I. Introduction.

A. The different sources of our rules on evidence:

a. The Principal Source: Rules 128 to Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court.
b. The Philippine constitution particularly, its provisions on the Bill of Rights and the Article on the Supreme Court.
c. Special Laws passed by Congress which either create, amend or supplement existing rules of evidence. The most recent include:
i. The Electronic Evidence Act; and
ii. The Child Witness Law.
d. Decisions of the Supreme Court
e. Circulars issued by the Supreme Court
B. Evidentiary rules that are found in substantial laws:
1. Under Article III of the Constitution the following evidence are inadmissible:
i. Evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure;
ii. Evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of communication and correspondence, except upon lawful order of the court or when public safety or order requires
otherwise;
iii. Evidence consisting of extra-judicial confessions which are uncounseled, or when the confessant was not properly informed of his constitutional rights, or when the
confession was coerced;
iv. Evidence obtained in violation of the right against self-incrimination.

2. R.A 4200 declares that evidence is inadmissible if obtained through any of the following ways:
v. By using any device to secretly eavesdrop, overhear, intercept or record any communication or spoken word;
vi. The person who obtained the evidence may be a third person or a participant in the conversation or communication.
vii. Exceptions: when evidence through secret recording or tapping is admissible:
a. When Judicial Authorization was granted upon a written petition filed pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 4200 if the crimes involve (a). treason (b)
espionage (c) provoking war and disloyalty (d). piracy and mutiny in the high seas (e) sedition, inciting to sedition (g)kidnapping (h) other offenses against
national security.
b. When Judicial Authorization is granted upon a written petition under R.A. 9372 (The Human Security Act of 2007) in connection with the crimes of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. If granted the authority covers written communications.
3. Republic Act No. 8505 or the Rape Shield Law. In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be
admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
4. Article 1756 of the Civil Code. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently.
5. Republic Act No. 1060 or An Act Increasing the Penalty for the Crime of Malversation of Public Funds or Property. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any
public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property
to personal uses.
6. Republic Act No. 4885. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank
and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent
act.
7. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of
insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such
check within (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
8. Republic Act No. 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended
for any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself,
injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.
 9. Presidential Decree No. 1612 or The Anti-Fencing Law of 1979. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been
the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
10. Republic Act No. 8792 or The Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Electronic Data Message or Electronic Document. - In any legal
proceedings, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document in evidence -
i. On the sole ground that it is in electronic form; or
ii. On the ground that it is not in the standard written form, and the electronic data message or electronic document meeting, and complying with the requirements
under Sections 6 or 7 hereof shall be the best evidence of the agreement and transaction contained therein.
II. General Concepts.
A. The difference between factum probandum and factum probans:
a. Factum Probandum refers to the ultimate fact or the proposition which is sought to be established by a party. This is hypothetical in character. E.g.: guilt or innocence; existence
of a breach of contract; existence of an obligation; the fact of payment; the injury or damage incurred.
b. Factum Probans refers to the intermediate facts or the materials which establish the proposition. This exist as a fact. E.g.: the written contract; the promissory note to prove the
existence of an unpaid debt.
B. What is evidence? Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
C. What is proof?
a. Proof is the result of evidence.
b. Proof is the effect when the requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight.
c. The probative effect of evidence.
D. What are the different quanta of evidence?
a. Proof beyond reasonable doubt- That degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error, produces moral certainty.
b. Clear and convincing proof- Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or convictions as to allegations sought to be established. It
is intermediate being more than preponderance but not to the extent of such certainty as is required of proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. (Black’s Law
Dictionary, p.227)
c. Preponderance of Evidence- This means that the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidenced of one is superior to the other.
d. Substantial evidence- It is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
e. Conclusive- may either be (i) that which the law does not allow to be contradicted as in judicial admissions or (b) that the effect of which overwhelms any evidence to the
contrary as the DNA profile of a person as the natural father over a denial.
f. Prima Facie- that which, standing alone and uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. In the eyes of the law it is sufficient to establish a fact until it has
been disproved, rebutted or contradicted or overcome by contrary proof.
g. Probable Cause- is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor,
that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.
E. What are the differences between evidence and proof?
a. Strictly evidence is the medium of proof whereas proof is the result of evidence.
b. Evidence is the mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial proceedings, while proof is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of evidence. It is merely
the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence.
F. What is burden of proof?
Burden of proof is(i.) the duty to establish the truth of a given proposition or issue by such a quantum of evidence as the law demands in the case at which the issue arises;
and(ii.) the duty of producing evidence at the beginning or at any subsequent stage of trial in order to make or meet a prima facie case.
G. What is burden of evidence?
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to provide evidence at any stage of the trial until he has established a prima facie case, or the like duty of the adverse party to meet
and overthrow that prima facie case thus established. In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of evidence lies on the party who asserts an affirmative allegation.
FAR EAST BANK TRUST COMPANY vs. ROBERTO MAR CHANTE (G.R. No. 170598) (October 9, 2013)
Facts: Robert Mar Chante was a current account depositor of petitioner Far East Bank & Trust Co. The card, known as a "Do-It-All" card to handle credit card and ATM transactions, was
tagged in his current account. Petitioner Far East Bank & Trust Co. filed a complaint to recover from Chan the principal sum of ₱770,488.30 representing the unpaid balance of the amount
fraudulently withdrawn from Chan’s Current Account. Petitioner alleged that at the time of the ATM withdrawal transactions, there was an error in its computer system known as "system
bug" whose nature had allowed Chan to successfully withdraw funds in excess of his current credit balance of ₱198,511.70; and that Chan had taken advantage of the system bug to do the
withdrawal transactions.
Issue: Whether Chan is liable for the withdrawals made on his own account.

Held: No. There was no question that Chan had the physical possession of the card at the time of the withdrawals, the exclusive possession of the card alone did not suffice to
preponderantly establish that he had himself made the withdrawals, or that he had caused the withdrawals to be made. His denial effectively traversed FEBTC’s claim of his direct and
personal liability for the withdrawals, that it would lose the case unless it competently and sufficiently established that he had personally made the withdrawals himself, or that he had
caused the withdrawals. In other words, it carried the burden of proof.

The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it. Verily, the party who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side. This is because our system frees the trier of facts from the responsibility of
investigating and presenting the facts and arguments, placing that responsibility entirely upon the respective parties. The burden of proof, which may either be on the plaintiff or the
defendant, is on the plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the manner required by the Rules of Court; or on the defendant if he admits expressly or
impliedly the essential allegations but raises an affirmative defense or defenses, that, if proved, would exculpate him from liability.

FEBTC must rely on the strength of its own evidence instead of upon the weakness of Chan’s evidence. Its burden of proof thus required it to preponderantly demonstrate that his ATM
card had been used to make the withdrawals, and that he had used the ATM card and PIN by himself or by another person to make the fraudulent withdrawals.

H. What is the difference between primary and secondary evidence?

a. Primary evidence- That which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question. E.g.: the original of a contract is the best evidence as to its contents; the
marriage contract as to the fact of marriage; a receipt as to the fact of payment; the birth certificate as to filiation.
b. Secondary evidence- That which is necessarily inferior and shows on its face that a better evidence exists. E.g.: Xerox copies of documents; narration of witnesses as to a written
contract.

EUGENIO SAN JUAN GERONIMO, vs. KAREN SANTOS (G.R. No. 197099) (September 28, 2015)
Facts: Plaintiff Karen Santos, claiming to be the only child of deceased Rufino and Caridad Geronimo filed a complaint for annulment of document and recovery of possession against the
defendants Eugenio and Emiliano Geronimo who are the brothers of her father.
The defendants denied the allegation that plaintiff was the only child and sole heir of their brother. They disclosed that the deceased Rufino and Caridad Geronimo were childless. They
claimed that the birth certificate of the plaintiff was a simulated document. It had irregular features, such as that it was written in pentel pen, the entry in the box date of birth.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and held that even granting arguendo that the birth certificate is questionable, the filiation of respondent has already been sufficiently proven
by evidence of her open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child under Article 172 of the Family Code of the Philippines. The trial court held that to be allowed to
impugn the filiation and status of respondent, petitioner should have brought an action for the purpose under Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code. Since petitioner failed to file such
action, the trial court ruled that respondent alone is entitled to the ownership and possession of the subject land owned by Rufino.

On appeal, petitioner raised the issue on the alterations in the birth certificate of respondent and the offered evidence of a mere certification from the Office of the Civil Registry instead of
the birth certificate itself. According to petitioner, respondent’s open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child is only secondary evidence to the birth certificate itself.
Petitioner argues that secondary evidence to prove one’s filiation is admissible only if there is no primary evidence. Petitioner asserts that herein respondent’s birth certificate constitutes
the primary evidence enumerated under Article 172 of the Family Code and the ruling of both courts a quo should have barred the introduction of secondary evidence.

Issue: Whether respondent’s open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child as secondary evidence is admissible notwithstanding the existence of primary evidence of
birth certificate.
 Held: Yes. In the instant case, the filiation of a child – herein respondent – is not at issue. Petitioner does not claim that respondent is not the legitimate child of his deceased brother Rufino
and his wife Caridad. What petitioner alleges is that respondent is not the child of the deceased spouses Rufino and Caridad at all. He proffers this allegation in his Amended Answer before
the trial court by way of defense that respondent is not an heir to his brother Rufino. When petitioner alleged that respondent is not a child of the deceased spouses Rufino and Caridad in
the proceedings, jurisprudence shows that the trial court was correct in admitting and ruling on the secondary evidence of respondent – even if such proof is similar to the evidence
admissible under the second paragraph of Article 172 and despite the instant case not being a direct action to prove one’s filiation.

I. What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

a. Direct evidence- That which proves a fact in issue or dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption. It is evidence to the precise point.
b. Circumstantial evidence- Refers to proof of facts or fact from which taken singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in issue may be inferred or presumed as a
necessary or probable consequence. It indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial
evidence, when sufficient. - Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

MARLON BACERRA y TABONES vs. PEOPLE (G.R. No. 204544) (July 3, 2017)
The identity of the perpetrator of a crime and a finding of guilt may rest solely on the Facts: Alfredo and his family were sound asleep in their home. At about 1:00 a.m., he was roused from
sleep by the sound of stones hitting his house. Alfredo went to the living room and peered through the jalousie window. The terrace light allowed him to recognize his neighbor and co-
worker, Bacerra. Bacerra threw stones at Alfredo's house while saying, "Vulva of your mother." Just as he was about to leave, Bacerra exclaimed, "Vulva of your mother, Old Fred, I'll bum
you now." Bacerra then left. Alfredo's son, Edgar, also witnessed the incident through a window in his room.
Troubled by Bacerra's threat, Alfredo waited for him to return. Alfredo sat down beside the window. At around 4:00a.m., he heard dogs barking outside. Alfredo looked out the window
and saw Bacerra walking towards their nipa hut, which was located around 10 meters from their house. Bacerra paced in front of the nipa hut and shook it. Moments later, Alfredo saw the
nipa hut burning.

Alfredo sought help from his neighbors to smother the fire. Edgar contacted the authorities for assistance but it was too late. The nipa hut and its contents were completely destroyed.

Bacerra was charged of arson and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of arson by the RTC. On appeal the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding his conviction based on circumstantial evidence, which, being merely based on conjecture, falls short of proving his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. No direct evidence was presented to prove that petitioner actually set fire to private complainant's nipa hut.

Issue: Whether petitioner's guilt, in the absence of direct evidence, was proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence adduced during trial.

Held: Yes. Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are classifications of evidence with legal consequences. The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence involves
the relationship of the fact inferred to the facts that constitute the offense. Their difference does not relate to the probative value of the evidence. Direct evidence proves a challenged fact
without drawing any inference. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, "indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial
evidence."

The probative value of direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor superior to circumstantial evidence. The Rules of Court do not distinguish between "direct evidence of fact and
evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred." The same quantum of evidence is still required. Courts must be convinced that the accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.

A number of circumstantial evidence may be so credible to establish a fact from which it may be inferred, beyond reasonable doubt, that the elements of a crime exist and that the accused
is its perpetrator. There is no requirement in our jurisdiction that only direct evidence may convict. After all, evidence is always a matter of reasonable inference from any fact that may be
proven by the prosecution provided the inference is logical and beyond reasonable doubt. The commission of a crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and the finding of guilt may all be
 established by circumstantial evidence. The circumstances must be considered as a whole and should create an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the accused authored the
crime.

The determination of whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt is a qualitative test not a quantitative one. The proven circumstances must be "consistent
with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational
hypothesis except that of guilt

In this case, no one saw petitioner actually set fire to the nipa hut. Nevertheless, the prosecution has established multiple circumstances, which, after being considered in their entirety,
support the conclusion that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple arson.

J. What is the difference between direct and primary evidence?

a. Direct evidence- That which proves a fact in issue or dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption. It is evidence to the precise point. Example: The eye witness
account; the scar to show the wound
b. Primary evidence- That which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question. E.g.: the original of a contract is the best evidence as to its contents; the
marriage contract as to the fact of marriage; a receipt as to the fact of payment; the birth certificate as to filiation.

K. What is the difference between the admissibility and weight of evidence?

a. Admissibility- The character or quality which any material must necessarily possess for it to be accepted and allowed to be presented or introduced as evidence in court. It
answers the question: should the court allow the material to be used as evidence by the party?
b. Weight- The value given or significance or impact, or importance given to the material after it has been admitted; its tendency to convince or persuade. Hence a particular
evidence may be admissible but it has no weight. Conversely, an evidence may be of great weight or importance but it is not admissible.

L. What is the difference between the relevancy and competency of evidence?

a. Relevancy- Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
b. Competency- All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific law or rule forbids. In short, the evidence is not excluded by law or rules.

III. Proof and quantum of proof.

A. When is proof is necessary?
Proof is necessary to prove a party’s own allegation. Allegations in pleadings do not prove themselves. No party wins by having the most allegations, or that the allegation of causes of actions or
defenses are crafted in the strongest and most persuasive language. All allegations remain but as allegations or propositions. Hence every party to a case, who desires that a favorable judgment
be rendered in his favor, must present evidence to support his claim, cause of action or defense be it in the form of object evidence, documents, or testimonies of witnesses.
B. Proof not necessary if there are:
a. Matters or facts subject of judicial notice;
b. Matters or facts subject of judicial admission;
c. Matters or facts which are legally presumed;
d. Matters or facts stipulated upon;
e. Matters or facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the opposing party;
f. Matters or facts which are irrelevant;
g. Matters or facts in the nature of negative allegations subject to certain exceptions.
B.1. Matters of judicial notice.
1. What is judicial notice?
It refers to the act of the court in taking cognizance of matters as true or as existing without need of the introduction of evidence, or the authority of the court to accept certain
matters as facts even if no evidence of their existence has been presented.
2. When is judicial notice mandatory?
The following are matters subject to mandatory judicial notice:
 i. Existence and territorial extent of states;
ii. Political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality of states;
iii. Law of nations;
iv. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
v. Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
vi. Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines;
vii. Laws of nature;
viii. Measure of time; and
ix. Geographical divisions.
3. When is judicial notice discretionary?
i. Those which are of public knowledge;
ii. Those which are capable of unquestionable demonstration; and
iii. Matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
4. What are the rules anent judicial notice of judgments?
The following are the rules:
a. Decisions of appellate courts must be taken notice of mandatorily by trial courts;
b. As to the records of cases pending or decided by other courts: these may not be taken judicial notice of;
c. As to Records of Other Cases Pending Before the Same Court;
i. As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of records of other cases tried or pending in the same court, even when these
cases were heard or actually pending before the same judge.
ii. However, this rule admits of exceptions;
1. As when reference to such records is sufficiently made without objection from the opposing parties Reference is by name and number or in some other
manner by which it is sufficiently designated or
2. When the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court’s direction, at the request or with the
consent of the parties, and admitted as part of the records of the case then pending.

5. May municipal ordinances be taken judicial notice of?

a. Municipal Trial Courts should take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which they sit.
b. Regional Trial Court should also take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipalities within their jurisdiction but only when so required by law. RTC must
take judicial notice also of municipal ordinances in cases on appeal to it from the inferior court in which the latter took judicial notice of.
c. Court of Appeals may take judicial notice of municipal ordinances because nothing in the rules prohibits it from taking cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of
unquestionable demonstration.

6. May judicial notice be taken of a foreign judgment?

a. As a general rule, Philippine Courts cannot take judicial notice of the existence and provisions/contents of a foreign law, which matters must be alleged and proven as a fact.
b. If the existence and provisions/contents were not properly pleaded and proven, the Principle of Processual Presumption applies i.e. the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as
Philippine Laws and it will be Philippine Laws which will be applied to the case.
c. Exceptions:
a. When there is no controversy among the parties as to the existence and provision of the foreign law;
b. When the foreign law has been previously ruled upon the court as to have acquired actual knowledge of it;
c. The foreign law has been previously applied in the Philippines e.g. the Spanish Codigo Penal;
d. The foreign law is the source of the Philippine Law e.g. the California Law on Insurance, the Spanish Civil Code;
e. When the foreign law is a treaty in which the Philippines is a signatory it being part of the Public International Law.

B.2. Presumption juris et de jure.

1. What is a presumption?
A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. It is an inference as to the
existence of a fact not actually known, arising from its usual connection with another which is known, or a conjecture based on past experience as to what course of human affairs
ordinarily take.
2. What are the kinds of presumptions?
a. Presumption Legis: these are presumptions which the law directs to be made by the court.
i. Juris tantum- or prima facie, rebuttable or disputable presumption or those which may be overcome or disproved;
ii. Juris et de Jure: conclusive or those which the law does not allow to be contradicted;
iii. Statutory and Constitutional.
b. Presumption Hominis (Fact) these are presumptions which may be made as a result of the mental processes of inductive or deductive reasoning from a fact.
3. What is the effect of a presumption?
A presumption has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the party who would be disadvantaged by a finding of the presumed fact. The presumption controls decision on the
presumed fact unless there is counterproof that the presumed fact is not so. (Reference: Modesto Mabunga vs, People of the Phils G.R. No. 142039 May 27, 2004)
4. What is the difference between a presumption and a conclusion?

5. What is the difference between a presumption and an inference?

An inference is a factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn from other facts. It need not have a legal effect because it is not mandated by law. The factfinder is free to accept or reject
the inference. A presumption is a rule of law directing that if a party proves certain facts, the factfinder must also accept an additional fact (the presumed fact) as proven unless sufficient
evidence is introduced to rebut the presumed fact. It is an inference which is mandatory unless rebutted.
6. What are presumptions Juris et de jure? Give ten examples.
Presumptions Juris et de jure are conclusive or those which the law does not allow to be contradicted. The following are the examples:
a. Estoppel in Pais: whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be true, and to act upon
such belief, he cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it. Examples:

1. A man who represents himself to be the true owner in a sale will not be permitted later to deny the sale after he acquire title thereto.
2. Estoppel to deny validity of sale as when the wife, in collusion with the husband, concealed her true status induce her parents to believe she is single and to a property which
in truth is conjugal. The husband cannot deny the validity of the deed.
3. The heirs who represented the minors in a suit for partition cannot impugn the validity of the judgment for lack of proper authorization.
4. Jurisdiction by estoppel.
5. Agency/Partnership by estoppel.
6. Corporation by Estoppel. – All persons who assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities
and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof.
7. When a party to a marriage contract is aware that she is getting married to a man who is impotent, it is clear that she is renouncing copulation, which is purely a personal
right.
b. Estoppel Against a Tenant: the tenant is not permitted to deny title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
c. Estoppel by deed is a type of technical estoppel by virtue of which a party to a deed and his privies are precluded from asserting as against the other party and his privies any
right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying any material fact asserted therein.
d. Estoppel by record is a type of technical estoppel by virtue of which a party and his privies are included own denying the truth of matters set forth in a record, whether judicial
or legislative.
e. Laches, a type of equitable estoppel, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have
been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a. reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or
declined to assert it.
 7. What is the quantum of proof required to rebut a presumption?
The quantum of proof required to rebut a presumption is a clear and convincing proof.
B.3. Admissions.
1. What is an admission?
The voluntary acknowledgement made expressly or impliedly by a party to a case or by another by whose statement the party is bound, against his interest, of the existence or truth of such fact
in dispute, material to the issue. By this meant that a party to a case performed an act, made a declaration/statement whether oral or written, or omitted to do something, which is contrary to
his cause of action or to his defense, and which may therefore be used as evidence against him.
2. How may an admission be made?
As to how made, an admission may be expressly or impliedly:
a. Express- are those made in definite, certain and unequivocal language;
b. Implied- are those which may be inferred from the acts, declarations or omissions of a party.
3. Is an implied admission admissible in evidence?
Yes. For an implied admission admissible in evidence to be admissible, the following requisites must be present:
a. It must be relevant to the issues in the case;
b. It must be categorical and definite;
c. It must be knowingly and voluntarily made;
d. It must be adverse to the admitter’s interest, otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible.
4. What is judicial admission?
An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
5. Five examples of judicial admission:
a. Admissions made by the parties in their pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings, do not require proof and cannot be contradicted by them unless proved to
have been made through palpable mistake.
b. Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into by the parties at the pre-trial of a case constitute judicial admissions by them which do not require proof and cannot be
contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake
c. When the parties in a case agree on what the foreign law provides, these are admissions of fact which the other parties and the court are made to rely and act upon, hence they
are in estoppel to subsequently take a contrary position.
d. Material allegations in the complaint when the other party fails to specifically deny it.
e. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses, an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
6. What is the rule for the admissibility for an admission made during the trial?
In civil cases, pre-trial admissions are admissible as judicial admissions binding on the party making it.
In criminal cases, pre-trial admissions are admissible as judicial admissions , provided it shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel.
7. May an admission made by counsel in open court be taken against his client?
Yes. Generally, admissions made by counsel are admissible against the client as the counsel’s acts in representation and agent of the client. As an exception to the rule, such admission
must not amount to a compromise or confession of judgement because it will require the consent of the client.
8. What is the effect of an admission made by a party in the following:
a. His judicial affidavit which is already part of the record of the case if he did not testify?
An admission made in the judicial affidavit already part of the record even if the party didn’t testify on it, is conclusive against him unless the court allows the proper pleader to
withdraw, explain or modify if it appears to have been made with palpable mistake or that no admission was made.
b. His pleading if the same was thereafter amended?
Amended pleadings supersedes the original pleading and the admissions made in the original pleading shall be treated as extra-judicial admission which shall be alleged and
proved.
c. His pleading he later withdrew? Admissions made in pleadings that have been subsequently withdrawn are considered extra-judicial admissions and must be proved by a formal
offer in evidence of the pleading.
 d. His sworn statement after a motion to discharge him as a state witness is denied?
If a party’s motion to discharge him as a state witness is denied, his sworn statement and other testimony given in his application shall not be treated as an admission and shall
not be admissible against him except for impeachment cases.
e. His sworn statements as a state witness after he refused to testify?
The sworn statement of a state witness who refused to testify, may not be treated as an admission against him, the court may however compel him to testify or he may be cited
for contempt.
9. When may an offer of compromise be considered an admission?
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. As an exception, when the offer of compromise contains an
admission of an independent fact or when the offer contains an admission of liability the offer may be considered as an admission.
While, in criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses 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.
10. What is an admission by silence?
This refers to an admission when a party does or says nothing when he hears or observes an act or declaration made in his presence when such 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. Such may be given in evidence against him.
11. What is an adoptive admission?
This refers to an admission when a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or
implied by the other person. A third person’s statemant becomes the admission of the party embracing or espousing it.
12. How is an adoptive admission made?
Adoptive admission is made when a party either:
a). Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement by another
b). Hears a statement and latter essentially repeats it
c). Utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion by another
d). Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but ignores further points to which he or she has heard the other make
e). Reads and signs a written statement made by another ( Republic vs. Kendrick Development Co., 498 SCRA 220)

13. How is an adoptive admission different from an admission by silence? In adoptive admission, the party’s conduct by manifesting a belief in the truthfulness of the statement of a third person by
expressly or implicitly concurring with it; or responding in such a way that manifests the adoption of the statement. While in admission by silence, the party’s refusal to refute an accusatory statement
that a reasonable person would refute under the same or similar circumstances manifest an adoption of the statement.

14. When may person be prejudiced by the admission of another?

As a general rule, under res inter alios acta rule, the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
However, as an exception to the rule, a person may be prejudiced by the admission of another if the admission is made, by a co-partner or agent, by a co-conspirator; or by a privy.
15. How may a judicial admission be contradicted?
It may be contradicted by showing:
1.That it was made through palpable mistake;
2. That no such admission was made ); or
3. To prevent manifest injustice.
16. Who may contradict a judicial admission?
Judicial admission may be contradicted by the admitter himself or through his counsel by filing a motion to withdraw pleading, or any other written instrument containing for written admissions or
the counsel may move for the exclusion of any oral admission.
17. May the admission of one accused on the witness stand be taken against his co-accused?
Yes, by admission by a co-conspirator. The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy, and during its existence, maybe given in evidence against the conspirators after the conspiracy
is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
18. What is an extrajudicial admission?An extra judicial admission is one made out of court or outside the proceedings of the case.

19. What are the requisites for the admission of an extrajudicial admission? The following are the requisites of extrajudicial admission:
1. It must be relevant to the issues in the case
2. It must be express, certain, definite and unequivocal.
3. Must be an admission of a fact, not an expression of an opinion
4. Must not be self-serving
5. It must have been made freely and voluntarily
6. Admission is one made outside the proceedings of the case.
20. May an admission in a counter-affidavit submitted during a preliminary investigation be admitted in evidence?
Yes. An admission in a counter-affidavit submitted during a preliminary investigation, as extra-judicial admission, may be admitted in evidence as a voluntary acknowledgement made expressly by a
party against his interest, of the existence or truth of such fact in dispute, material to the issue. By this meant that a party to a case who made a declaration/statement, which is contrary to his cause
of action or to his defense, and which may therefore be used as evidence against him.
21. Give the differences between an admission and a confession. The following are the differences bet. Admission and confession:
1. As to concept and coverage: An admission is broader as it covers any fact so long as its adverse to the interest of the party. A confession is limited to the act of an accused
acknowledging that he committed or participated in the commission of a crime. A confession is a specie of admissions.
2. As to form: An admission may be in the form of an act, declaration or omission, expressed or implied. A confession is always in the form of written or oral declaration, and is always
expressed.
3. As to where admissible. An admission is admissible in evidence in both civil and criminal cases whereas a confession is admissible only in criminal cases.
4. As to the author: an admission may be made by a party or by third persons. A confession is made only by the accused personally.
B.4. Confessions
1. What is a confession?
Confession is 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.
2. What are the requisites for the admission of an extrajudicial confession?
A. The following are the requisites:
1.It must involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt;
2.Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense;
3.It must have been given voluntarily;
4.It must have been intelligently made, the accused realizing the importance or legal significance of his act; and
5.There must have been no violation of Sec, 12 (Miranda rights), Art. III (Bill of Rights).
B. Additional requisites for extra-judicial confession under custodial confession:
1. The confession must be in writing
2. In a language known or understood by the confessant
3. It was given with the assistance of counsel, or that the right to counsel was properly waived ( in writing and with the assistance of counsel) and the confessant was properly Mirandized.
4. It must be signed or thumb marked by him.
A. 5. Unrebutted presumptions juris tantum
1. What is presumptions juris tantum? Give twenty examples.
Juris tantum- or prima facie, rebuttable or disputable presumption or those which may be overcome or disproved.
The following disputable presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
1. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
2. That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
3. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
4. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
5. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
 6. That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
7. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
8. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
9. That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced;
10. That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
11. That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
12. That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
13. That official duty has been regularly performed;
14. That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
15. That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for
arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
16. That private transactions have been fair and regular;
17. That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
18. That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
19. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
20. That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;

C. What is burden of proof? Is it the same as burden of evidence?

Both concepts are different. A burden of proof or burden of persuasion or risk of non-persuasion is the duty of the party alleging the case to prove it. While, a burden of evidence or burden of going
forward is the duty or logical necessity imposed upon a party, at any time during the trial, to establish a prima facie case in his favor or to overcome a prima facie case against him.

D. Who has the burden of proof in a case?

1. The general rule is, he who would lose the case if no evidence is presented. Hence it is the plaintiff as to his causes of action, and the defendant as to his counterclaim.
2. In criminal cases, the burden of proving guilt is always the plaintiff/prosecution. But if the accused sets up an affirmative defense, the burden is on him to prove such by clear, affirmative
and strong evidence.
E. What is quantum of proof?
Quantum of proof is the degree of proof required to dissolve the prima facie case established by the party having the burden of proof.(People vs. Santiago,2004)

F. Define the following:

a. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt- That degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error, produces moral certainty.
b. Preponderance of Evidence- This means that the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidenced of one is superior to the other.
c. Substantial evidence- It is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
d. Clear and convincing proof- Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or convictions as to allegations sought to be established. It is
intermediate being more than preponderance but not to the extent of such certainty as is required of proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. (Black’s Law Dictionary, p.227)
G. Give two instances when the quantum of proof required is clear and convincing evidence?
a. When invoking self-defense, the onus is on the accused-appellant to establish by clear and convincing evidence is justification for the killing.(People v. Tomolin, G.R. No. 126650, July 28,
1999).
b. When proving ownership over a land in annulment or reconveyance of title (Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp., G.R. No. 123346, Dec. 14, 2007).

H. What is the quantum of proof in administrative cases against lawyers?

In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is that of substantial evidence. It doesn’t require evidence that is overwhelming or even preponderant (Astroga and Repol Law
Offices vs. Villanueva, AM. No. P-09-2669, 2015).
I. what is the quantum of proof in preliminary investigations?
The quantum of proof required in preliminary investigations is such evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and respondent’s probable guilt
thereof (Estrada vs. Ombudsman, Gr. No. 212140-41, 2915)

J. When may a civil action be decided not on the basis of preponderance of evidence?

K. what is a prima facie case?

A prima facie case is that amount of evidence which would be sufficient to counter-balance the general presumption of innocence, and warrant a conviction, if not encountered and controlled by
evidence tending to contradict it, and render it improbable, or to prove other facts inconsistent with it, and the establishment of a prima facie case does not take away the presumption of innocence
which may in the opinion of the jury be such as to rebut and control it(Bautista vs. Hon. Malcolm Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137, 1985).
L. what is an equipoise of evidence?
The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. In such case the decision should be against the
party with the burden of proof (Marubeni Corp. v. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998, 2001).

IV. Evidence and its admissibility.

A. What are the kinds of evidence according to:
1. Form:
a. Object as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
b. Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.
c. Testimonial evidence is evidence consisting of the narration of a person, known as a witness, made under oath and in the course of the judicial proceedings in which the
evidence is offered.
2. Relevancy:
a. Materiality – is determined by whether the fact it intends to prove is in issue or not.
b. Probativeness – the tendency to establish the proposition for which it is offered as evidence.
3. Probative Value:
a. Positive evidence- that affirms the occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as when a witness declares that there was no fight which took place.
b. Negative evidence when the evidence denies the occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as when the accused presents witnesses who testify that the accused was at their
party when the crime was committed. Denials and alibi are negative evidences.
c. The general rule is that positive evidence prevails over negative evidence, or that a positive assertion is given more weight over a plain denial.
d. Greater probative value is given to evidence that is positive in nature than that which is accorded to evidence that is negative in character.
B. What is an electronic evidence?
Electronic evidence as functional equivalent of paper-based documents- Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing, document, records, instrument, memorandum or any
other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document.
C. What kind of evidence according to form is an electronic evidence?
Electronic evidence is considered in the form of documentary evidence.

D. What are the two maxims of admissibility of evidence?

a. Axiom of relevancy- None, but facts having rational probative value are admissible.
 b. Axiom of competency- That all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids their admission.
E. What are the kinds of admissibility?
a. Multiple admissibility- Evidence that is plainly relevant and competent for two or more purposes will be received if it satisfies all the requirements prescribed by law in order
that it may be admissible for the purpose for which it is presented, even if it does not satisfy the other requisites of admissibility for other purposes.
b. Conditional admissibility- Evidence appears to be immaterial is admitted by the court subject to the condition that its connection with another fact subsequent to be proved will
be established. Otherwise, such fact already received will be stricken off the record at the initiative of the adverse party.
c. Curative admissibility- Evidence that is otherwise improper is admitted (despite objection from the other party) to contradict improper evidence presented or introduced by the
other party, to cure, contradict or neutralize such improper evidence.
F. When is evidence considered relevant?
Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Relevant evidence, under this concept, is any class of evidence which has rational probative value to establish the issue in controversy.
G. What is the test of relevancy of evidence?
The test of relevancy is the logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, i.e., whether the former tends to establish the probability or improbability of the latter.
H. When is evidence considered competent?
Evidence considered competent when it is not excluded by law or by the rules.
I. What are rules of exclusion in general?
The rules of exclusion are rule of exception to the general admissibility of all that is rational and probative.
J. What is the Exclusionary Rule?
The principle which mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a particular law, must be excluded from the
trial and will not be admitted as evidence.
K. Give 5 rules of exclusion provided in substantive laws.
a. Evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure are inadmissible.
b. Evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of communication and correspondence are inadmissible, except upon lawful order of the court or when public safety or order
requires otherwise.
c. Evidence consisting of extra-judicial confessions which are uncounselled, or when the confessant was not properly informed of his constitutional rights, or when the confession
was coerced are inadmissible.
d. Evidence obtained in violation of the right against self-incrimination are inadmissible.
e. Republic Act No. 8505 or the Rape Shield Law. In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be
admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
L. Enumerate the rules of exclusion found in the Rules of Court.
a. The rule excluding secondary evidence when the primary or best evidence is available.
b. The rule excluding hearsay evidence.
c. The rule excluding privilege communications.
d. The rule excluding parol evidence.
e. The rule excluding opinion evidence.
V. Presentation of evidence.
A. What are the requisites so that a piece of evidence will be considered by the courts?
a. Marking- The purpose is to facilitate the identification of the exhibit. It may made during the pre-trial or trial.
b. Identification- Presenting proof that the document presented is the same as the one referred to by the witness in his testimony
c. Authentication- Positive identification of the witness that the document presented is genuine and has been duly executed or that is neither spurious nor counterfeit nor
executed by mistake or under duress.
d. Inspection- Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party.
e. Formal offer of exhibit- After the termination of the testimonial evidence, the proponent will then make a formal offer and state the purpose for which the document is
presented.
 f. Objections- Objections to the introduction of documentary evidence shall be made when it is formally offered
g. Tender of excluded evidence/Offer of proof- Remedy of a party if the court improperly excluded an otherwise admissible evidence.
B. What is Offer of Evidence?
Refers to testimonial, documentary or object evidence that are presented or offered in court by a party so that the court can consider his evidence when it comes to the preparation of the
decision.
C. When may a court consider evidence which was not formally offered?
a. When in the interest of substantial justice, the Supreme Court has, on occasion, allowed the admission of evidence not formally offered, provided that two essential conditions
must concur:
i. The evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and
ii. It must have been incorporated in the records of the case.
b. Judicial admissions need not be offered in evidence since it is not evidence. It is superior to evidence and shall be considered by the court as established.
c. When testimony without a prior formal offer is allowed without any objection from the adverse party.
D. What are the reasons why evidence must be offered?
a. For the court to determine whether that piece of evidence should be admitted or not.
b. For the adverse party to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility.
c. For which evidence offered must be specified because such evidence maybe admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be admissible
for one purpose and not for another, otherwise the adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection.
E. Why must the purpose of the presentation of the evidence be included in the offer?
a. To notify the party of possible objection, and for the offeror to make necessary correction at the trial level to meet the objection;
b. To allow the trial judge to rule properly;
c. To lay basis for appeal so that the appellate court can decide intelligently.
F. What is an objection?
An objection is a formal protest raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony or other evidence in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law.
G. When should an objection be made in the case of:
a. Testimonial evidence;
i. When the offer was made;
ii. When an objectionable question is asked of the witness.
b. Documentary evidence- When the document is offered in evidence.
c. Object evidence- When the document is offered in evidence.
H. What is the effect if an objection is not timely made?
Objections to the admission of evidence must be made seasonably, at the time it is introduced or offered, otherwise they are deemed waived, and will not be entertained for the first time
on appeal. (People v. Bañares, G.R. No. 68298, November 25, 1986)
I. What is the reason why an objection must be made to questions pertaining to documents which are inadmissible even before the documents are offered?
J. What are the kinds of objection according to:
a. Scope
b. nature
K. Give 10 examples of formal objections.
L. What is a leading question?

It is one which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires.
M. Why are leading questions not allowed?
The witness being a friendly witness and having been called by the proponent, he is naturally expected to be sympathetic to the cause of the proponent. Thus, there is a great danger that
he would just confirm any and all facts suggested to him by the proponent. Hence leading questions are not allowed.
N. Are all questions answerable with a “yes” or “no” leading?
 No. The test is whether the form or phraseology and the contents of the question in that whether it contains a statement of a fact which the witness is asked to affirm or agree to. In such
case the witness contributes no substantial data. The lawyer is coaxing.
O. When are leading questions allowed?
Leading questions are allowed:
a. On cross-examination;
b. On preliminary matters;
c. When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind or a deaf-mute;
d. To unwilling witness or hostile witness; A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest,
unjustified reluctance to testify or his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand.
e. Witness is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
P. What is a misleading question?
It is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated.
Q. What is extrapolation?
Extrapolation is an estimation of a value based on extending a known sequence of values or facts beyond the area that is certainly known.
An extrapolation is kind of like an educated guess or a hypothesis.
R. Why is a compound question not allowed?
This may result in inaccuracies in the attitudes being measured for the question, as the respondent can answer only one of the two questions, and cannot indicate which one is being
answered.
A compound question can be objected to by opposing counsel since it is confusing to the witness, who is entitled to answer each question separately.
S. Why should you object to a question that calls for a narration?
a. In order to prevent the witness from testifying and narrating facts which are irrelevant and thus he will testify straight to the point in issue.
b. To give the opponent an opportunity to raise an objection.
T. What is the difference between “laying the foundation” and “laying the predicate”?
Laying the foundation refers to a situation where evidence which is otherwise incompetent will be introduced into evidence because it falls under the rules of exclusion, while laying the
predicate refers only to impeachment of a witness through prior inconsistent statements.
U. When is a continuing objection proper?

When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made,
whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class
of questions.
V. Give 10 examples of substantive objections.

W. What is Offer of Proof?

It is an explanation made by an attorney to a judge during trial to show why a question which has been objected to as immaterial or irrelevant will lead to evidence of value to proving the
case of the lawyer's client.
X. What is the purpose of Offer of Proof?
When an attorney is not allowed by the court to present testimony which he thinks is competent, material and necessary to prove his case, he must make an offer of proof. This is the
method properly preserving the record to the end that the question may be saved for purposes of review.
Y. What is authentication?
It is the process of proving the due execution and genuineness of a document.
Z. Who is a sponsor in evidence?
A sponsor refers to person offering the evidence.