as part of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines — Retirement Separation and Benefit System (AFP-RSBS) Calamba
Land Banking Project, The Sandiganbayan found that the true consideration of the sale made by
Plaza to AFP-RSBS was only P227,460 as stated in a unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale, and not
the disbursed amount of P1,531,564 as reflected in the bilateral Deed of Sale.
Issue: Whether or not the unilateral Deed of Sale should be the basis to determine the true
consideration.
Held:
In any event, the finding that the true consideration was only P227,460 and not
P1,531,564 is supported by the evidence on record. Here, the Sandiganbayan found that the
unilateral Deed of Sale was the official document used by the buyer AFP-RSBS and seller Plaza
in the registration of the sale; as well as in the payment of the registration fee, transfer tax,
capital gains tax, and documentary stamp tax necessary to effect transfer. This finding was not
disputed by the petitioner.
Neither did the seller or the buyer dispute the validity of the unilateral Deed of Absolute
Sale. The subsequent bilateral Deed of Absolute Sale did not repeal or modify the earlier sale
either. As the deed was a valid agreement of conveyance, notwithstanding that only the seller
signed the deed, theSandiganbayan did not err when it used the unilateral Deed of Sale as
basis to determine the true consideration.
Facts:
When BenignaLimas died, she willed her share of a parcel of land equally to her sisters
Alejandra Llamas and Josefa Llamas. Thus, Alejandra and Josefa each owned one-half (1/2) of
Benigna's share. On June 14, 1969, Alejandra's heirs sold their predecessor's one-half (1/2)
share (roughly equivalent to 10,564 square meters) to the respondent, as evidenced by a Deed
of Absolute Sale. Also on June 14, 1969, Josefa sold her own one-half (1/2) share (subject
property) to the respondent and the petitioner, as evidenced by another Deed of Absolute
Sale.
Years later, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner, seeking the
reconveyance of the 1,004-square meter portion (disputed property), on the ground that the
petitioner is entitled only to the 3,020 square meters identified in the parties' Agreement. On
the other hand, the petitioner claimed that the respondent voluntarily participated in executing
the Affidavit, which corrected the mistake in the previously executed Agreement and confirmed
the petitioner's ownership over the disputed property. He claimed that since the Agreement
does not reflect the true intention of the parties, the Affidavit was subsequently executed in
order to reflect the parties' true intention.
Issue: Whether or not the written agreement failed to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties therefore beyond the ambit of parol evidence rule.
Held:
The petitioner's argument calls to fore the application of the parol evidence rule, i.e.,
when the terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the written agreement is deemed to
contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of these terms can be admitted other than
what is contained in the written agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood
to have been waived and abandoned.
To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the Rules of Court allows a party to
present evidence modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of the written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading, as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or
accident, which nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties.
At the trial, the petitioner attempted to prove, by parol evidence, the alleged true
intention of the parties by presenting the Affidavit, which allegedly corrected the mistake in the
previously executed Agreement and confirmed his ownership of the parcels of land covered by
his titles. It was the petitioner's staunch assertion that the respondent co-executed this
Affidavit supposedly to reflect the parties' true intention. TCcIaA
In the present petition, however, the petitioner made a damaging admission that
the Benigna Deed is fabricated, thereby completely bolstering the respondent's cause of action
for reconveyance of the disputed property on the ground of fraudulent registration of title.
Since the Affidavit merely reflects what is embodied in the Benigna Deed, the petitioner's
admission, coupled with the respondent's denial of his purported signature in the Affidavit,
placed in serious doubt the reliability of this document, supposedly the bedrock of the
petitioner's defense.
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Article 1370 Civil Code - If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the
intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.
If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail
over the former.
- It is an elementary rule of contract that the laws in force at the time the contract was
made must govern its interpretation.
- Matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation, and validity of a contract are
determined by the law of the place where the contract is made.
- The terms of the contract where unambiguous are conclusive, in the absence of
averment and proof of mistake, the question being not what the intention existed in
the minds of the parties but what intention is expressed by the language used.
Article 1371, Civil Code - In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their
contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.
- The contemporaneous and subsequent acts that may serve as indicia of the intention of
the parties are those in which both of them participate.
Art. 1372, Civil Code- However general the terms of a contract may be, they shall not be
understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are different from those upon
which the parties intended to agree.
- Where a specific provision in a contract is followed by a general provision covering the
same subject matter, the former will be held to prevail over the latter when the two
cannot stand together.
- Where both the general and special provisions may be given reasonable effect, both are
to be retained.
Art. 1373, Civil Code- If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings, it
shall be understood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual.
Art. 1374, Civil Code - The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together,
attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.
Art. 1375, Civil Code - Words which may have different significations shall be understood in that
which is most in keeping with the nature and object of the contract.
Art. 1376, Civil Code- The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the
interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the omission of stipulations which
are ordinarily established.
- The usage or custom of the place where the contract was entered into may be resorted
to as aids in making definite what is uncertain or in clearing up what is doubtful or
ambiguous in a contract.
Art. 1377, Civil Code- The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not
favor the party who caused the obscurity.
Art. 1378, Civil Code- When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules established
in the preceding articles, and the doubts refer to incidental circumstances of a gratuitous
contract, the least transmission of rights and interests shall prevail. If the contract is onerous,
the doubt shall be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests.
If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract in such a way that it cannot be
known what may have been the intention or will of the parties, the contract shall be null and
void.
- Thus if the Contract is gratuitous such interpretation should be made which would result
in the least transmission of rights and interest.
- If the doubt refers to the principal object of the contract in question and such cannot be
resolved notwithstanding the application of said rule, the contract shall be null and void.
Art. 1379, Civil Code- The principles of interpretation stated in Rule 123 of the Rules of Court
shall likewise be observed in the construction of contracts.
Section 10: Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning – The language of a
writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution,
unless the parties intended otherwise.
REQUISITES:
1. The court must give to the legal words or phrases the meaning they bear in the place
where the writing was executed;
2. That such meaning shall be disregarded if the contract shows that the parties have
intended to give such words or phrases a meaning different from that they have at the
place of the execution of the writing.
Section 11: Instruments construed so as to give effect to all provisions – In the construction of
an instrument where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if
possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.
- An agreement should be interpreted as a whole and the meaning gathered from the
entire context, and not form the particular words, phrases, or clauses.
Section 12: Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions - In the
construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general
and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a
particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
a. INTENTION OF THE PARTIES – The court must ascertain the intention of the parties only
when the terms of the contract are not clear and leave doubt upon the intention of the
contracting parties, otherwise, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control.
Section 14: Peculiar signification of terms - The terms of a writing are presumed to have been
used in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they
have 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.
Section 15:Written words control printed- When an instrument consists partly of written words
and partly of printed forms, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
Section 16:Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings – When the
characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is
not understood by the court, the evidence of the persons skilled in deciphering the characters,
or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language.
Section 17: Of two constructions, which preferred – When the terms of an agreement have
been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against
either party in which he supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions
of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to
the party in whose favor the provision was made.
a. NATURAL RIGHT – is meant those rights which are necessarily inherent, rights which are
innate and which come from the very elementary laws of nature such as life, liberty, the
pursuit of happiness, and self- preservation.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Sec 20 Rule 130
Qualification of Witnesses
-Can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others.
General Rule- A disinterested person could be compelled to give his testimony through
subpoena.
Exceptions- Persons who are immune from the process of subpoena by tradition, convention or
law:
Testimonial Duty of Citizens= to support the administration of justice by attending its courts
and giving his testimony whenever he is properly summoned.
Process to enforce duty= the performance of the citizen’s testimonial duty can only be invoked
by the State after adequate notice is given.
Witness= a person who testifies in a case or gives evidence before a judicial tribunal.
Interested persons as witnesses= while rightfully subjected to careful scrutiny, should not be
rejected on the ground of bias alone.
= if testimony is reasonable and consistent ad is not contradicted by evidence from any reliable
source, there is no reason, as a general rule, for not accepting it.
Such testimony must be judged on their own merits. If they are clear ad convinving and
are not destroyed by other evidence of record, they may be believed. And the testimony of
these witnesses fulfil the requirement.
Attorney as witness= counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary and that they
should withdraw from the active management of the case.
Judge as witness= judicial conduct should not be subject to cross-examination or comment, the
peculiar duties of the judge in administering oaths to the witnesses in case the court has no
clerk, and in deciding upon their competency, with his power to commit for contempt when his
testimony concerns merely formal or preliminary matters about which there is no dispute, as
where he testifies in a perjury prosecution that the defendant gave testimony before him in
another proceeding in another court.
Persons convicted of crime as witness= persons ho have been convicted of perjury are not
excluded law.
=since perjury is a crime involving moral turpitude, the convict whenever mad a co-
accused in any criminal case, cannot be discharged to become a witness for the government in
that case, because under the ROC, the court may direct the discharge of one of the several co-
accusers for that purpose when, in its judgement, such accused has ot at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
Objection to competency of witness= must be made before he has given any testimony;
=If the incompetency appears on the trial, it mst be interposed as soon as it becomes
apparent.
a. Where the witness testifies without objection, though at that time the party knows
of his incompetency.
b. Here the party who might have made the objection owns the witness in support of
his own case.
a. Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such
that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others.
b. Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the
facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfuly.
A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness.
Insane person as a witness= general rules is that a lunatic or a person affected with insanity is
admissible as a witness if he has sufficient understanding to apprehend the obligation of an
oath and is capable of giving correct account of the matters which he has seen or hears with
respect to the questions at issue.
Monomanica as witness= he understand the nature and obligation of an oath and can give
correct account of what he ha seen or heard.
Deaf and Dumb = may be a competent witness although he us uneducated in the use of signs
and his capacity to convey his ideas to others is very circumscribed and limited.
Rule 130, 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.
General Rule
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse.
Reason
This is based on principles which are deemed important to preserve the marriage relation as
one of full confidence and affection, and that this is regarded as more important to the public
welfare than that the exigencies of the lawsuits should authorize domestic peace to be
disregarded, for the sake of ferreting out facts within the knowledge of strangers.
This applies only to a lawful wife – not a bigamous one, nor to a paramour, nor to an affiance.
Scope
The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or against the other applies to any form of
testimony; therefore it protects against using the spouse-witness’ admission, or against
compelling him/her to produce documents. However, res gestae declarations of husband and
wife are admissible for or against each other, even though each is incompetent to testify.
A husband may not testify for or against his wife without her consent; nor a wife for or against
her husband without his consent, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed against the other. This provision deals with two different matters
which rest on different grounds of policy: the disqualification of the husband and wife to testify
in each other’s behalf, as well as their privilege not to testify against each other.
People vs. Pansensoy, 388 SCRA 669 (Riano)
Under this rule, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against
the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the
latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. However, objections to the competency of a
husband and wife to testify in a criminal prosecution against the other may be waived as
in the case of other witnesses generally. The objection to the competency of the spouse
must be made when he or she is first offered as a witness. In this case, the
incompetency was waived by appellant’s failure to make a timely objection to the
admission of his wife’s testimony.
It has been held that no unfavorable inference may be drawn from a fact that a party spouse
invokes the privilege to prevent the witness-spouse from testifying against him or her.
Exceptions
a. that the case in which the husband or the wife is called to testify is not a civil case
instituted by one against the other
b. that it is not a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other
Waiver of Privilege
Wigmore asserts that the privilege of objecting to testimony concerning anti-marital facts
belongs to the spouse who is a party to the action and not to the spouse who is being used as a
witness. This seems to be the rule in this jurisdiction. Hence, the right to object to the
competency of one spouse pertains solely to the spouse-party and not to the other spouse who
is offered as a witness.
Suggested Answer
Leticia cannot testify. Section 22 of Rule 130 bars her testimony without the
consent of the husband during the marriage. The separation of the spouses has not
operated to terminate their marriage. (Note: This is an answer based on the tenor of the
Rules of Court.)
The following answer should also be considered:
Leticia may testify over the objection of her husband. Where the marital and
domestic relations between her and the accused-husband have become so strained that
there is no more harmony, peace, or tranquility to be preserved, there is no longer any
reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule. (People vs. Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504;
Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72)
c. that the subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against such person of unsound mind The words “claim or
demand” mean any action or proceeding which may affect the real or personal
properties of a deceased or insane person. They are restricted to debts or demand
enforceable by personal actions upon which money judgments can be rendered. As to
other actions against estates, no incompetency of witnesses exists. An action for
damages for breach of an agreement to devise property for services rendered is a claim
against an estate.
Suggested Answer
The objection of Pedro should not be sustained. The testimony is admissible
because the witness is not disqualified to testify. Those disqualified under the dead
man’s statute or the survivorship disqualification rule are parties to a case or persons in
whose behalf a case is prosecuted. The witness is not one of those enumerated under
the rule (Sec. 23, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
d. that his testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind This refers to
testimonies which relates to any matter of fact occurring before the death of the
decedent or before the person became of unsound mind. The phrase “matter of fact” is
literally interpreted to include not only facts tending to establish the claim or demand
but also incidental facts. Negative facts are not included in the matters prohibited by
law. The testimony of a plaintiff denying the occurrence of a transaction with the
deceased may be admitted on the ground that such plaintiff does not testify to a fact
“occurring before the death of the decedent” but on the contrary, that such fact has not
occurred.
Waiver
A waiver occurs when plaintiff’s deposition is taken by the representative of the estate, when
counsel for the representative cross-examines the plaintiff as to matters occurring during
deceased lifetime.
(Riano) The survivorship disqualification rule is intended to benefit the estate of the deceased
or insane person, hence, this protection may be waived by:
a. failing to object to the testimony
b. cross-examining the witness on the prohibited testimony (Santos vs. Santos, 366 SCRA
395)
c. by offering evidence to rebut the testimony
Suggested Answer
False. The rule bars only a party plaintiff or his assignor or a person in whose
behalf a case is prosecuted. Maria is merely a witness and is not one of those
enumerated as barred from testifying.
Sec. 24- Disqualification by reason of privilege communication. - The following persons cannot
testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without
the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from
the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants;
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of,
or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such
capacity;
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the
confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in
his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which
the minister or priest belongs;
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the
public interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)
1. Source
A. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE
2. The rule
- The husband or the wife during of after the marriage, cannot b examined without
the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one
from the other during the marriage.
7. Rule not applicable to dying declaration- on the trial of the one who killed him.
- The widow is competent to testify on behalf of the defense regarding the dying
declaration made to her by the deceased, considering the cause of death.
8. Duration of the privilege
- Continues in effect even after the marital relation has been terminated.
- This privilege is not affected by death of the other spouse or absolute divorce.
But when the communication is needed in behalf of his estate, the surviving
should be entitled to waive it.
9. Exceptions
a. That the case in which the husband or the wife is called to examined is a civil case
instituted by one against the other; or
b. a criminal case for a crime omitted by one against the other
Incompetency as to incompetency as to
anti-marital facts privilege
communication
Prohibits adverse Prohibits only as to
testimony knowledge
regardless of the obtained through
source confidence or the
marital realtio
Exists only when a Exists whether the
party to the action is husband or wife is
the husband or wife a party to the
action or not
Ceases upon death Continues even
or either spouse after the
termination of the
marriage.
- It is not essential to create the privilege that any proceeding or civil, should be
pending or even in contemplation.
The attorney may testify or communication not privilege:
a. that his client did not communicate certain things to him
b. as to the residence of client
c. as to the circumstance surrounding the drawing of the will and the
conversations had with the testator at the time
d. attorney employed merely to act as scrivener
e. copying a will
f. preparing assignments or leases
g. attorney acting as attesting witness
h. notary public as agent to procure a loan
i. manager of client’s property
j. acting as intermediary between members of a family
k. as to corporation affairs when the attorney is elected as a director
l. identification of the copy of the by-laws
AS A GENERAL RULE A LAWYER MAY NOT REFUSE TO DIVULGE THE IDENTITY OF HIS
CLIENT; RATIONALE. — As a matter of public policy, a client's identity should not be
shrouded in mystery. Under this premise, the general rule in our jurisdiction as well as in
the United States is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the
name or identity of his client. The reasons advanced for the general rule are well
established. First, the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged
information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood. Second, the privilege begins to
exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been established. The attorney-client
privilege does not attach until there is a client. Third, the privilege generally pertains to
the subject matter of the relationship. Finally, due process considerations require that
the opposing party should, as a general rule, know his adversary. "A party suing or sued
is entitled to know who his opponent is. He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark
against unknown forces. (Regala vs. SandiganBayan, G.R. No. 105938)
EXCEPTION; WHEN THE CLIENT'S IDENTITY IS PRIVILEGED. — The general rule is,
however, qualified by some important exception. 1) Client identity is privileged where a
strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate that client in
the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice. 2) Where disclosure would
open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged. 3) Where the government's
lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's name,
the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony
necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is privileged. Apart from
these principal exceptions, there exist other situations which could qualify as exceptions
to the general rule. For example, the content of any client communication to a lawyer
lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on
which the client seeks legal assistance. Moreover, where the nature of the attorney-
client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended
to be confidential, the identity of the client has been held to be privileged, since such
revelation would otherwise result in disclosure and the entire transaction. Summarizing
these exceptions, information relating to the identity of a client may fall within the
ambit of the privilege when the client's name itself has an independent significance,
such that disclosure would then reveal client confidences. (Regala vs. SandiganBayan,
G.R. No. 105938)
17. Privilege not applicable to attorney who is subscribing witness to his client’s will
- Attorney may testify to the attending circumstances of the execution of his client’s
will.
- The testator waives privilege as to his attorney’s testimony concerning testamentary
communication.
19. Communications to an attorney as a public officer to enable the latter to act in that
capacity not privilege
- Because a complaint made to a prosecutor will usually be made for the purpose of
inciting public prosecution and not for the protection of the complainant’s rights.
Duration of privilege: Continues even after the relation of client and attorney is terminated,
the seal of the law once fixed upon them remains forever, unless removed by the party himself
in whose favor it is there placed.
The clients representative may, waive the privilege, but only when the application of the rule
would be disadvantageous to his estate.
The waiver of the right precludes the assertion of the right upon appeal or upon subsequent
trial of the case but does not constitute a waiver of the privilege in another independent
transaction.
Limited to civil cases only: in criminal cases the privilege does not apply for the
maintenance of public order and the life and liberty of the citizens are deemed more
important than the purpose for which the privilege was created
- Not conferred to shield/ weapon to be used by a person charged with crime
Not indispensable that the patient should have actually employed the physician,
surgeon or obstetrician. May be applied in extremis in view to a curative treatment
any information obtained by him for that reason is privilege
Covers all facts learned by the observation and by all methods necessary to enable the
physician to prescribe, including communication by the physician by third person on behalf of
the patient to enable him to perform his professional duty. Communications of the body,
observation of symptoms, results of the doctors examination, the patient’s condition as fund
by the doctor, the name of the ailment, the nature of any operation performed, the
statement of facts or opinion given to the patient. Including opinions and prescriptions.
The attending physician may not testify even though employed as an expert witness by the
other side.
Privilege includes examination of patients employed by a third party in order for the
physician to report to his principal and to the efficacy of certain treatment, being given by
other physicians.
X-ray plates and radiographs are considered privilege including the oral communications or
observations made or had for the purpose of enabling the physician to treat or prescribe for
his patient.
Tend to blacken his reputation- which might bring reproach or disgrace upon the patient.
Privilege rests upon the person objecting and must show that relation of physician and
patient existed.
The court not the physician determines whether the physician must testify, court may hold
preliminary hearing to determine circumstances. Not the duty of the court to require physician
to testify.
After the patient has gone to his grave, the living are not permitted to impair his name and
disgrace his memory. An express waiver maybe made by the patient himself, or the deceased
person’s representative or the beneficiary of the insurance policy.
Also by giving express consent, to the testimony of the physician, or by calling the physician to
testify as to the privilege matter. The guardian of the minor may also give his consent provided
that it is not to the minor’s prejudice.
Implied waiver is found when the patient himself takes the stand to testify about his
physical condition, including the sending of a physician’s certificate of a cause of death, as
part of the proofs of death required by a life insurance policy.
Once the waiver is made, such waiver is final and cannot be recalled. Privilege is not waived by
the patient in making voluntary disclosure outside the court. Where the waiver is procured by
fraud or coercion, the waiver is not effect and the privilege may not be claimed.
Privilege not applicable where patient brings action against physician, for is a patient makes
public in a court of justice the occurrences of the sickroom, for obtaining a judgment for
damages against his physician , he cannot shut out the physician himself not any other who
was present at the time covered by the testimony. By his voluntary act he breaks down the
barrier and the professional duty of secrecy ceases.
The privilege covers only confessions of a penitential in their character, confessions of sins
with a view to obtaining pardon and spiritual advice or assistance, to clergymen in
obedience to some supposed religious duty or obligation and do not embrace
communications clergymen, however, confidential, when not made in connection with or in
discharge of some such supposed religious duty or obligation;
or when made to them while in discharge of duties other than those which pertain to the
office of a clergyman.
Communications made not in the course of religious discipline but in the contemplation of a
crime, are not privileged.
Accuse met the priest on a railroad train and with no intent to secure his professional advice,
assistance or consolation, told his story incriminating himself, it was held that the
communication was not privileged.
Prosecution for the crime of bigamy that the statements made by the accused to a priest who
was to communicate them to the first wife, to induce are not privileged.
A communication to a priest made otherwise than in his ecclesiastical capacity is not
privileged.
Confession must be made in the profession character of the priest and in the course of
discipline enjoined by the rules of practice of the denomination to which the priest or
minister belongs.
Not including statements made by a church member in the presence of his minister and fellow
members. There can be no privilege, where a minister is consulted, but as a notary or a friend
and interpreter,
Determination through the question from the circumstances and facts leading up to the
making of the confession, disclosure should not be required unless it appears that the claim of
privilege is erroneously made.
Waiver of privilege when a penitent to the extent of giving evidence of what took place at
the confessional he cannot complaint of evidence which goes no further to established the
facts revealed by him.
Canon 1757: The following are excluded as incapable of witnessing. Priests, in whatever
concerns any knowledge they may received through sacramental confession,
eventhough they may have been released from the obligation of the seal, even more,
anything whatsoever heard by anyone, or in any way in the confession may not be
accepted as even an indication of the truth.
The evidence being excluded not for the protection of the witness or of the party in the
particular case, but upon general grounds of public policy,
because of the confidential nature of such communication.
Public interest means more than mere curiosity, something in which the public, the community
at large, has some pecuniary interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
The law recognizes the duty of every citizen to communicate to the government and to its
officers such information as he may have concerning the commission of offenses against the
laws.
Purpose: for encouraging the performance of their duties without fear of consequences,
a witness cannot be compelled to disclose the names of persons by whom and to whom
information had been given which led to the discovery of the offense.
Communications between officials: covers matters not ordinarily made public in the course of
their duties, and whom their disclosure would tend to injure seriously the welfare of the State.
Privilege can be recognized in matters involving data upon the National Defense or upon
international negations pending.
Courts will not compel the disclosure of
state secrets by the other departments of the government in ordinary judicial
proceedings,
or require the publication of a state document that may involve the danger to the
nation
or of communications between government of a confidential nature.
Disclosure of the name of the informer maybe necessary in a case where the accused claims
he is the victim of false accusations by an enemy
Or where he claims he is the victim of a groundless arrest or persecution by the police
+ TRADE SECRETS
There is a privilege not to disclose ones’ trade secrets. It covers usually formulas of
manufacture, but may also include price lists and customer’s lists. It is not absolute; the trial
court may compel disclosure where it is indispensable for doing justice.
+Bank Deposits- all bank deposits are absolutely confidential and may not be examined,
inquired or looked into except in those cases enumerated therein
-Anti Graft
-unexplained wealth is similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty
2. Testimonial Privilege
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
Scope: The former filial privilege taken from Art. 315 of the Civil Code was expanded to include
other direct ascendants and to exempt parents from being compelled to testify against their
children or other direct descendants.
When privilege may be invoked: the privilege may now be invoked in both civil and criminal
cases.
Section 26. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant
fact may be given in evidence against him.
1. Admission defined.
An admission is a voluntary acknowledgement in express terms or by implication, by a
party interest or by another by whose statement he is legally bound, against his interest, of
the existence or truth of a fact in dispute material to the issue.
2. Admission Classified.
Admission may be classified into judicial, extra-judicial, express and implied.
Express admissions- made in express terms and of the very fact in issue or in dispute.
3. Certainty.
An admission should possess the same degree of certainty as would be required in the
evidence which it represents, and hence mere conjectures or suggestions as to what
might have happened are not competent.
Confession: a declaration made at any time by a person, voluntary and without compulsion
or inducement, stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the
commission of a crime.
THE UNITED STATES, vs. JOSE CORRALES G.R. No. L-9230, Nov. 10, 1914
Primary evidence;
Secondary evidence;
ADMISSION BY ACT
GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC., vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION G.R. No. L-
14936 July 30, 1960
The record also shows that the company has voluntarily paid a part of the compensation, which
circumstances likewise indicates admission of the compensability of the claim, (Bachrach Motor
Co. Inc. vs. Domingo Panaligan, 99 Phil., 238; 52 Off. Gaz., [7] 3583). The above facts are
admissions against interest and admissible in evidence against the respondent company (Sec. 7,
Rule 123, Rules of Court).
There may be no other evidence presented by the claimant but the admissions of the company
as above-indicated together with the causes stated in the claim, are sufficient evidence to
sustain the decision sought herein to be set aside. The finding that the claim is compensable
involves an exercise of discretion by the Workmen's Compensation Commission and the same
should not be disturbed on appeal because there is no abuse thereof.
ADMISSION BY DECLARATION
The appellant claims that there is no competent evidence that the victim and the appellant
were husband and wife. The claim is without merit. The testimony of the appellant on direct
examination disclosed several times that she was married to the deceased in both “Church
and civil marriages.” On cross examination, she testified on the exact date of her marriage to
the deceased (4 July 1934) and the place (Pili, Camarines Sur) where they were married. She
did not only admit that the deceased was her husband but also brought out the fact that out
of the marriage they had five children and that only three are living, namely: Glenda, Manuel
and Felix. Indeed, there could be no better proof of marriage in a parricide case than the
admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage. More, Ramon M. Velasco, mayor
of Libon, Albay, and uncle of the deceased testified that when he saw the appellant in the
afternoon of 13 October 1954 at the municipal jail, she immediately begged for his
forgiveness and told him that she had shot her husband Pepe (referring to the deceased)
because the latter had a mistress and she could not bear or suffer it any longer.
A competent oral admission may be made through an interpreter, where such method
of conversation is, in some manner, voluntarily adopted by the parties.
i. Written Admissions. When the admission is in a private document, there must be some
proof of the authenticity or identity of the document in accordance with Section 20,
Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, that is, the party offering it must prove its due
execution and authenticity.
Where the statement offered against a party is in the form of a written declaration, such
admissions requires greater weight than mere verbal admissions.
The two statements signed by Roa, one in 1892 and the other in 1893, are competent evidence
against him. They are admissions by him to the effect that at that time the pueblo was the
owner of the property in question. They are, of course, not conclusive against him. He was
entitled to, and did present evidence to overcome the effect of these admissions. The evidence
does not make out a case of estoppel against him. (sec. 333, par. 1, Code of Civil Procedure.)
The admissibility of these statements made by Roa do not rest upon section 278 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, which relates to declarations or admissions made by persons not a party to the
suit, but it rests upon the principle that when the defendant in a suit has himself made an
admission of any fact pertinent to issue involved, it can be received against him.
EVANGELISTA, vs. BASCOS, ET AL., G.R. No. 2332, November 10, 1905.
The evidence does not show that he has any documentary title to any of the land. He
introduced in evidence a paper, executed by the principales of the town in 1860, which
purported to give him and Leonardo Evangelista the ownership of a certain tract of land in said
barrio for the purpose of cultivating the same. The title to this land could not have been
granted by this instrument, because the persons executing it had no power to convey it.
There is nothing in the description contained in this document which indicates that it is the
same land described in the complaint in this action. The Plaintiff, however, testified that it was,
and that he had been in possession thereof from 1860 to 1902, when he was dispossessed by
the Defendants.
There is no other evidence in the case which relates to any of the Defendants except to the
Defendant Tranquilino Bascos. As to him the Plaintiff introduced in evidence a document signed
by Bascos in May, 1893. This document stated that the tract of land for which Bascos had
obtained the deed from the State had been returned by him to its former owner, the Plaintiff.
It showed that the Defendant Bascos had not delivered the possession of this land to the
Plaintiff, and his claim is that he was induced to sign the document by reason of threats made
at the time by the parish priest of the locality. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that this document
operated as a transfer of the title of the land from the Defendant Bascos to the Plaintiff. We do
not think that it can be given any such effect. It amounted, in our opinion, only to an
extrajudicial admission that the Plaintiff was the owner of the land. It was competent for the
Defendant to overcome the effect of this admission by evidence showing that the Plaintiff was
not in fact the owner of the land, and the evidence produced by the Defendant did, in our
opinion, prove that the Plaintiff was not the owner.
ASUNCION GEFES, vs. SALVIO, ET AL., G.R. No. L-11387, February 7, 1917
The fact is indisputable that these lands did not belong to the defendant, and if he bought them
at public auction in December, 1908, for P661, he did so with his wife Asuncion’s own money.
This is evidenced by Exhibit A, a document signed by the said Salvio before the notary Nicolas
Tomas on March 27, 1909, in which he clearly sets forth that the said sum of P661, Philippine
currency, which he paid for the properties above-mentioned, belonged to the private funds of
his wife Asuncion Gefes. He furthermore declared in the said document that she was the true
and absolute owner of the said lands by him purchased out of his wife’s funds and in her behalf.
This document was ratified before a notary and attests the truth of all its contents, even against
third persons. The defendant’s denial of its authenticity is not supported by any reliable
evidence, nor by the affidavit (record, p. 75) presented for the purpose of obtaining a
reopening of the case. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the defendant Salvio cannot be heard
to repudiate what he solemnly declared in a notarial document.
THE UNITED STATES, vs. CHING PO G.R. No. L-7707, December 6, 1912.
The procedure in criminal cases in the Philippine islands provides that a defendant in a criminal
proceeding may be a witness in his own behalf. When he avails himself of this right, he is
subject to a rigid cross-examination and is bound by his admissions, voluntarily given, in such
examination. His admissions are presumed to be given voluntarily and when thus given on a
previous trial, they may be used against him in a subsequent cause.
In the Matter of the Estate of JOAQUINA MIJARES DE FARInAS. - ENRIQUE DE LA VEGA, vs.
VICENTE LAVIN G.R. No. L-4878 February 27, 1909
Later in the proceedings an answer was presented in her behalf. In this she stated that what
she declared when asked to recognize the authenticity of the documents was that her deceased
husband owed Lavin 1,171 pesos and not 1,233 pesos. It does not appear that she signed this
answer. It may have been signed by her solicitor. Under these circumstances the contents of the
answer can not be considered as admissions made by her which could be used as evidence
against her in another proceeding entirely disconnected with the subject-matter of the
proceeding in which the answer was made. There is, therefore, nothing in the proceeding of
1894 which proves either the existence of a debt from the husband Paulino Lavin or any
recognition of such supposed indebtedness by the deceased.
JUAN YSMAEL & CO., INC., vs.NAGEEB T. HASHIM and AFIFE ABDO CHEYBAN GORAYEB G.R.
No. L-26247, March 18, 1927
The third assignment of error cannot be sustained. In offering in evidence the testimony given
by Mr. Hemady and the Hashims in the earlier case, the defendant-appellant did not claim that
said testimony contained admissions against interest by the parties to the action or their
agents; if such had been the case, the testimony would have been admissible without the laying
of a foundation and without the witnesses having testified in the case at bar. But the purpose of
the offer of the testimony was evidently to impeach the testimony of the same witnesses in the
present case and if so, a foundation should have been laid by calling the attention of the
witnesses to the former statements so as to give them opportunity to explain before the
statements were offered in evidence.
UNITED STATES, vs. JOSE I. BALUYOT G.R. No. L-14476, November 6, 1919
It is almost universally accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross-examination,
evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to impeach a witness; though
undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the discretion of the court.
ADMISSION BY OMISSION
GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, vs. DE LA RIVA January 12, 1909, G.R. No. 4604
The plaintiffs having been made it at a certain rate and having notified the defendant thereof it
was clearly his duty to object to the rate if he was not satisfied with it. As is seen, he made no
objection whatever at the time, and as far as appears never made any objection until he filed
his answer herein. The evidence is sufficient to show that he assented to the rate at which the
change was made. The judgment of the court below with reference to this objection must be
sustained.
Admission not conclusive evidence- The general rule is that admissions are not conclusive when
proved, but maybe disproved by ordinary evidence. This rule is not affected by the fact that the
admission was made under oath as a witness or otherwise. Weight to be given to evidence of
admissions may depend upon various matters affecting its accuracy.
SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS
Self-serving declarations are unsworn statements made by the declarant out of the court and
which are favorable to his interests.
Self-serving declarations are not admissible in evidence as proof of the facts asserted, whether
they arose by implications from acts and conduct or were made orally or reduced in writing.
Objections: hearsay character; untrustworthy declarations, open door to fraud and perjuries.
Plaintiff also offered in evidence another written document, which was a protest made by the
defendants against this inventory, on the ground that it did not include the land in question.
The court refused to admit this document, to which the plaintiff excepted. The claim of the
plaintiff is that the inventory made by the executor contained the same lands as those
described in the will of Marcelo, and consequently that the protest made by the defendants
was an admission that the will did not describe these lands. It does not appear from the
evidence in the case that the lands described in this inventory are the same as those described
in the will. There was no error in this ruling.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. BEDIA, G.R. No. L-2252, May 31, 1949
Appellant's defense hinges on the jamming of the deceased's pistol. His theory is that the
deceased failed to fire his pistol because it jammed when he attempted to fire the first shot
against appellant. It appears, however, upon expert testimony on record, that the jamming of
the firearm was due not to any mechanical defect but to intentional insertion of a bullet from
the outside into the pistol's barrel. The fact that the appellant had experience in handling
firearms and the fact that it took him more than the necessary length of time from the moment
he took the pistol of the deceased to the moment when he presented it to the authorities
together with his own, lay strong grounds for the belief that appellant concocted the jamming
of the pistol so as to enable him to present in court a self-serving evidence.
THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, vs. CUSTODIO, G.R. No. L-26170, January
27, 1969
As to the appellants' having repudiated their signatures, the same was a self-serving act, more
indicative of a belated intention to squirm out of a disadvantageous transaction, after they
entered it with open eyes, which is no ground for setting the same aside (Noble vs. City of
Manila, 67 Phil. 1). Certainly, it should take much weightier proof to invalidate a written
instrument (cf. Mendezona vs. Phil. Sugar Estates, 41 Phil. 493; Bank of the Phil. Is. vs. Fidelity
Surety Co., 51 Phil. 57).
Persons whose unsworn declarations in behalf of a party are not admissible in favor of the
latter are: 1) agents, as regards their principal; 2) a guardian, as regards his ward; 3) a co-
defendant or co-partner, as regards the other; 4) a principal, as regards his surety; 5) a husband
or wife, as regards his or her spouse; 6) an employee, as regards his employer; 7) officers of the
corporation, as regards the corporation; 8) a public officer, as regards a public corporation; and
9) predecessors in title, as regards an owner of the property.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.AURELIO ALVERO (alias RELI) G.R. No. L-820, April 11, 1950.
As a rule, diaries are inadmissible because they are self-serving in nature, unless they have the
nature of books of account (51 L. R. A. [N.S], 813-815); but it has also been held that an entry in
a diary being in the nature of a declaration, if it was against interest when made, is admissible.
Self-serving declarations made by a party are admissible in his own behalf in the following
cases:
1) when they form part of res gestae, including spontaneous statements, and verbal acts;
2) when they are in the form of complaint and exclamation of pain and suffering;
3) when they are part of a confession offered by the prosecution;
4) where the credibility of a party has been assailed on the ground that his testimony is a
recent fabrication, provided they were made at a time when a motive to misrepresent did
not exist;
5) When they are offered by the opponent.
6) When they are offered without objection, the evidence cannot afterward be objected to as
incompetent.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. DEMIAR G.R. No. L-15130, May 31, 1960
It is also contended for appellant that the trial court erred in admitting appellant's letter to his
brother-in-law Lope Mayol (Exh. A) and that there is nothing in the letter which would show
that appellant admitted his guilt. Appellant argues that, instead of considering said letter as
evidence indicative of his guilt, the trial court should have considered it in his favor, because he
disclaimed therein asked forgiveness from his sisters and begged them to testify that their
mother died of natural illness and not of strangulation, we fail to see why said statements could
not be taken as an admission of appellant's guilt. As to the argument that said letter should
have been considered in appellant's favor, it may stated that self-serving statements made
extra-judicially cannot be admitted as evidence in favor of the person making them, although
the incriminating statement is evidence against him.
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. — In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not
an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed
by law to be compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence
as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is
not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is
not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
Compromise defined
The traditional ground for this rule is that the payment or offer is usually made from the
humane impulses and not from an admission of liability.
Section 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
General rule:
Exceptions:
Admission by a co-partner
Admission by an agent
Admission by joint owner or debtor or one jointly interested
Admission by conspirator
Admission by privies
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or declaration of a partner or agent of
the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or
agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a
joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.
That the partnership be previously proven by evidence other than the admission itself
That the admission refers to a matter within the scope of his authority
That the admission was made during the existence of the partnership
The admissions of one partner are received against another, not on the ground that
they are parties to the record, but on the ground that they are identified in interest, and that
each is agent for the other, and that the acts or declarations of one during the existence of the
partnership, while transacting, while transacting its business and within the scope of the
business are evidence against the other or others.
Admission by agent
that the agency be previously proved by evidence other than the admission itself
that the admission refers to a matter within the scope of his authority
that the admission was made during the existence of the agency
As a general rule parties are not chargeable with the declarations of the agents, unless
such declarations or statement are made during the transaction of business by the agent for
the principal and in relation to such business, and while within the scope of agency. In other
words, what is so done, by an agent, is done by the principal through him, as a mere
instrument.
Admission by joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party
that there exists a joint interest between the joint owner, joint debtor, or other person
jointly interested with the part and such party, which joint inter must first be made to
appear by evidence other than the act of declaration itself
that the act or declaration was made while the interest was subsisting
that the act relate to the subject matter of the joint interest for otherwise it would be
immaterial and irrelevant
The mere fact that several persons have a common interest, as contradistinguished
from a joint interest, in the subject matter involved in the suit, does not render their admissions
competent against each other. This is properly true with regard to rights under will.
There may be many legatees and devisees, but, although they derive their benefit from
a common source (testator) they clearly have no rights based on the benefit of each other. They
have interest in common in that each derives his interest form the same source; but plainly
they have no joint interest through any relation inter se.
Section 30. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after
the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself
that the admission relates to the common object
it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy
Jurisprudence:
People vs. Carbonel (43 Phil. 65, 78)
If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment
of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently
independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual
meeting among them to concert means is proved.
Conspirators do not go out upon the public highways and proclaim their intentions. They
accomplish their purpose by dark and sinister methods and must be judged by their acts.
It is enough that from the individual acts of each accused, it may be reasonably deduced
that they had a common plan to commit the felony.
People vs. Silvestre (56 Phil. 353)
It is well-known rule that, without the proof of conspiracy, mere passive presence at the
scene of another’s crime does not constitute complicity.
Where there is lack of proof of conspiracy, the responsibility of the accused is individual
and each is liable for the result of his act in the degree and manner of participation.
Section 31. Admission by privies. — Where one derives title to property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former.
Privies are those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same right of
property or subject matter, such as personal representative, heirs, devisees, legatees, assignes,
voluntary grantees or judgement creditors or purchases from them with notice of the facts.
It is an established rule of evidence that the declarations of a person under whom title is
claimed are receivable against the successor so claiming, on the theory that there is sufficient
identity of interest to render the statements of the former equally receivable with the
admissions of the present owner, and that the rights of the latter are those, and only those, of
the former.
The principle on which such evidence is received is that the declarant was so situated
that he probably knew the truth, and his interest were such that he would not have made the
admissions to the prejudice of his title or possession, unless they were true. The regard which
one so situated would have to his interest is considered sufficient security against falsehood.
Limitations of rule
Three exceptions are recognized to the rule that declarations of the transferor, made
subsequent to the transfer, are admissible:
where the declarations are made in the presence of the transferee and he
acquiesces in the statements, or asserts no rights where he ought to speak
Where there has been a prima facie case of fraud established as where the thing
granted has a corpus and the possession of the thing after the sale or transfer,
remains with the seller or transferor.
Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to defraud, which
conspiracy exists between the vendor and the vendee
Section 32. Admission by silence. — An act or declaration made in the presence and within the
hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such
as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to
do so, may be given in evidence against him.
The rule that the silence of a party against who a claim or a right is asserted may be construed
as an admission of the truth of the assertion rests on that instinct of nature, which leads us to
resist an unfounded demand. The rule rests on that universal principle of human conduct which
leads us to repel an unfounded imputation or claim.
Rule applicable in criminal as well as in civil cases
The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of the truth of
the allegation uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal as well as in civil cases.
RULE 130
SECTION 33 Confession. – The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.
15. Threats, violence, torture or fear. – Confessions obtained by putting the accused in fear
by means of threats of violence to the person of the accused made to obtain his
confession are generally inadmissible in evidence since they are involuntary in
character. Threats, violence, torture or fear
- Judges, fiscals and other officers to whom persons accused of a crime are brought
for swearing the truth of their statements “ to adopt the practice of having the
confessants physically and thoroughly examined by independent and qualified
doctors before administering the oath, even if it is not requested by the accused.
Purpose: Shorten and speed up criminal trials ( where the accused persons almost
invariably repudiate their confessions) by precluding future controversies on
whether the statements were obtained through torture or not.
17. Proving confession
- An oral admission on the part of an accused indicating guilty complicity in the
commission of the crime with which he is charged is admissible in evidence, though
not reduced to writing, or if reduced into writing, though not signed by him.
- The heavy burden is on the prosecution because the State is responsible for
establishing the isolated circumstance under which the interrogation takes place and
has the only means of making available corroborated evidence of warnings given
during communicado interrogation.
- A confession on the part of a third person that he committed the crime which the
defendant is charged with having committed, even though it is made in expectation
of imminent death or by a person jointly indicted with the accused, is not admissible
as substantive evidence tending to exculpate the accused where the confession does
not constitute a part of res gestae.
- A partial or unfinished confession which was interrupted while the defendants was
rendering it is not admissible in evidence.
23. Confession learned through an interpreter
- Where a confession has been obtained from the accused by improper inducement,
any statement made by him while under that influence is inadmissible.
- A confession of an offense different from that with which the accused is charged is
not admissible on his trial for the offense charged unless such other offense is a part
of the same scheme or so connected with the one charged as not to be severed from
it.
- Before a confession will be admitted into evidence, the prosecution must prove the
making thereof if accused objects that the confession was not in fact made by him.
In laying a predicate for the admission of a confession, it is proper for the
prosecution, as a preliminary question, to inquire whether a confession was made
at the time and place of the making of the confession and the persons present.
- The whole confession must be put in evidence by the prosecuting officer. To allow
the introduction of fragments of a confession admitting those indicative of the
prisoner’s criminality and suppressing others which, by limiting or modifying the
former, may establish his innocence, is utterly inconsistent with all principles of
justice and humanity.
(1) When several accused are tried together, the confession made by one of them
during the trial implicating the others is evidence against the latter.
(2) When one of the defendant is charged from the information and testifies as a
witness for the prosecution, the confession made in the course of his testimony
is admissible against his co-defendants, if corroborated by indisputable proof.
(3) If a defendant, after having been apprised of the confessions of his co-
defendant, ratifies or confirms said confession, the same is admissible against
him.
(4) Where several extrajudicial confessions have been made by several persons
charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference
to said several confessions, the facts that the statements therein are in all
material respects, identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the co-
defendant and is admissible against co-defendants. This is commonly known as
“Interlocking confession.”
(5) A statement made by one defendant after his arrest, in the presence of his co-
defendant, confessing his guilt and implicating his co-defendant who failed to
contradict or deny it, is admissible against his co-defendant.
(6) When the confession is of a conspirator and made after conspiracy and in
furtherance of its object, the same is admissible against his co-conspirator.
(7) The confession of one conspirator made after the termination of a conspiracy, is
admissible against his co-conspirator if made in his presence and assented to by
him, or admitted its truth or failed to contradict or deny it.
- The test of a confession’s admissibility is not the weight of the testimony or the
credibility of the witness, but the testimonial unworthiness of the confession.
- The essence of the plea of guilty in a criminal trial is that the accused, on
arraignment, admits his guilt freely, voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the
consequences and meaning of his act, and with a clear understanding of the precise
nature of the crime or crimes charged in the complaint or information.
- Such a plea of guilty, when formally entered on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a
conviction of any offense charged in the information.
Section 34.Similar acts as evidence. – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
1. Source
This provision is a reproduction of Section 48, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court with the
following differences:
a. The title of the section “Evidence of similar acts” has been changed to “Similar acts as
evidence” in the present.
b. The words “omitted to” in the Rules of Court have been deleted in the present
provision;
c. The words “did not” have been added in the present provision.
2. In general
The general rule is that the law will not consider evidence that a person has done a
certain act at a particular time as probative of a contention that he has done a similar act at
another time.
However, there is no rule of law which prevents the trial of collateral issues, since the
objection thereto is purely a practical one, and the general rule is that the admission of
evidence of similar acts or occurrences as proof that a particular act was done or that a certain
occurrence happened, rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, provided the conditions
are substantially the same.
3. Reasons for the rule
It is improper for the court to assume that the motive of the previous crimes is
continuing and is the basis of the present crime.
If evidence of previous crimes is to be used, the accused shall face charges which he has
no information and confuses him in his defense.
Evidence of collateral matters must not be received as substantive evidence of the
offenses in the present trial.
The general rule is that evidence is not admissible which shows that the accused in a
criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense of the present
trial.
A man may have committed many crimes, and still be innocent of the crime presently
charged.
One who commits one crime may be more likely to commit another; yet, logically, one
crime does not prove another, nor tend to prove another, unless there is such a relation
between them that proof of one tends to prove the other.
Intent is of course entirely distinct from intention (design, plan). The latter is almost
always an evidential fact only, but the former is a fact-in-issue, being usually an element
of the offense or of the evil act done.
Intent is a specific state of mind at the very time of the act charged.
Examples:
a. In a shooting, the nature of the offense depends on the state of mind as to aiming at
a person, or just cleaning the gun, etc.;
b. In the delivery of money, the intent at that time determines whether it is a payment,
or a loan or a deposit.
The person’s conduct is naturally the chief circumstantial evidence of this intent – as it is
also of a plan.
Evidence which tends to show scienter or such knowledge on the part of the accused as
is necessary to constitute his act a crime is admissible.
Examples:
a. On a charge against X, a clerk, of stealing from his employer’s sage, the safe having
been opened by manipulating the combination lock, X denied having knowledge of
such combination. Here the fact that X had been seen on a previous instance of
surreptitiously opening the safe would be admissible to show his knowledge.
b. On a charge against Z of uttering counterfeit money, to wit, a 100-peso bill, the fact
that Z had tried on other previous occasions, but unsuccessfully, to pay out similar
bills to A, B, and C is admissible to evidence his knowledge of the bill in issue being
counterfeit.
General Rule: Evidence of separate and independent crimes is inadmissible to prove the guilt
of a person upon trial for a criminal offense.
Exceptions:
When evidence tends to aid in identifying the accused as the person who committed the
particular crime under investigation.
There is a logical connection between the crimes that proof on one will naturally tend to
show that the accused is the person who committed the other.
Evidence of other crimes is competent in a criminal trial to prove the specific crime
charged when it tends to establish a common scheme, plan, or system embracing the
commission of two or more crimes so related to each other than proof of one tends to establish
the others, notwithstanding the general rule excluding evidence which shows, or tends to show
that the accused has committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on
trial.
Customs may, like any other facts or circumstances be shown when their existence will
increase or diminish the probability of an act having been done or not done, which act is the
subject of contest.
Upon a criminal prosecution for injuries caused by negligence, evidence of other acts,
disconnected though similar, is irrelevant. However, when a party is charged with the negligent
use of a dangerous agency, and the case against him is that he did not use care proportionate
to the danger, then the question becomes material whether he knew, or ought to have known,
the extent of danger.
In civil cases the rule as to proof of commission of an act by showing the commission of
similar acts by the same person at other times and under other circumstances is the same as in
a criminal prosecution.
Section 35. Unaccepted offer. – An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to
deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause,
equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property.
1. Source
This provision is a reproduction of Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court with the
only difference that the phrase “without valid cause” has been added in the present provision.
If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to
accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or
sum due.
According to the above provision, tender of payment must precede consignation, and
only when such tender is refused without just cause will the consignation of the thing or sum
due release the debtor from his obligation.
Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. – A witness
can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge, that is, which are
derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules
1. Source
The word “own” in the Rules of Court has been deleted in the present provision and the
word “personal” has been added.
2. Generally
The witness can testify only to those facts which he knows from his personal knowledge,
that is, which are derived from his own perception.
3. Hearsay evidence
Hearsay evidence has been defined as evidence which derives its value, not solely from
the credit to be given to the witness upon the stand, but in part from the veracity and
competency of some other persons.
Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony. A writing may be hearsay.
Evidence is hearsay when its probative value depends in whole or in part, on the
competency and credibility of some persons other that the witness.
Hearsay evidence is the evidence not of what the witnesses knows himself but of what he
has heard from others.
4. Reason for excluding hearsay evidence
One reason is the fact that hearsay testimony is not subject to the tests which can
ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment of the truth of testimony, since the
declarant is not present and available for cross-examination.
The court is without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by
observing the demeanor of the person who made them.
The hearsay rule does not apply where, regardless of the truth or the falsity of a
statement, the fact that it has been made is relevant, the hearsay rule does not apply,
but the statement may be shown.
Groups
Where the statements, or utterances of specific words, are the facts in issue, the
testimony of witnesses thereto is not hearsay.
In other words, if the fact sought to be established is, that certain words were spoken,
without reference to the truth or falsity of the words, the testimony of any person who
heard the statement is original evidence and not hearsay.
The statements from which the facts in issue may be inferred, may be testified to by
witnesses without violating the hearsay rule. Of this kind are:
a. Statements of a person showing his state of mind, that is his mental condition,
knowledge, belief, intention 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, knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the
latter;
d. Those which may identify the date, place, and person in question; and,
e. Those showing the lack of credibility of a witness.
8. Statements showing the speaker’s state of mind
Statements of a person which may fairly show his bodily condition at the time he made
the statements are admissible as circumstantial evidence of such condition.
When the bodily or mental feelings of an individual are material to be proved, the usual
expression of such feelings are original and competent evidence.
10. Statements of a person from which the state of mind of another may be inferred
Pertains to knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter may be
testified to by a witness without violating the hearsay rule.
Statements made out of court are admitted for the purpose of contradicting or
impeaching a witness.
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called . . . by evidence
that he had made at other times statements, inconsistent with present testimony . . .
If the statement is introduced for the purpose of establishing the fact that a party relied
and acted thereon, it is not objectionable on the ground of hearsay.
Reason: Both the original witness and the interpreter are under oath and subject to cross-
examination.
Exceptions:
a. The interpreter had been selected by common consent of the parties endeavoring to
converse; or,
b. By the party against whom the statements of the interpreter were offered in evidence.
15. Presumption that testimony is not hearsay
16. Objection to hearsay cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
The Supreme Court held that although the question of admissibility of evidence cannot raised
for the first time on appeal, yet if the evidence is hearsay, it has no probative value and
should be disregarded whether objected or not.
There is no good reason why a hearsay declaration, which within itself contains a
hearsay statement, should not be admissible to prove the truth of the included statement, if
both the statement and the included statement meet the tests of an exception to the hearsay
rule.
Section 37. Dying declaration. – The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
a. Necessity – because the declarant’s death renders impossible his taking the witness
stand; and it happens often that there is o other equally satisfactory proof of the crime.
It does not violate the constitutional right of the accused to confront and cross-examine
the witness against him, because the person who testifies to the dying declarations is the
witness against the accused and the witness with whom the accused is entitled to be
confronted.
4. Scope
Only in homicide cases for the killing of the declarant and now its extended to civil
cases.
A proper predicate must be laid for the introduction of dying declaration. The proper
predicate is the proof that the declarant has made his declaration under a consciousness
of impending death.
It is generally a sufficient predicate to show, by the repeated assertions of the declarant,
that he was about to die; it may be laid by showing that the surrounding circumstances
were of such a character as to satisfy the court that the declarant believed that he
would die.
9. When declaration of a dying man may be admissible not as a dying declaration but as part
of res gestae
Where a man after having been seriously wounded was taken to a municipal building
and there he told a person in authority that he had been wounded by the accused that
statement, although not admissible as dying declaration because it was not made in the belief
that the declarant was about to die, yet it is admissible as part of the res gestae.
Dying declarations, when admitted, are subject to impeachment in the same manner
and for the same causes that the testimony of a witness given on the witness stand may be
impeached.
Dying declarations are given great weight since it is made at the point of death.
Courts, however, must not be unmindful of the fact that men on the very threshold of
death had sometimes been swayed by a spirit of vindictive revenge or heated passion or
by a desire to shield themselves or others even in making ante-mortem statements.
Section 38. Declaration against interest. – The declaration made by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration
was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable
man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true,
may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third
persons.
1. Source
This is a reproduction of Section 33, Rule 130 of the Rules with the difference that the
phrase “or outside the Philippines” and the words “pecuniary or moral” have been deleted in
the present provision.
The necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such evidence advisable and,
further that the reliability of such declarations asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary
or moral interest.
a. The admission is not necessarily against the interest of the person who made the
admission, while the present exception must be a declaration against interest;
b. An admission may be used although the admitter is still alive, while the present
exception refers to a declaration against interest of a deceased person; and,
c. An admission may be used only against the admitter and those identified with him in
legal interest while a declaration against interest admissible against third persons.
5. Scope
It is safe to assume that the declaration against interest under the present provision has
been expanded to include all kinds, i.e., pecuniary, proprietary, moral or penal interests.
Pertains to those which may bar in whole or in part the declarant’s money claim, or
which may give rise to a monetary claim against him, as for instance, where he acknowledges
that his credit is already paid or that he is indebted to some person.
Those which are at variance with the declarant’s property rights, as for instance, where
he, being in possession of a chattel or a piece of land, declares that he is not the owner thereof,
or that he is holding it as a mere trustee, or that he has already sold it, and the like.
Moral interest should not be confused with moral obligation, which is a duty which one
owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfill. For instance,
where a man owes a debt barred by the statute of limitations, this cannot be recovered by law,
though it subsists in morality and conscience.
This cannot be justified on grounds of policy. The only plausible reason of policy that has
ever been advanced for such a limitation is the possibility of procuring fabricated
testimony to such an admission if oral.
The inclusion of declarations against penal interest in the exception for declarations
against interest has raised a host of intertwined constitutional and evidentiary problems
in the United States.
See People v. Toledo (51 Phils. 825).
Sec. 39 .
Act or Declaration about Pedigree.
Pedigree defined.
- It is the history of the family descent which is transmitted from one generation to another
by both oral and written declarations and by traditions.
- May includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and
places where these facts occurred, the names of the relatives, and the facts of family history
intimately connected.
- Includes also paternity and legitimacy.
Reason of Admissibility
To avoid a failure of justice, as greater evils are apprehended from the rejection of such proof
than from its admission and that individuals are generally supposed to know and to be
interested in those facts of family history about which they converse, and that they are
generally under little temptation to state untruths in respect to such matter.
Requisites for Admissibility
a) Declarant is dead or unable to testify
- Declarations will not be received when better evidence is available, in case his alive and
able his direct testimony is considered a better evidence.
- The fact that there are living members of the family who could be examined on the
same point does not exclude the declaration.
- Declarations are admissible when the declarant is dead, outside of the Philippines, or
when his testimony is unobtainable, like when he becomes insane, declarations made
before his insanity are admissible.
e) The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must
be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration
- Generally, the relationship of declarant to the family concerned must be established by
evidence other than the statement of declarant himself.
- Exception, where the subject of the declaration is the declarant’s own relationship to
another person it seems absurd to require, as a foundation for the admission of the
declaration, proof of the very facts which the declaration is offered to establish.
- Evidence to prove relationship may either direct or circumstantial, such as declarant’s
bearing the family name or a name identical with that of the subject of declaration,
recognition of declarant by the family, or mention of him in family conveyance and
other dispositions of property.
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, engravings on rings, family
portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
Reputation or Tradition in matters of pedigree
- meant such declaration and statements as have come down from generation to generation
from deceased relatives in such a way even though it cannot be said or determined which
of the deceased relatives originally made them, or was personally cognizant of the facts
therein stated.
- It appears that such declarations and statement were made as family history, ante litem
motam (before the controversy), by a deceased person connected by blood or marriage
with the person whose pedigree is to be established.
Reason for Admissibility
- Family affairs are constantly talked over in the family, and the members who know what
happened tell what they know, with spontaneous sincerity, to those who did not know.
- Declaration as to pedigree made by deceased although based upon hearsay within the
family, and that, having been made before any controversy had arisen, there is no motive to
speak other than the truth.
Requisites for Admissibility
a) There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any members of a family
- Reputation in the family gives rise to an inference to the existence of such facts as
birth, descent, failure of issue, heirship, identity, marriage, celibacy, parentage, or
relationship; or facts incidentally connected with genealogy, such as residence or the
dates of events of family history; and evidence of such reputations will be received on
an issue of pedigree concerning any member of any branch of the family
- Tradition in the family, being a form of family history or reputation is admissible to
prove facts of genealogy
Age –
- Members of the family of the person in question, or others having an intimate
acquaintance with the family, may testify as to age, although their testimony is based
on family tradition or reputation
Death –
- Evidence of reputation in the family or in the community or family tradition, has been
held admissible to establish the fact of death, provided there has been a considerable
lapse of time.
- Hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove the manner or cause of death.
b) The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person, concerned existed previous to
the controversy
- Common reputation or tradition arising after the controversy is supposed to be tainted
with bias and therefore unreliable.
c) The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person
concerned must be a member of the family of said person, either by consanguinity or
affinity.
- Relationship between the witness and the family need not be proved by independent
evidence; it may be shown by the witness’ own testimony.
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.
Sec. 43
Entries in the course of business
Entries made at, or near the time of transactions to which they refer, by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated,
may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his
professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course
of business or duty.
General Rule
- Books of account of a party or entries therein, are admissible in his favor to show the
recorded transactions when a proper foundation is laid and the requisites to admissibility
have been met.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Necessity – is given as a ground for admitting entries in that they are the best available
evidence
b) Trustworthiness
Requisites for Admissibility
a) Entries must have been made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer
- It is sufficient if they are made within a reasonable time thereafter, in the ordinary
course of the business of the party making them
b) Entrant must have been in a position to know the facts stated in the entries
- If the entry is based on reports, oral or written, numerous persons cooperating, who
had personal knowledge of their own items but did not themselves make the entries,
the entries may be received, either by calling the entrant alone to the stand or by the
testimony of one who can verify the method of compiling them.
c) Entries must have been made by entrant in his professional capacity or in the performance
of his duty
- To constitute a profession, the employment or vocation must be such as exacts the
use or application of special learning or attainment of some kind.
- Where the entry was made in the a professional capacity and in the course of
professional conduct, or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular
course of business or duty, there are three guarantees of their trustworthiness.
i. Habit and system of making record with regularity result in accuracy;
ii. Errors may easily be detected because the entries are made in the regular course
of professional conduct, performance of duty, or the ordinary and regular duties
of the person making the entries; and
iii. If the entries are made in pursuance of his duty, legal or to a superior, the
additional risk of censure and disgrace to the entrant makes them presumably
correct.
d) Entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty
- Hence, such entries made constitute only one of a variety of circumstances,
sanctioned by judiciary practice, acceptable as presumptive evidence of the accuracy
and truthfulness of the entry and as a practical substitute for the conventional test of
cross-examination.
e) Entrant must be deceased or unable to testify
- In order to qualify an entry, there must be a necessity for its admission as evidence
and this is satisfied by proof of the death of the entrant.
- When declarant is alive, entries may be used as memorandum to refresh his memory
as witness.
Mode of Proving Entries
- It is required that the entries be properly identified or authenticated, and generally, their
completeness, and correctness, regularly, and fairly as well as the method of making them,
must be established
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.
General Rule
- The division of documentary evidence embracing public or official records and reports
includes acts of the legislature, judicial records, and records and reports of administrative
officers.
- Any such record or document or a properly authenticated copy or transcript thereof is
admissible in the trial of an action, subject to the same requirements of relevancy and
materiality as apply to private writings.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Necessity – consists in the practical impossibility of requiring the official’s attendance as a
witness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his duty and
requiring to be evidence.
b) Trustworthiness –
i. in the sense of official duty which has led to the making of the statement;
ii. in the penalty which usually is affixed to a breach of that duty;
iii. in the routine and disinterested origin of most of such statements; and
iv. I the publicity of record, which makes more likely the prior exposure of such errors as
might have occurred
Requisites for Admissibility
a) That the written statement was made by 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 a duty specially enjoined by
law; and
c) That the public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him
state, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information
Public Officer
- It is not necessary that the record, should be kept by the chief public officer himself, it is
sufficient if the entries are made under his direction by person authorized by him.
Performance of Duty by Public Officer
- It is essential that the official statement should have been made by a public officer in the
performance of his duty, or by another person in the performance of his duty, specially
enjoined by law.
Unavailability of Entrant Need not be Shown
- His absence is being excused from appearing in court in order that public business be not
deranged.
Proof of Official Entries
- Entries may be proved by the production of the books or records themselves or by a copy
certified by the legal keeper thereof.
Authentication
- The extraordinary degree of confidence reposed in documents of a public nature is founded
principally upon the circumstance that they have been made by authorized and accredited
agents appointed for the purpose.
Probative value
- Entries in public records made by a public officer in the performance of the duty specially
enjoined by law are only prima facie evidence of the fact therein stated, and their probative
value may be either substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence.
SECTION 45, RULE 130
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.
The admissibility of commercial lists and the like as evidence even though the authors,
compilers or publishers thereof cannot be cross-examined as witness is based on necessity and
trustworthiness; necessary to because of the inaccessibility of the authors, computers, or
publisher in other jurisdiction but also because the great practical inconvenience in summoning
each individual whose personal knowledge has gone to make up the final result.
Market reports or quotations, trade journals, trade circulars, price lists and the like
Admissible as evidence; Such reports, being based upon a general survey of the whole market
and constantly received and acted upon by dealers, are far more satisfactory and reliable than
individual entries or individual sales or inquiries.
Authentication
Learned treaties are admissible in evidence to prove the truth of a matter stated therein, (a) if
the court takes judicial notice that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical, or
pamphlet, is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject, (b) o 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.
Reason for admissibility
Necessity and Trustworthiness. Necessity because of the unavailability of the expert witness to
testify on the matter or if available, because of the tremendous expense in hiring them.
Trustworthiness because the learned witness in writing his work or article has no motive to
misrepresent . Another reason is that the writer of a learned treatise is more careful of what he
writes because he knows that every statement he makes will be subject to criticism and open to
refutation. Still another reason is that writers of learned treatise with no view to litigation and
not for a free as expert witness.
Historical Works
Historical facts of general and public notoriety may be proved by reputation; and that
reputation may be established by historical works of known character and accuracy. But
evidence of this sort is confined in a measure to ancient facts, the assumption being that better
evidence is not in existence.
Scientific Treatise
Much of the scientific knowledge of experts in medicine, surgery, mechanics, chemistry, and
other fields of specialized learning is derived from scientific books and treatises; their
knowledge would, in general, be small had they got availed themselves of the fruits of the
research and experience of their predecessors as taught in books. This opinion of expert
witnesses must be founded in some degree upon such books; in fact, they may, as a general
rule, in support of their professional opinions, read in evidence from standard scientific works
which are recognized as such by the profession in which they are engaged.
General exception: When they contain statements of ascertained facts rather than of opinions,
or which, by long use in the practical affairs of life, have come to be accepted as standard and
unvarying authority in determining the action of those who use them.
Law
When the law involved in a controversy is a domestic law, the court is bound to take judicial
notice thereof, and no proof is necessary whatever. Foreign law, a distinction as to proof is laid
down between written and unwritten law. Written law may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested to by the officer having legal custody of the record, or
by his deputy, and must be accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the custody. In
Unwritten law, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed and
published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the country concerned if proved to be
commonly admitted in such courts.
Under our rules of private international law, foreign law is considered as any other matter of
fact, which must be properly pleaded and proved. If not properly proved, the presumption
arises that foreign law is the same as domestic law.
Philippine Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign law. Failure to prove foreign law
whether unwritten under rule 130, sec. 46 or written under rule 132, sec. 24, raises the
presumption that the law is the same as ours. (Yao kee v. Sy Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736)
Generally, the mere fact that testimony has been given in the course of a former proceeding
between the parties to a case on trial is no ground for its admission in evidence. The law
recognizes, however, that it is sometimes impossible to produce a witness who has testified at
a former trial, as where he dies or become insane before the later trial. In such cases, where the
second action is between the same parties or their privies and involves the same issues, the
testimony of the witness as taken at the former hearing or trial is, according to practically all
decisions, admissible in later one as one of the exceptions to the rule excluding hearsay
testimony.
Necessity for the testimony and its Trustworthiness. Inasmuch as the former witness could no
longer testify, his former testimony having been given in a former action under the solemnity of
an oath is admissible to prevent failure of justice.
Requisites
If testimony at a former trial is reduced to writing, such writing is the primary evidence thereof
and should be used. E.g. stenographic note
SECTION 48, RULE 140
General rule.—The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following
sections.
Opinion defined
An inference or conclusion drawn by a witness from facts, some of which are known to him and
others assumed, or drawn from facts, which although leading probability to the inference, do
not evolve it by a process of absolutely necessary reasoning.
Rule of exclusion
Under ordinary circumstances a witness in testifying is to be restricted to the facts within his
knowledge, and his opinion or conclusion with respect to the matters in issue or relevant to the
issue may not be received in evidence. However, when the conclusion to be drawn from the
facts stated depends on scientific knowledge or skill, not within the range of ordinary training
or intelligence, the conclusion may be stated by qualified expert.
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
witness as an expert. Knowledge acquired by doing is no less valuable than that acquired by
study. (Dilag Co. v. Merced, 1949)
Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the sense that they must be accepted as
true on the subjrct of their testimony, but are generally regarded as purely advisory; the courts
may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimony and may reject it, if they find that
it is inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable.
I. IN GENERAL
* Opinion evidence defined. – “Opinion evidence,” as the term is used in law, means the
testimony of a witness, given in the trial of an action, that the witness is of the opinion that
some facts pertinent to the case exist or does not exist, offered as proof of the existence or
non-existence of that fact.
* Expert evidence defined. – Expert evidence is the testimony of persons who are particularly
skilled, or experienced in a particular art, science, trade, business, profession, or vocation, a
thorough knowledge of which is not possessed by man in general, in regard to matters
connected therewith.
* “Expert” defined. – An expert may be defined as a person who is so qualified, either by actual
experience or by careful study, as to enable him to form a definite opinion of his own
respecting any decision of science, branch of art, or department of trade about which persons
having no particular training or special study are incapable of forming accurate opinions or of
deducing correct conclusions.
* Expert witness distinguished from skilled witness. -- Ordinarily, a witness is said to testify as
an expert when a state of facts, observed by someone else, is hypothetically submitted to the
witness, and he is asked in view of those facts, to state what his opinion is, whereas a man
skilled in a particular business, who makes his own observations, and testifies to what he has
observed and his conclusions therefrom, is regarded as a skilled witness.
* Classes of cases in which opinion evidence is admissible. -- There are two distinct classes of
cases in which expert testimony is admissible.
1) In one class are those cases in which conclusions to be drawn by the judge depend on
the existence of facts which are not common knowledge and which are peculiarly within
the knowledge of men whose experience or study enables them to speak with authority
upon the subjects in question.
2) In the other class are those cases, in which the conclusions to be drawn from the facts
stated, as well as knowledge of the facts themselves, depend on professional or
scientific knowledge not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence.
First, the subject under examination must be one that requires that the court has the
aid of knowledge or experience such as men not especially skilled do not have, and such
therefore as cannot be obtained from the ordinary witnesses.
Second, the witness called as an expert must possess the knowledge, skill, or experience
needed to inform the court in the particular case under consideration.
Third, like other evidence, expert testimony is not admissible as to a matter not in issue.
* Generally. – Before an expert witness may be required to give an opinion, the party
presenting him must first establish that he is an expert on the subject upon which he is called to
testify.
* Direct examination.
(a) Opinion based on facts known personally by the expert. - Where the expert witness
is required to give an opinion based upon facts upon which he knows personally, he
must first state those facts before giving an opinion thereon.
(b) Opinion based on facts of which he has no personal knowledge. – If the expert has
no personal knowledge of the facts on which his opinion is based, they should be given
to him hypothetically, that is, they must assume the state of facts upon which his
opinion is desired.
* Hypothetical question. – Hypothetical questions must include only facts that are supported
by evidence and should embody substantially all facts relating to the particular matter upon
which an expert opinion is sought to be elicited, but they need not include all facts pertinent to
the ultimate issue.
* Form of hypothetical question. – Generally speaking a hypothetical question should state all
the facts relevant to the formation of an opinion, and then, assuming the facts stated to be
true, ask the witness whether he is able to form an opinion therefrom, and, if so, to state such
opinion.
Hypothetical question involves two distinct elements, namely, premise and inference or
conclusion based on premise.
* When abstract questions permissible. – Purely abstract questions, assuming facts or theories
for which there is no foundation in the evidence, are not admissible as a matter of right,
although such questions may be permitted on cross-examination for the purpose of testing the
knowledge of the witness as to the subject on which he has testified.
* Opinion of expert based on hearsay inadmissible. – The rule is well established that hearsay
in the form of information gained from the statements of others outside the courtroom may
not be the basis of an expert opinion.
* Opinion involving questions of law inadmissible. – It may be laid down as a general rule that
a witness is never permitted to give his opinion on a question of domestic law or upon matters,
which involve questions of law.
* Opinion on the ultimate fact in issue inadmissible. –While an expert may be permitted to
express his opinion, or even his belief, he cannot give his opinion upon the precise or ultimate
fact in issue before the court, which must be determined by it.
* Impeachment of expert witness. – The weight to be given the judgment of a skilled witness
may be impaired by the various methods employed in the case of other testimony. He may be
contradicted by others in his own class or by any competent witness or by use of exhibits; or
the weight of his testimony may be impaired by showing that he is interested or biased; that
others have at a prior time refused to accept the opinion expressed; that he made inconsistent
statements at another time, provided a proper foundation is laid therefore; that he formed a
different opinion at another time; that he did not express the opinion testified to at a time
when such an expression might reasonably have been expected, or that he changed sides in the
case.
* Courts not bound by testimony of expert. – Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in
the sense that they must be accepted as true on the subject of their testimony, but are
generally regarded as purely advisory in character; the courts may place whatever weight they
choose upon such testimony and may reject it, if they find that it is consistent with the facts in
the case or otherwise unreasonable.
2009 JURISPRUDENCE
F (father) sold his property to his children A, B, C, and D (excluding E, the eldest) due to
failing health. Indeed, a deed of absolute sale was signed by the former conveying the said
property and was witnessed by two persons and notarized by a notary public.
E learned of such sale when an ejectment suit was filed against him. Upon the advice of
his counsel, he had the documents examined by the PNP. As a result, the PNP came up with the
conclusion that the signatures were written by two different people.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the court is bound to give evidentiary value of the opinion of the
PNP.
RULING:
Under the Rules of Court, the following may prove the genuineness of handwriting:
(1) A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument;
(2) A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion
being an exception to the opinion rule;
(3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimen
thereof; and
(4) Expert evidence. (Sec. 49 Rule 130) - The law makes no preference, much less distinction
among and between the different means stated above in proving the handwriting of a person.
It is likewise clear from the foregoing that courts are not bound to give probative value or
evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not
mandatory.
* Weight of expert testimony. – Under the usual circumstances expert opinion evidence is to
be considered or weighed by the court like other testimony, in the light of their own general
knowledge and experience in the subject of inquiry; the court cannot arbitrarily disregard the
testimony of experts or skilled witnesses, and make an unsupported finding contrary to the
opinion.
* Generally. – The most common subjects of expert testimony are handwriting, including
typewritten documents, ballistic, mental condition, cause of death or injury and value of real
property including market value.
A. HANDWRITING
* Handwriting expert. – There is no test by which one can determine with precision how much
experience or knowledge of handwriting a witness must have in order to qualify as an expert
for comparison.
*Function of handwriting expert. – No handwriting expert should wish for his testimony to be
received as unquestionable authority, the idea being rather that it is the function of the expert
to place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion.
An expert on handwriting may give not only an opinion upon the authenticity of writing,
but also, in his examination in chief, the reasons for his opinion.
* Two problems in handwriting identification. – There are two main problems in handwriting
identification.
* General appearance or pictorial effect. – The first test applied to a disputed writing by nearly
every examiner is the test of general appearance or pictorial effect as compared with the
genuine standard of writing.
The qualities and characteristics of any handwriting as determined and classified in a thorough
examination are;
It therefore follows that handwriting has a certain field of possible and expected variation and
without a sufficient quantity of standard writing significant habits cannot be determined, and
the value and force of characteristics cannot be definitely known.
* Use of writings other than those in issue. – There is a direct conflict of authority on the
question of whether an expert handwriting witness may be tested as to the accuracy of his
knowledge by the use of writings others than those in issue. The majority rule is that
submitting to him may not test such a witness, and eliciting his opinion as to the genuineness of
other writings not admitted or proved to be genuine. But in at least two jurisdictions it has
been held that writings neither admitted nor proved to be genuine, and even though otherwise
irrelevant, may be used to test an expert handwriting witness.
3) General characteristics or national features and elements are not alone sufficient on
which to have a judgment of identity of two writings, although these characteristics necessarily
have as evidence of identity, as stated above, if present in sufficient number and in
combination with individual qualities and characteristics.
* Exact coincidence between two signatures. – It is a first principle in writing that exact
coincidence between two signatures is absolute proof that one or the other is a forgery. There
must be some difference before authentically can be admitted; and the general rule is that
authenticity reposes upon a general characteristics resemblance, coupled with specific
differences, such as naturally result from the infinite variety of conditions controlling the
muscles of the writer at each separate effort in forming his signature.
* Test for determining identity or non-identity. – In order to reach the conclusion that two
writings are by the same hand there must not only be present general characteristics but also
individual characteristics or ‘dents and scratches,’ in sufficient quantity to exclude the theory of
accidental coincidence; to reach the conclusion that writings are by different hands we may find
numerous likenesses in general characteristics but divergence in individual characteristics, or
we may find divergences in both, but the divergence must be something more than mere
superficial differences.
* A favorite defense of forgery. – One of the favorite defenses of forgery is the argument that
the numerous damaging divergences in a disputed signature, which in combination are highly
significant as evidence that it is not genuine, can each be found separately in one signature out
of a great number of signatures, and that this proves that the disputed signature is genuine.
Even if they could be found, this would not be proof of genuineness. The incompetent or the
insincere witness, or the advocate, who is defending forgery, will often laboriously seek out
these separated and only partially exemplified qualities, and then argue that the disputed
signature and the genuine writing are just alike.
* Circumstances that may induce expert to give erroneous opinion. – Identity is proved when
two handwritings both contain a sufficient number of significant characteristics; qualities and
elements so that it is unreasonable to say that they would all accidentally coincide in two
different handwritings.
* Osborn’s suggestion in presenting expert testimony. – There are certain preliminary details
in connection with the presentation of testimony of a technical character that deserve some
attention. Before an expert or opinion witness is allowed to testify the law requires that he be
“qualified” in a legal way to give expert testimony. This qualifying process consists in showing
that the witness has had such preparation and experience as to legally qualify him to give an
opinion in court on the subject in dispute.
B. TYPEWRITTEN DOCUMENTS
* Skilled typist. – Skilled typist may be permitted to state inference that two pages of minute
book of corporation were written by different typists using different machines.
* Typewriting characteristics.
The first fact to be considered in investigating the date of a typewriting is to find when a
certain kind of machine, the work of which is in question, first came into use, and then it is
important to learn, and to be able to prove, when any changes in the machine were made that
affected the written record.
* The most important typewriting inquiry. – Perhaps the most important typewriting inquiry is
the determination whether a typewritten document is the work of a particular individual
machine. There usually are two steps in an inquiry of this kind;
1) The first being the determination of the fact that the document was written on a
certain particular kind of machine,
2) And the second that it was written on a certain individual machine of that particular
kind
* Comparison of typewriting or printing. – The authorities dealing with the question whether
typewritten instruments can be identified as to genuineness by the peculiarity of the writing in
much the same manner as handwriting has been identified appear to agree that typewriting
possesses such individuality that it can be identified in much the same manner as handwriting,
by comparison with other typewriting and by expert testimony. The theory underlying this rule
is that where an impression is made on paper y an instrument, which possesses a defect or
peculiarity, the identity of the instrument may be proved by the similarity of the defects, which
it impresses on different papers.
C. FINGERPRINTS
D. BALLISTICS
* Ballistics expert. – He is one who is qualified to give expert opinion on firearms and
ammunition. No witness should be permitted to testify regarding the identification of firearms
and bullets by the use of this science unless he has clearly shown that he is qualified to give
such testimony. In a trial, it is necessary that the instrument, such as a weapon involved in a
crime, be tested and demonstrated.
* The problem of determining whether or not a given bullet was fired from a suspected
firearm. – This problem can be solved only if it is possible to establish: (a) that the signature on
the given bullet was engraved by a firearm with the same class characteristics as those if the
suspected firearm; (b) that the same combination of identifying elements exists in the signature
on all bullets (except those undersize) fired from the suspected firearms at the time, and all
variations found in these signatures can be reconciled; (c) that the same combination of
identifying elements exists in the signature on the given bullet; (d) that all variations existing in
the signature on the given bullet and the signatures of the suspected firearm can be reconciled;
and (e) that the identifying elements determined from a combination the coexistence of which
is highly improbable in the signatures of other firearms with the same class characteristics.
* The problem of determining whether or not a fired cartridge case was fired in a suspected
firearm. – The first step in the solution of this problem is to compare the signature on the given
cartridge case with the signature on a test cartridge case to determine whether or not the given
cartridge case was fired in a firearm with the same class characteristics as those of the
suspected firearm. If the requisite agreement in class characteristics is found to exist and the
reference point is established on the given cartridge case, the next step is to compare the
signature on two or more test cartridge cases to determine the identities and to reconcile the
diversities.
* Weight of ballistics expert’s opinion. – A ballistics expert conclusion that bullets were fired
from a particular gun does not invade the province of the court. Testimony that he was
convinced, as a result of the test made by him, that a bullet found at the scene of the homicide
was fired through the pistol in evidence, which admittedly belonging to defendant, is an
expression of an opinion based on his observations, and not objectionable as stating a fact, and
thus invading the province of the court.
E. PARAFFIN OR NITRATE TEST
* Method to determine whether a person has recently fired a gun. – It is usual in criminal
investigations of cased of murder or homicide to apply nitrate test commonly known as paraffin
test on the hands of the suspected person to determine whether or not such person has
recently fired a gun. (People vs. Timbol, G.R. Nos. 47471, 47472 and 47473).
* Cause of death. – Where a body had been found but the cause of death is unknown, opinions
of experts are generally indispensable to assist the court in determining whether the death was
caused by accident, disease or violence. The cause of death of a person is considered so within
the range of scientific knowledge that medical expert testimony is admissible as to such cause;
or as to the different ways in which the death might have been caused, that death did or did
not result from a given wound or injury, which of several bullet wounds was the most fatal
where a person died after being shot several times or how long a person had been dead. Such
testimony is not proper to contradict eyewitnesses.
* Manner and cause of death. – In all cases where cause of death is not one common
observation or knowledge, physicians and surgeons – medical experts – may give opinion
testimony, derived from their own observations of the body of the deceased or from scientific
deductions from given facts, as to the probable causes of death, provided there are sufficient
facts in evidence upon which to base the conclusion.
* Character of weapon inflicting wound. – A competent expert may testify from the nature of a
wound as to the character of the weapon which caused it, and even non-expert testimony is
sometimes accepted in this connection.
* Whether wound or other injuries were self-inflicted. – The general rule seems to be that
opinions as to whether wounds and injuries were or were not self inflicted and not admissible
where the facts are fully presentable to the court and are such that special knowledge or skill is
not an essential to the formation of an intelligent opinion upon the question; but where such
knowledge or skill is necessary or where the facts cannot be fully represented, the opinions of
witnesses having such knowledge or skill are admissible as an aid to the court.
* General rule. – Mental incapacity is a field in which the opinions of experts are frequently to
for the purpose of aiding the court in drawing inferences from facts, which have been detailed
to it. Medical experts and experts with relation to mental diseases may give an opinion upon
the mental condition of the witness, based upon facts and circumstances within their own
observations; upon hypothetical questions based upon facts and circumstances in evidence;
and upon facts detailed by the witnesses.
* Expert witness. – He should have a general knowledge as a medical man or with scientific
training upon the subject. Those who have had the care of insane persons are generally
received as competent including physicians in general practice and trained nurses who are
accustomed to attend upon the sick.
* Opinion evidence on the value of personal and real property. – Opinion evidence is usually
admitted from persons, who are not strictly experts, but who from residing and doing business
in the vicinity have familiarized themselves with land values and are more able to form and
opinion on the subject at issue.
* Expert evidence on the value of land taken by eminent domain. – A person engaged in a
business of holding a public office, which required the knowledge of real estate values is a
competent witness as to the value of land with which he is familiar. The opinions of experts as
to value, however, are not to be passively received and blindly followed, but are to be weighed
by the court and judged in view of all testimony in the case and the judge own personal
knowledge of affairs.
* Market value. – The price fixed by the buyer and the seller in the open market in the usual
and ordinary course of legal trade and competition; the price and value established or shown
by sale, public or private, in the ordinary course of business; the fair value of the property as
between one who desires to sell and one who desires to purchase; and the general or ordinary
price at which property may be bought and sold in a given locality.
* Assessed value. – Assessed value may be admitted as evidence but it is of little value ina
judicial investigation to determine the market value of the property.
1. Age
2. Bloodstains
3. Hair
4. X-ray, pictures
5. Characters in certain writings which needs to be deciphered
6. Language in certain writings not understood by the court
7. Unwritten law
8. Proof of unwritten foreign laws
* Qualification of witness. – The witness must be shown to the satisfaction of the court to
possess sufficient knowledge to render his evidence of value.
* Opinions of courts of foreign states and nations. – Judicial opinions offered as proof of the
unwritten law of a foreign state or nation have been held admissible in evidence, even in the
absence of a statutory provision authorizing the admission thereof in evidence. However, the
fact that a purported decision does not appear in the original reports has been held sufficient
ground for disregarding it, although it does appear in an unofficial publication.
Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is
given, may be received in evidence regarding —
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance of a person. (44a)
1. Source. – This provision is a reproduction of Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
2. In general. – Well-settled is the rule that a witness can testify to those facts only which he
knows of his own knowledge; he should not be allowed to state conclusions or inferences
which are for the court to make.
3. Proper basis or predicate for witness’ opinion. – Before an ordinary witness may be
allowed to give his opinion on the identity, handwriting, the mental sanity of a person, or to
give his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person, the
proper basis or predicate upon which he bases his opinion must first be laid.
4. Opinion of ordinary witness as to identity of a person. – An ordinary witness may give his
opinion regarding the identity of a person when he has adequate knowledge of his identity.
Because of the difficulty of describing the circumstances which established identity in terms
conveying the idea of identification, witnesses who are shown to be qualified by their
opportunities for observation are permitted to testify as to the identity of persons or things.
The rule applies to criminal prosecutions as well as to civil actions. There are, however,
instances in which opinions have been excluded – usually, it seems, because of the facts of
the particular case.
Under the present rule, the statements of the witness as to identity are not to be rejected
because he is unable to describe the features of the person in question, or the latter’s
clothing or other particulars on which the witness’ conclusion depends. Identification may
be based upon voice alone; and it is obviously impossible for a witness to describe tones of
voice in such a manner that from the description alone the court can arrive at any
satisfactory conclusion.
Non-expert witnesses may not express an opinion on the genuineness of a writing solely
from comparison, but they may express an opinion based on the knowledge received from
the handwriting of the party whom they saw write.
“The testimony of the notary public, who was not only an instrumental witness himself but
also an officer of the court, and whose act of notarization impressed upon the disputed
Deed of Absolute Sale, the full faith and credit which attaches to a public instrument,
explicitly identifying the signatures of the parties to the instrument and expressly and
forthrightly stating that both had appeared before him and affixed their signatures to the
said document, must be held to control and prevail over the opinion or conclusion of
petitioner’s expert witness.” – Alcos, et. al vs. Intermediate Appeallate Court.
An ordinary witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of an individual, if such
opinion is drawn from the conduct of the latter, since there can be no doubt that persons of
common sense, conversant with mankind, and having a practical knowledge of the world, if
brought into the presence of a lunatic would, in a short time, be enabled to form an
accurate and reliable opinion, not, perhaps, of the specific and precise character of the
insanity as referable to a particular class of the insane malady, but certainly, in a general
way, of his mental unsoundness.
8. Reason for the rule. – Reasons for this rule are found in the considerations that the facts
showing insanity, in their entirety, frequently elude accurate, complete and detailed
statement and consequently render it difficult to afford a satisfactory basis for the
judgment of an expert; that many witnesses can make a correct inference more readily than
they can make a detailed statement; that as commonly presented to observation, insanity is
really detected, if carried beyond a certain point; that an unskilled observer may be quite as
able as an expert to make a clear mental comparison between the acts and conduct of a
sane person and those of one who is laboring under mental disability; and that to reject the
inference of an observer with suitable opportunities and faculty for observation is to refuse
to consider evidence which is frequently of the highest possible value.
10. Negativing testamentary capacity. – The testimony of an attesting witness to a will tending
to show that the testator was of unsound mind or lacked testamentary capacity is
admissible. Such is held to be the rule, notwithstanding the view is taken that a person
requested to witness a will should observe the testator and be satisfied of his mental
capacity before signing as a witness. Although a person who attaches his name as a witness
to a testamentary instrument impliedly certifies that the testator is of sound mind and
competent to make a will, he will be permitted to contradict the attestation clause and
testify as to the actual facts. That the witness may deserve censure for having attested a
will of a person whom he is ready to declare of unsound mind when the validity of the
instrument is later brought into question is not a sufficient reason for refusing to hear such
testimony.
12. Opinion limited to expressions of his own impressions. – While one may testify in opinion
form as to impression made upon his own senses, he cannot go further and testify as to the
impression such facts would have had upon others. In a case decided by the Supreme Court
of Washington, the trial court refused to permit a witness shown to be acquainted with the
locale, to give his opinion as to whether a stranger driving over a certain street at night
would reasonably believe he was on a through street.
13. Hypothetical question not permissible. – A non-expert witness cannot give an opinion as to
the sanity or insanity of the accused based in whole or in part upon an abstract hypothetical
question, but must base his opinion solely upon his own personal knowledge, observation,
acquaintance, etc., with the accused.
14. Witness must give reason for his opinion. – In giving his opinion, the non-expert must state
facts upon which his opinion was based. It is indisputable that it should appear somewhere
in the testimony of the witness that he had the testimonial qualification of previous
observation of the person whose sanity he undertakes to give evidence. It must appear, as
a preliminary to the expression of his opinion that he has had the means of observation. He
must give the facts of his knowledge and acquaintanceship with the person concerning
whose sanity he is called to testify. After giving these facts, he may express his opinion.
The weight of the opinion, or its value, is then developed further by evidence of the
particular facts coming under his observation, and on which he bases his opinion.
People of the Philippines, vs. Efren Castillo, GR No. 186533, August 9, 2010
“The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence
regarding the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.”
Appellant anchors his argument for acquittal on the alleged failure of the prosecution to
establish AAA’s mental retardation to make him guilty of rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(b),
of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant concludes that his guilt has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court rejected the said argument.
Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence explicitly provides that the opinion of
a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding the mental
sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
Accordingly, it is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or
mental condition of a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to
observe the speech, manner, habits, and conduct of the person in question. Commonly, it is
required that the witness details the factors and reasons upon which he bases his opinion
before he can testify as to what it is.
In the case at bench, BBB testified that AAA has been suffering from epilepsy since she was
nine years old, which is one of the reasons why AAA was not able to finish her Grade I level.
AAA also had to stop schooling because she had difficulties understanding her lessons in
school, she cannot write well, she had poor memory and she had difficulty answering even
the simplest question asked of her. BBB further stated that AAA is the eldest of her four
children; however, compared to her younger siblings, AAA had a hard time comprehending
the instructions given to her at home and in school.
It bears stressing that the deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be
complete; mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient. Thus, it is clear from the foregoing
that AAA’s impaired learning capacity, lack of personal hygiene and difficulty in answering
simple questions, as testified to by her mother and the Guidance Psychologist who had an
opportunity to observe her appearance, manner, habits and behavior, are indicative that
she is truly suffering from some degree of mental retardation.
Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions: —
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it
tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.
1. Source. – This provision is a reproduction of Sections 46 and 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.
A. IN GENERAL
3. Character distinguished from reputation. – “Character” strictly speaking, means that which
a person or thing really is, while “reputation” means what a person is estimated, said,
supposed, or thought, to be by others. Character is internal, reputation is external; one is
the substance, the other is the shadow.
4. Good moral character defined. – Good moral character means a character that measures
up as good among the people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to
the standard of the average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior
and upright conduct.
5. Ways of proving good or bad character of a party. – The rule is that testimony to prove the
good or bad character of a party to a civil action or of the defendant in a criminal
prosecution must relate and be confined to the general reputation which such person
sustains in the community or neighborhood in which he lives or has lived.
6. Accused may prove his good moral character. – Proof of the good moral character of the
accused strengthens the presumption of his innocence; and by establishing good character
a presumption is created that the accused did not commit the crime. This view proceeds
upon the theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not likely to have
committed the act charged against him.
7. When accused may introduce evidence of his good moral character. – It is always relevant
for the defendant to offer affirmative evidence of good moral character, when the same is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
8. Time and place of accused character. – Evidence of the defendant’s character should be
confined to a time not very remote from the date of the commission of the crime. It should
relate to the time of the act in question and before. Generally speaking, it is the reputation
up to the time of the commission of the offense only which is admissible.
9. Accused cannot prove the good moral character of his co-accused; exception. – Though
the accused may prove his own character, he will not be permitted to prove that others
conspiring with him and jointly indicted, or who are suspected of complicity in the crime,
are men of good character. This evidence is not in the last relevant to show his innocence,
as the fact that the friends or acquaintances of the accused are men of unimpeachable
character, in no way proves that he is a person of good character.
10. Negative evidence of good character or reputation. – It is well settled that the testimony of
a witness to the effect that he has never heard anything against the character or reputation
of a person is admissible to prove the good character of such person, provided the witness
is shown to have been in such position that he would have heard anything that was said
concerning the person’s character or reputation. Negative evidence is viewed as the most
cogent evidence of a person’s good character and reputation, because in the absence of any
discussion about character, it may reasonably be presumed that the person’s reputation is
good.
11. No presumption may be inferred where defendant offers no evidence of his good
character. – If the defendant offers no evidence of his good character, no legal presumption
can be drawn from such omission prejudicial to the defendant, or that, his character is bad.
However, if he desires to put his character in issue, he has the right to the benefit of his
previous good character or reputation, so far as it is at variance with the crime charged.
12. Right of state to introduce evidence of bad moral character. – It is generally recognized
that the state cannot, in a criminal prosecution, introduce evidence attacking the character
of the accused, unless the accused first puts his good character in issue by introducing
evidence to sustain his good character or reputation or has become a witness in his own
behalf.
13. Evidence of specific acts not admissible to prove bad character. – Evidence of specific acts
or conduct of a person upon particular occasions bearing upon his character, is usually held
to be admissible. The admission of such evidence would raise collateral issues and divert
the mind of the judge from the matter at hand. Thus, the state in rebutting the evidence of
the defendant’s good character is confined to evidence showing his general reputation as to
having a bad character, and not to specific acts derogatory to his good character. One
accused of a crime cannot testify in defense that he has never before been accused of, or
arrested for, crime.
14. When evidence of specific acts admissible. – The reasons of practical policy affecting the
rule excluding proof of specific conduct of a party do not apply with the same force where
the character of third persons is involved.
15. When character is in issue in criminal cases. – Character may itself be a fact-in-issue. In
numerous offenses against social morality, as defined by the criminal law, the character of a
person may be an element in the offense.
Whether it is actual character or reputed character depends upon the policy and the words
of the local statute, as interpreted by the courts.
16. Moral character of the offended party. – The good or bad moral character of the offended
party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged. This rule is applied with frequency in cases of
homicide and sex offenses.
17. Character of offended party in rape and seduction cases. – In any prosecution involving the
unchaste act by a man against a woman, where the willingness of the woman is material,
such as rape and acts of lasciviousness, the woman’s character as to chastity is admissible to
show whether or not she consented to the man’s act. Thus, in the prosecution for rape, or
for enticement to prostitution, or in an action or prosecution for indecent assault (acts of
lasciviousness), the woman’s character as to chastity is admissible; but not in a prosecution
for rape under the age of consent.
18. Character of offended party in homicide cases. – On prosecution for homicide, evidence of
the bad character of the deceased is irrelevant, for as frequently said, the law protects
everyone from unlawful violence, regardless of character, and the service done the
community in ridding it of a violent and dangerous man is, in the eyes of the law, no
justification of the act.
19. Character of offended party in murder cases. – While the good or bad moral character of
the victim may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the
commission of an offense, such is not necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is
committed with treachery or premeditation.
20. Character evidence in civil cases. – Of character evidence in ordinary civil actions, even
those wherein fraud is imputed, it has been well observed that if such evidence is proper,
then a person may screen himself from the punishment due to fraudulent conduct till his
character becomes bad. Every man must be answerable for every improper act, and the
character of every transaction must be ascertained by its own circumstances, and not by
the character of the parties.
21. Distinction between the rule on character evidence in criminal and civil cases. – In criminal
cases, evidence of the good character of the accused is most properly and with good reason
admissible in evidence, because there is a fair and just presumption that a person of good
character would not commit a crime; but in civil cases, such evidence is with equal good
reason not admitted, because no presumption would fairly arise, in the very great
proportion of such cases, from the good character of the defendant, that he did not commit
the breach of contract or of civil duty alleged against him.
22. Where evidence of moral character admissible in civil cases. – As a general rule, the
character of a party to a civil action is not a proper subject of inquiry, for, while it is
recognized that ground for an inference of some logically probative force as to whether or
not a person did a certain act may be furnished by the fact that his character is such as
might reasonably be expected to predispose him toward or against such an act, this
consideration is outweighed by the practical objections to opening the door to this class of
evidence.
23. “Putting character in issue” or “character involved in the issue” construed. – “Putting
character in issue” or “character involved in the issue” is a technical expression, which does
not mean simply that the character may be affected by the result, but that it is of particular
importance in the suit itself, as the character of the plaintiff in an action of slander, or that
of a woman in an action on the case for seduction.
24. Evidence of moral character of a third person. – An issue in a civil case sometimes involves
a third person’s act having a moral quality. On such an issue, the third person’s moral trait
would have probative value, and there is no practical policy against it. Court sometimes
admit it, and sometimes exclude it.
25. Character in mitigation of damages or in excuse or defense to the action. – In some civil
actions, the measure of compensation may be affected by the plaintiff’s character.
D. CHARACTER OF WITNESS
26. Evidence of good character of witness. – Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been impeached. The character or reputation of a
witness must be attacked or impeached before testimony sustaining his character or
reputation can be admitted, but it is not necessary that character witnesses for
impeachment purposes should first be introduced if the veracity or character of the witness
been substantially impeached in other ways, especially if he is a stranger in the county
where the trial is being conducted. Evidence in rebuttal to sustain a witness’ character or
reputation has been assailed in order to discredit him, or when the opposite party brings
out matters, which, if true, tend to diminish the credibility of the witness by disparaging his
character.
Civil Service Commission vs. Allyson Belagan, GR No. 132164, October 19, 2004
“Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this
provision. Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense
charged. This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and
characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.”
It will be readily observed that the above provision pertains only to criminal cases, not to
administrative offenses. And even assuming that this technical rule of evidence can be
applied here, still, we cannot sustain respondent’s posture.
Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this
provision. Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense
charged. This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and
characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.
In the present administrative case for sexual harassment, respondent did not offer evidence
that has a bearing on Magdalena’s chastity. What he presented are charges for grave oral
defamation, grave threats, unjust vexation, physical injuries, malicious mischief, etc. filed
against her. Certainly, these pieces of evidence are inadmissible under the above provision
because they do not establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
Obviously, in invoking the above provision, what respondent was trying to establish is
Magdalena’s lack of credibility and not the probability or the improbability of the charge. In
this regard, a different provision applies.