COURT TESTIMONY NOTES (CLJ4)
By: ATTY. LAARNI C. MAGLASANG
 
Testimonial evidence
Qualification of witness
1. Except as provided in Sec. 21 of Rule 130,
all persons who can perceive, and
perceiving can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or conviction of a
crime unless otherwise proved by law,
shall not be ground for disqualification
(Rule 132, Sec. 20, Rules of Court). He
must also take either an oath or an
affirmation (Rule 132, Sec. 1, Rules of
Court). And he must not possess the
Jurisprudence:
disqualifications imposed by law or these
Rules.
a.
2. The qualifications and disqualifications of
witnesses are determined as of the
time said witnesses are produced for
examination in court or at the taking of
their depositions (Regalado, Remidial
Law Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed., p.
738).
Competency versus credibility of a witness
Competency Credibility
A matter of law and a Refers to the
matter of rule. believability of a
witness and has
nothing to do with the
law or the rules.
b.
Refers to the basic Refers to the weight
qualifications of a and the trustworthiness
witness as his capacity or reliability of the
to perceive and his testimony
capacity to perceive
and his capacity to
communicate his
perception to others.
In deciding the
competence of a
witness, the court will
not inquire into his
trustworthiness.
The testimony of a lone witness “may
suffice for conviction if found trustworthy
and reliable.” Precisely, conviction resting
on a singular testimony is warranted if this
is, in the words of Cleopas, “trustworthy
and reliable,” or, in the words of the Court
of Appeals, “credible.” This could not be
said of Jao’s testimony. As previously
discussed, her very presence in the
February 12, 2001 conference that she
claimed to have been immediately
followed by Macayan’s threats, is in
serious doubt. Nothing casts greater doubt
on the reliability of Jao’s claim than her
having not been at the time and place of
the supposed intimidation. (Macayan, Jr.,
vs. People, G.R. No.175842, March 18,
2015)
Inconsistencies between the declaration of
the affiant in her sworn statements and
1
 those in open court do not necessarily
discredit the witness; it is not fatal to the
prosecution’s cause. In fact, contrary to
the defense’s claim, discrepancies erase
suspicion that the witness was rehearsed
or that the testimony was fabricated. As
correctly held by the Court of Appeals,
despite minor inconsistencies, Erlinda’s
narration revealed each and every detail of
the incident, which gave no impression
whatsoever that her testimony is a mere
fabrication. As we already enunciated in
previous rulings, “[i]t is a matter of
judicial experience that affidavits or
statements taken ex parte are generally
incomplete and inaccurate. Thus, by
nature, they are inferior to testimony given
in the court, and whenever there is court,
the testimony of a witness in court, the
testimony commands greater weight.”
(People vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 197456,
March 23, 2015).
c. Anent the failure of FC Sahagun to testify
on the security measures taken after she
examined the specimen, the defense
agreed to dispense with the Forensic
Chemist’s testimony, effectively waiving
the opportunity to question her on the
matter. Unfortunately, Dela Peña and
Delima are barred from belatedly raising
this objection for the first time before the
CA. Lapses in the safekeeping of seized
illegal drugs that affected their integrity
and evidentiary value should be raised at
the trial court level. When a party desires
the court to reject the evidence offered, he
must so state the same in the form of
objection. Without such objection, the
accused cannot raise the question for the
first time on appeal. [People of the
Philippines V. Dante Dela Peña and
Dennis Delima, G.R. 207635 (2015)]
Disqualification of witnesses
Disqualification by reason of mental capacity
or immaturity
The following person cannot be witnesses:
a. those whose mental condition at the
time of their production or
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 truthfully (Rule 130,
Sec. 21, Rules of Court).
Note:
Under the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness, every child is presumed to be a
qualified witness. However, the court shall
conduct a competency examination of a child,
motu propio or on motion of a party, when it
finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the
ability of the child to perceive remember,
communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood,
or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court
(Sec. 6, A.M. No. 004-07-SC)
Mental incapacity Immaturity
2
 To be disqualified as a To be disqualified as a spouse, except in a civil case by one
witness by reason of witness by reason of against the other, or in a criminal case for
mental incapacity, the immaturity, the a crime committed by one against the
following must concur: following must other or the latter’s direct descendants or
a. The person must be concur: ascendants” (Rule 130, Sec. 22, Rules of
incapable of a. The mental Court).
intelligently maturity of the
making known his witness must 2. This section is the rule on marital
perception to render him disqualification sometimes referred to in
others; and incapable of American law as “spousal immunity”,
b. His incapability perceiving the facts which is different from marital privilege
must exist at the respecting which under Section 24(a) (Regalado, Remedial
time of his he is examine; and Law Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed.,
b. He is incapable p.741). This rule applies to a civil or
criminal case, subject to the two
exceptions provided therein.

3. In order that the marital disqualification

rule will apply, it is necessary that the
marriage is valid and existing as of the
time of the offer of the testimony (Arroyo
production for of relating his vs. Azur, 76 Phil.493), and that the other
examination perception truthfully, spouse is a party to the action (Regalado,
Remedial Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed.,
p. 741).
The incompetence of The incompetence of
the witness must exist the witness must occur
not at the time of his at the time the witness
perception of the facts perceives the event Disqualification by reason of death or
but at the time he is including his insanity of adverse party
produced for incapability to relate
examination and his perceptions 1. Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or
consists in his inability truthfully. persons in whose behalf a case is
to intelligently make prosecuted, against an executor or
known what he has administrator or other representative of a
perceived deceased person, or against a person of
unsound mind, upon a claim or demand
against the estate of such deceased person
or against such person of unsound mind,
cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such
Disqualification by reason of marriage deceased person or before such person
became of unsound mind(Rule 130, Sec.
1. During their marriage, neither the husband 23, Rules of Court).
nor the wife may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected

3
2. This section enunciates the so-called
Survivorship Disqualification Rule or
Dead Man Statue. It constitutes only a
partial disqualification as the witness is
not completely disqualified but is only
prohibited from testifying on the matters
therein specified, unlike the marital
disqualification rule which is a complete
and absolute disqualification Also, the
survivorship disqualification rule applies
only to a civil case or special proceeding
over the estate of a decease or insane
person (Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed., p. 743).
3. For the Dead Man Statue to apply, it is
necessary that:
a. The witness offered for examination is
a party plaintiff, or the assignor of
said party, or a person in whose behalf
a case is prosecuted;
b. The case is against the executor or
administrator or other representative
of a person deceased or of unsound
mind;
c. The case is upon a claim or demand
against the estate of such person who
is deceased or of unsound mind; and
d. The testimony to be given is on a
matter of fact occurring before the
death of such deceased person or
Before such person became of
unsound mind (Ibid.).
Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication
1. Husband and wife
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”
(Rule 130, Sec. 24 (a), Rules of Court).
For the disqualification by reason of the
marital privilege to apply, it is
necessary that:
a. There was a valid marital relation;
b. The privilege is invoked with respect
to a confidential communication
between the spouses during said
marriage; and
c. The spouse against whom such
evidence is being offered has not given
his or her consent to such testimony.
Accordingly, the privilege cannot be
claimed with respect to communications
made prior to the marriage of the spouses
(Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium,
Vol. II, 11th Ed.,, p. 748) .
2. Attorney and client
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
fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity (Section 24 (b)
Rule 130, Rules of Court).
4
 For the disqualification to apply, it is
required that:
a. There is an attorney and client
relation;
b. The privilege is invoked with respect
to a confidential communication
between them in the course of
professional employment; and
c. The client has not given his consent to
the attorney’s testimony thereon; or if
the attorney’s secretary, stenographer
or clerk is sought to be examined, that
both the client and the attorney have
not been given their consent thereto
(Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed., p. 749).
3. Physician and Patient
A person authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil
case , without the consent of the patient,
be examined as to any advice or treatment
given by him or any information which he
may have acquired in attending such
patient in a professional capacity, which
information was necessary to enable him
to act in capacity, and which would
blacken the reputation of the patient (Rule
130, Sec. 24 (c), Rules of Court).
For the disqualification arising from the
physician-patient privilege to apply, it is
necessary that:
a. The physician is authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
b. The information was acquired or the
advice or treatment was given by him
in his professional capacity for the
purpose of treating and curing the
patient;
c. The information, advice or treatment,
if revealed, would
blacken the reputation of the patient;
and
d. The privilege is invoked in a civil case
whether the patient is a party thereto
or not.
The privilege extends to all forms of
communications, advice or treatment and
includes information acquired by the
physician from his professional
observations and examination of patient
(Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium,
Vol. II, 11th Ed., p. 751).
4. Priest and penitent
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” ” (Rule 130, Sec. 24 (d), Rules of
Court).
The disqualification due to privileged
communications between minsters or
priest and penitents require that the same
were made pursuant to a religious duty
enjoined in the course of discipline of the
sect or denomination which they belong
and must be confidential and penitential in
character (Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed., p. 752).
3. Public officers
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 (Rule 130, Sec. 24 (e), Rules of
Court).
5

The disqualification because of
privileged communications to public
officers requires
a. that it was made to the public officer
in official confidence; and
b. that public interest would suffer by the
disclosure of such communication, as
in the case of State secrets. Where no
public interest would be prejudiced,
this rule does not apply (Banco
Filipino vs. Monetary Board, G.R. No.
70054, July 8, 1986).
6. Parental and filial privilege
No person may be compelled to testify
against his parents, other direct
ascendants, children, or other direct
descendants” (Rule 130, Sec. 25, Rules of
Court).
However, under the Family Code, the
descendant may be compelled to testify
against his parents and grandparents, if
such testimony is indispensable in
prosecuting a crime against the descendant
or by one parent against the other (Article
215).
Examination of witnesses
Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness.
A witness MUST answer questions:
- although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him.
However, it is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests
of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined EXCEPT ONLY as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense UNLESS
otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his reputation
- UNLESS it to be the very fact at issue or
to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed.
But a witness must answer to the fact of his
previous final conviction for an offense. (3a,
19a)
Notes:
GR: A witness cannot refuse to answer
questions material to the inquiry even if it may
tend to establish a claim against him
EXC: He may validly refuse to answer:
1. Under the right against self-incrimination
(If it will subject him to punishment for an
offense)
- Available in civil, criminal and
administrative cases
- May be with reference to the offense
involved in the same case where he is
charged or in another case
- It may be waived however in immunity
statutes wherein the witness is granted
immunity from criminal prosecution for
offenses admitted in his testimony
1. Under the right against self-degradation
(If it will have a direct tendency to degrade
his character) UNLESS:
- Such question is directed to the very fact
at issue or to a fact from which the fact
at issue would be presumed or
- It refers to his previous final conviction
for an offense
Note: Right should be seasonable invoked and
may be waived.
6
Classification of Immunity Statutes
1. Use Immunity – Only prohibits the use
of witness’ compelled testimony and its
fruits in any manner in connection with
the criminal prosecution of the witness.
It does not render a witness immune
from prosecution.
2. Transactional Immunity – grants
immunity to the witness from
prosecution for an offense to which his
compelled testimony relates.
Scope of the right against self-incrimination
1. No person should be compelled to be a
witness against himself;
2. The rule may be invoked in any court or
proceedings;
3. The rule covers only testimonial
compulsion and production by him of
incriminating documents and articles.
(Forced Reenactment comes within the
ban since prohibition against testimonial
compulsion extends to those
communicative in nature)
Note: Right against self-incrimination is granted
only in favor of individuals.
When is an act testimonial: If it explicitly or
implicitly relate a factual assertion or discloses
information.
Rationale against testimonial compulsion:
The court may not extract from the defendant’s
own lips and against his will an admission of his
guilt.
Limitation if a witness is a party in a civil
action: Before the plaintiff can compel the
defendant to be a witness, the plaintiff must first
prove that he has submitted written
interrogatories of the defendant.
Right of Self-Incrimination Distinguished
Accused
Cannot be compelled to testify or May be compelled to
produce evidence even by subpoena or subpoena having onl
other process or order of the court. He refuse to answer a pa
cannot be required either for the incriminating questio
prosecution, for co-accused or even for it is put to him.
himself.
Sec. 3.  Rights and Obligations of Witnesses
(Additional Info)
 
The obligation of a witness is to answers all
questions which are asked of him. He cannot
choose which questions to answer and to
answering others.
The witness however has the right to be
protected against tactics from the opponent
which are intended to “brow beat, badger, insult,
intimidate, or harass him”.
He has the right not to be detained longer that is
necessary.
He may refuse to answer the following
questions:
a). Those which are not pertinent to the issue
 
b). Those which are self-incriminatory except in
the following cases:
(i) where the accused is testifying as a witness in
his own behalf, as to questions  relating only to
the offense upon which  he is testifying
(ii) where the witness was granted immunity 
from prosecution  as when he is under the
Witness Protection Program or was discharged
to be used a s a state witness, or he is a
government witness in Anti-Graft Cases.
 
c). Those which are self-degrading, unless it is
to discredit the witness by impeaching his moral
character
Rights and obligations of a witness
(Additional Notes / Supplementary)
7
1. A witness has an obligation to answer
question, although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him.
However it is the right of the witness:
a. not to give an answer that will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an
offense;
b. to be protected from irrelevant,
improper or insulting questions and
from harsh or insulting demeanor;
c. not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
d. not to be detained longer than the
interest of justice requires;
e. not to give an answer which will tend
to degrade his reputation unless it be
the very fact at issue or
to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed (Rule 132, Sec. 3,
Rules of Court).
2. This section grants the witness the right
against self-incrimination “unless
otherwise provided by law”. This
exception refers to immunity statutes
wherein the witness is granted immunity
from criminal prosecution for offenses
admitted in his testimony (Regalado,
Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, 11th
Ed., p. 843).
Order in the examination of an individual
witness
1. Direct examination is an examination-in-
chief of a witness by the party presenting
him on the facts relevant to the issue (Rule
132, Sec. 5, Rules of Court).
2. Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-
examined by the adverse party as to any
matters stated in the direct examination or
connected therewith, with sufficient
fullness and freedom to test his accuracy
and truthfulness and freedom from interest
or bias or the reverse, to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue
(Rule 132, Sec. 6, Rules of Court).
3. Re-direct examination is conducted after
the cross examination of the witness has
been concluded he may be re-examined by
the party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers given during the
cross-examination (Rule 132, Sec. 27,
Rules of Court). A witness on direct
examination may be re-examine to explain
or supplement his answer given during
cross-examination. The counsel may elicit
testimony to correct or repel any wrong
impression or interferences that may be
created in the cross examination, It is an
opportunity to rehabilitate a witness
whose credibility has been damaged.
4. Re-cross examination is an examination
Conducted upon conclusion of the
redirected examination. The adverse party
may question the witness on matters stated
in his re-direct examination, and also on
such, other matters as may be allowed by
the court in its discretion (Rule 132, Sec.
8, Rules of Court).
5. Recalling the witness occurs if the witness
has been examined by both sides. The
witness cannot be recalled without leave
of court. It’s a matter of judicial discretion
to which the court shall be guided by the
interest of justice.
Leading and misleading question
1. A question which suggest to the witness
the answer which the examining party
desires is a leading question. It is not
allowed except:
a. on cross-examination
b. on preliminary matters
8
 c. when there is difficulty in getting
direct and intelligible answer from a
witness who is ignorant or a child of
tender years or is a feeble mind or a
deaf mute;
d. of an unwilling or hostile witness
e. of an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness or
contrary to that which he has previously stated.
It is not allowed on any type of examination
(Rule 132, Sec. 10, Rules of Court).
Methods of impeachment of adverse part’s
witness
A witness may be impeach by the party against
whom he was called by:
a. contradictory evidence
b. by evidence that his general reputation for
truth, honesty, and integrity is bad; by
evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present
testimony (Rule 132, Sec. 11, Rules of
Court).
How the witness is impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements (laying the predicate)
1. Prior inconsistent statements are
statements made by a witness on an earlier
occasion which is inconsistent with his
present testimony (Rule 132, Sec. 13,
Rules of Court).
2. Laying the predicate is a preliminary
requirement before the impeachments
process prospers, that is
a. by confronting him with such
statements, with the circumstances
under which they were made,
b. by asking him whether he made such
statements, and
c. by giving him a chance to explain his
inconsistencies (Regalado, Remedial
Law Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed.,
p. 851). Unless the witness is given
the opportunity to explain the
discrepancies, the impeachment is
incomplete (U.S. vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil.
285, People vs. Resabal, 50 Phil. 780,
People vs. Escosura, 82 Phil. 41,
People vs. Relucio, et. al., L-38790,
November 9, 1978). However, such
defect in the impeachment of the
witness is deemed waived if no
objection on that ground is raised
when the document involved is
offered for admission (People vs.
Molo, L44680, January 14, 1979).
Evidence of the good character of a witness
A party calling a witness cannot initiate proof of
his good moral character. He does not need to
prove because he is presumed to be truthful and
of good character. It is only when his character
has been impeached that he can prove his being
good (Rule 132, Sec. 14, Rules of Court). This
rule refers only to mere witness.
Admissions and Confessions
Res inter alios acta rule
1. The expression if fully expressed reads:
res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
which literally means that “things done to
strangers ought not to injure those who are
not parties to them” (Black’s, 5th Ed.,
1178).
2. The res inter alios acta rule has two
branches, namely:
9
 a. the rule that the rights of a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another
(Sec. 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court);
b. the rule that evidence of previous
conduct or similar acts at one time is
not admissible to prove that one did or
did not do the same act at another
time (Rule 132, Sec. 34, Rules of
Court).
Admission of a party
1. The act, declaration or omission of a party
as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him (Rule 130, Sec. 26,
Rules of Court).
2. To be admissible, an admission must
a. involve matters of fact , and not of
law;
b. be categorical and definite;
c. be knowingly and voluntarily made;
and
d. be adverse to the admitter’s interest,
otherwise it would be self-serving and
inadmissible (Regalado, Remedial
Law Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed.,
p. 754) .
2. Admissions may be verbal or written,
express or implies, or judicial or
extrajudicial. A judicial admission is one
made in connection with a judicial
proceeding in which it is offered, while an
extrajudicial admission is any other
admission (Ibid).
Admission by third-party
1. The rights of a third party cannot be
prejudice by an act, declaration or
omission of another, except as provided in
those instances where the third person is a
partner, agent, joint owner, joint debtor or
has a joint interest with the part (Sec. 29),
or is a co-conspirator (Sec. 30), or a privy
of the party (Sec. 31) and admission by
silence (Sec. 32), in Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court.
2. This section refers to the first branch of
the rule of “res inter alios acta alteri
nocere nor debet.”
Admission by a co-partner or agent
1. 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 29, Rules of
Court).
2. The requisites for the application of this
exception are the following:
a. that the partnership agency, or joint
interest is established by evidence
other than the act or declaration:
b. that the act or declaration is within the
scope of the partnership, agency or
joint interest; and
c. such act or declaration must have been
made during the existence of the
partnership, agency or joint interest
(Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed., p.
759)
Admission by conspirator
1. The act or declaration of a conspirator
relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence, may be given in evidence
10

Against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration
(Rule 130, Sec. 30, Rules of Court).
2. This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts
or statements and not to testimony given
on the witness stand at the trial where the
party adversely affected thereby has the
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant
(People vs. Serrano, et. al., 105 Phil. 531)
3. An admission by a conspirator is
admissible against his co-conspirator is
admissible against his co-conspirator if:
a. such conspiracy is shown by evidence
aliunde;
b. the admission was made during the
existence of the conspiracy; and
c. the admission relates to the conspiracy
itself (Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed., p.
760).
Admission by privies
1. 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 31,
Rules of Court).
2. To be admissible, the following requisites
must concur:
a. there must be a relation of privity
between the party and the declarant;
b. the admission was made by the
declarant, as predecessor-in-interest,
while holding the title to the property;
and
c. the admission is in relation to said
property (Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed., p.
762)
Admission by silence
1. An act or declaration made in the presence
and within the hearing, or
observation of a party who does or says
nothing when the act or declaration is such
as naturally to call for action or comment
if not true, and when proper and possible
for him to do so, may be given in evidence
against him (Rule 130, Sec. 32, Rules of
Court).
2. To be admissible against a part as an
admission by silence, the following
requisites must concur:
a. he must have heard or observed the
act or declaration of the other person;
b. he must have had the opportunity to
deny it (People vs. Ranario, et. al., 49
Phil. 220);
c. he must have understood the
statement;
d. he must have an interest to object,
such that he would naturally have
done so if the statement was not true;
e. the facts were within his knowledge;
and
f. the fact admitted or the inference to be
draw from his silence is material to
the issue (People vs. Paragsa, L-
44060, July 20, 1978)
Confession
1. The declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense
charged, or any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in
evidence against him (Rule 130, Sec. 33,
Rules of Court).
11

2. While a judicial confession may sustain a
conviction, an extra-judicial confession is
not sufficient for conviction (Evidence,
Riano, 2009, p. 199). The rule requires
that the confession be corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti (Sec. 3, Rule
133, Rules of Court).
3. Corpus delicti has two elements: (a) proof
of occurrence of a certain event: and (b)
some person’s criminal responsibility
for the act (People vs. Boco, 309 SCRA
42; People vs. Base, 329 SCRA 158).
Similar acts as evidence
1. 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 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
(Rule 130, Sec. 34, Rules of Court).
2. This is the second branch of the rule of res
inter alios acta and applies to both civil
and criminal cases.
Hearsay Rule
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
(Rule 130, Sec. 26, Rules of Court). Everything,
then, which is not of one’s personal knowledge,
is considered hearsay.
Generally, hearsay evidence is inadmissible
because the person who testifies does so based
on matters not of his personal knowledge but
based on the knowledge of another who is not in
court and cannot therefore, be cross-examined.
The one who is in court is the person who
merely repeats matters witnessed personally by
another. This type of evidence is inadmissible
because of its inherent unrealibitlity.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule
Dying declaration
1. 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 or inquiry,
as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death (Rule 130,
Sec. 77, Rules of Court).
2. This is the most significant except to the
hearsay evidence rule. If before he died, X
told a police officer that it was Y who shot
him, it would be the officer who would be
testifying in court. The officer has no
personal knowledge of the event. If the
dying declaration of X is offered to prove
the guilt of Y, the testimony of the officer
in court is definitely hearsay. The dying
declaration of x is however, an exception
to the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.
There has been a traditional acceptance of
dying declarations because of the
presumption that a dying person will tell
the truth before he meets his Creator.
While there is no guarantee that a person
in the thrones of death will tell the truth,
this assumption has been traditionally
accepted for almost two hundred years, an
assumption which has trickled down to
modern times.
3. The most significant element therefore, of
a dying declaration is that the declarant
must have been conscious of his
impending death. It is his consciousness
which is assumed to be the compelling
motive to tell the truth.
12

4. To be admissible as a dying declaration,
the declaration must relate to the cause
and circumstances of the declarant. Any
statement he makes not related to the
circumstances of his death is inadmissible
as dying declaration.
5. The dying declaration is admissible in any
case provided the subject of inquiry in that
case is the death of the declarant. The old
rule that it is admissible only in a criminal
case no longer holds true because of the
phraseology of Section 37 of Rule 130.
6. It is required that the declarant should die.
If he lives, there is no need for the dying
declaration because the declarant may
testify personally based on his own
personal knowledge. Suppose by chance
he survives but is unable to testify due to
sever physical and emotional infirmity,
may his declaration be admitted in
evidence? Yes, but not as a dying
declaration. It could be admitted as a
statement made by a person immediately
subsequent to a startling occurrence. The
shooting of the declarant is the startling
occurrence. The statement made as to the
circumstances of the shooting, while not a
dying declaration because he survive,
could be considered as part of the res
gestae under Section 42 of Rule 130.
7. Jurisprudence: Because the declaration
was made in extremity, when the party is
at the point of death and when every
motive of falsehood is silenced and the
mind is induced by the most powerful
considerations to speak the truth, the law
deems this as a situation so solemn and
awful as creating an obligation equal to
that which is imposed by an oath
administered in court. – In the case at bar,
SPO2 Borre’s statements constitute a
dying declaration, given that they
pertained to the cause and circumstances
of his death and taking into consideration
the number and severity of his wounds, it
may be reasonable presumed that he
uttered the same under a fixed belief that
his own death was already imminent. This
declaration is considered evidence of the
highest order and is entitled to utmost
credence since no person aware of his
impending death would make a careless
and false accusation. (People of the
Philippines vs. Bernabe P. Palanas alias
“Abe”(G.R No. 214453, June 17, 2015))
Declaration against interest
1. The declaration made by a person decease,
or unable to testify, against the interest of
the declarant, if the fact is 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 28,
Rules of Court).
2. This exception refers to a declaration
made by a person who at the time his
declaration is presented in evidence is
already dead or is unable to testify.
Further, it is clear from the rule that it is
not enough that a declaration against
interest was made. It is necessary that the
declarant knew that the statement was
against his interest and which he would
not have made had it not been true
(Evidence, Riano, 2009, p. 389).
13
3. Serious physical or mental impairments
may be grounds for considering a person
“unavailable” (Ibid).
Act or declaration about pedigree
To be admissible as an exception to the hearsay
rule, it must be shown that: (a) the declarant is
dead, or unable to testify (b) that the declarant is
related by birth or marriage to the person whose
pedigree is in issue; (c) the declaration was
made before the controversy; and (d) the
relationship between the two persons is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration
(Sec. 39, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
Family reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree
This exception involves:
a. a statement by a member of the family
either by consanguinity or affinity;
b. the statement is about the reputation or
tradition of the family in respect to the
pedigree of any member of the family; and
c. the reputation or tradition is one existing
previous to the controversy (See Sec. 40,
Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Common reputation
Common reputation existing previous to the
controversy, respecting facts of public or general
interest more than thirty years old, or respecting
marriage or moral character, may be given in
evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public
places may be received as evidence of common
reputation (Rule 130, Sec. 41, Rules of Court).
Part of res gestae
1. 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 (Rule
130, Sec. 42, Rules of Court).
2. This exception presuppose that there is a
startling occurrence, an event which
causes excitement to the perceiver. A
statement made by the declarant about the
occurrence or event while the event is
taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto is admissible as part of
the res gestae. Note that the one who
made the statement is not the one
testifying in court. Under normal
circumstances he should be the one in
court as the actual perceiver of the event.
But if he is not available, the person who
heard his utterances may testify. The in-
court witness is the person who did not
perceive the occurrence. His testimony is
actually hearsay for lack of personal
knowledge. But he is allowed to testify as
to what he heard under the presumption
that the statement he heard is reliable
because when one describes an event as it
is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto, there is no room for
fabrication.
3. Another part of the res gestae refers to
the so-called verbal acts. These are
statements made which accompany an
equivocal act material to the issue and
gives the fact legal significance. An
14
 equivocal act is an act which may be
subject to various interpretations. Thus, if
X testifies that W, a customs broker
handed a thick wad a bills to a customs
employee, one cannot presume
automatically that the money was handed
as a bribe. It may have been given in
payment of a debt or the receiver was
merely asked to give the money to
someone else. However, when the
handling of them money was coupled with
the statement, “Here is the money you
asked for. Can I expect you now to sign
for the release of goods today?” The
statement has given the act of giving
money a legal significance. The person
who heard such words uttered may testify
on the statement he heard to prove bribery.
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 (Rule 130,
Sec. 43, Rules of Court).
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 if the facts therein
stated (Rule 130, Sec. 44, Rules of Court).
Commercial list and the like
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
person 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 (Rule 130, Sec.
45, Rules of Court).
Learned treaties
A published treatise periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of history, law, science, or art is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of a
matter stated therein if the court takes judicial
notice or a witness expert in the subject testifies,
that the writer of the statement in the treatise,
periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject
(Rule 130, Sec. 46, Rules of Court).
Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding
The testimony or deposition of a witness
deceased or unable to testify, given in a former
case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
involving the same parties and subject matter,
may be given in evidence against the adverse
party who had the opportunity to cross-examine
him (Rule 130, Sec. 47, Rules of Court).
Opinion rule
Opinion of expert witness
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 (Rule 130, Sec. 49, Rules of Court).
Opinion of ordinary witness
15
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 (Rule 130, Sec. 50,
Rules of Court).
Character evidence
1. Character is the aggregate of moral
qualities which belong to and distinguish
an individual person; thee general results
of one’s distinguishing attribute (Black’s
Law’s Dictionary). While character is
what the person really is, reputation is
what he is supposed to be in accordance
with what people say he is, and is
dependent on how people perceive a
person to be. Character evidence is, as a
rule, not admissible (Rule 130, Sec. 51,
Rules of Court).
2. Ordinarily, if the issues in the case were
allowed to be influenced by evidence of
the character or reputation of the parties,
the trial would be apt to have the aspects
of a popularity contest rather than a
factual inquiry into the merits of the case.
After all, the business of the court is to try
the case, and not the man and a very bad
man may have a righteous cause (People
vs. lee, G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002).
Criminal cases
1. In criminal cases the accused may prove
his good moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged (Rule 130, Sec. 51, Rules
of Court).
2. When the accused presents proof of this
good moral character, this strengthens the
presumption of innocence and where good
character and reputation is established, an
inference arises that the accused did not
commit the crime charged. This view
proceeds from the theory that a person of
good character and high reputation is not
likely to have committed the act charged
against him (People vs. Lee, G.R. No.
139070, May 29, 2002).
3. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may
not prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged (Rule 130, Sec. 52 (2),
Rules of Court). This means that the
prosecution may not offer evidence of the
character of the accused unless the
accused himself has offered evidence of
his bad moral character. The prosecution
therefore, must wait until the accused puts
his character in issue during the
proceedings.
4. 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 51 (3), Rules of
Court). The above provision pertains only
to criminal cases, no to administrative
offenses. Also, not every good or bad
moral character of the offended party may
be proved under the provision but only
those which would establish the
probability or improbability of the offense
charged. This means be limited to the
traits and characteristics involved in the
type of offense charged (Civil Services
Commission vs. Belagan, 440 SCRA 578).
Civil cases
16
Evidence of the moral character of a party in a
civil case is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the case (Rule
130, Sec. 51 (b), Rules of Court).
✔️KINDLY READ THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL
AFFIDAVIT RULE
✔️KINDLY READ THE ENTIRE RULE ON
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (PLEASE
READ NOTES GIVEN BY: ATTY. APRIL
LYNN L. URSAL)
✔️KINDLY READ THE ENTIRE
PROVISIONS OF THE RULE ON
EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS:
(A.M. No. 004-07-SC)
Competency of a child witness
1. Every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness (Sec. 6, Rule on Examination of a
Child Witness). To rebut the presumption
of competence enjoyed by a child, the
burden of proof lies on the party
challenging his competence (Sec. 6 [b],
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness).
2. When the court finds that substantial
doubt exist regarding the ability of the
child to perceive, remember,
communicate, distinguish truth from

Rule on Examination of Child witness (A.M.

Falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell
No. 004-07-SC)
the truth in court, the court shall conduct a
competency examination of the child. The
Applicability of the rule
court may do so motu proprio or on
motion of a party (Sec. 6, Rule on
Unless the otherwise provided, this rule shall
Examination of a Child Witness).
govern the examination of child witnesses who
are victims of crime accused of a crime, and
3. The competency examination of the child
witnesses to a crime. It shall apply in all
shall be conducted only by the judge. If
criminal proceedings and non-criminal
counsel of parties desire to ask questions,
proceedings involving child witnesses (Sec. 1,
they cannot do so directly. Instead, they
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, A.M.
are allowed to submit questions to the
No. 004-07-SC).
judge which he may ask the child in his
discretion (Sec. 6[d], Rule on
Meaning of child witness
Examination of a Child Witness).
A “child witness” is any person who ate the
4. The questions asked at the competency
time of giving testimony is below the age of
examination shall be appropriate to the
eighteen (18) years. In child abuse cases, a child
age and developmental level of the child.
includes one over eighteen (18) years but is
The questions shall not be related to the
found by the court as unable to fully take care of
issues at the trial but shall focus on the
himself or protect himself from abuse neglect
ability of the child to remember, to
cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination disability
communicate, to distinguish between truth
or condition (Sec. 4[a], Rule on Examination of
and falsehood and to appreciate the duty
a Child Witness, A.M. No. 004-07-SC)

17
 to testify truthfully (Sec. 6[e], Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness).
Examination of a child witness
The examination of a child witness present in a
hearing or any proceeding shall be done in open
court. Unless the witness is incapacitated to
speak or the question calls for a different mode
of answer, the answers of the witness shall be
given orally, The party who presents a child
witness or the guardian ad litem of such child
witness may, however, move the court to allow
him to testify in the manner provide in this Rule
(Sec. 8, Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness).
Live-link TV testimony of a child witness
If the court orders the taking of testimony by
live-link television:
a. The child shall testify in a room
separate from the courtroom in the
presence of the guardian ad litem;
one or both of his support persons; the
facilitator and interpreter if any; a court
officer appointed by the court; persons
necessary to operate the closed-circuit
television equipment; and other persons
whose presence are determined by the
court to be necessary to the welfare and
well-being of the child;
a. The judge, prosecutor, accused, and
counsel, for the parties shall be in the
courtroom. The testimony of the child
shall be transmitted by live-link television
into the courtroom for viewing and
hearing by the judge, prosecutor, counsel
for the parties, accused, victim, and the
public unless excluded;
b. If it is necessary for the child to identify
the accused at trial, the court may allow
the child to enter the courtroom for the
limited purpose of identifying the accused,
or the court may allow the child to identify
the accuse by observing the image of the
latter on a television monitor;
c. The court may set other conditions and
limitations on the taking of the testimony
that it finds just and appropriate, taking
into consideration the best interest of the
child;
d. The testimony of the child shall be
preserved on videotape, digital disc, or
other similar devices which shall be made
part of the court record and shall be
subjected to a protective order as provided
in section (Sec. 25, Rule on Examination
of a Child Witness).
Videotape deposition of a child witness
1. The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad
litem may apply for an order that a
deposition be taken of the testimony of the
child and that it be recorded and preserved
on videotape. Before the guardian ad litem
applies for an order under this section, he
shall consult with the prosecutor or
counsel subject to the second and third
paragraphs of section.
2. If the court finds that the child will not be
able to testify in open court at trial, it shall
issue an order that the deposition of the
child be taken and preserved by videotape.
3. The judge shall preside at the videotaped
deposition of a child. Objections to
deposition testimony or evidence, or parts
thereof, and the grounds for the objection
shall be stated and shall be rule upon at
the time of the taking of the deposition.
4. The rights of the accused during trial,
especially the right to counsel and to
confront and cross-examine the child,
shall not be violated during the deposition.
18
5. If the order of the court is based on
evidence that the child is unable to testify
in the physical presence of the accused,
the court may direct the latter to be
excluded from the room in which the
deposition is conducted. In case of
exclusion of the accused, the court shall
order that the testimony of the child be
taken by live-link television in accordance
with section 25 of this Rule. If the accused
is excluded from the deposition, it is not
necessary that the child be able to view an
image of the accused (Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness).
Hearsay exception in child abuse cases
1. A statement made by a child describing
any act or attempted act of child abuse,
not otherwise admissible under the
hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence
in any criminal or non-criminal
proceeding subject to the following rule.
2. Before such hearsay statement may be
admitted, its proponent shall make known
to the adverse party the
intention to offer such statement and its
particulars to provide him a fair
opportunity to object. If the child is
available, the court shall, upon motion of
the adverse party, require the child to be
present at the presentation of the hearsay
statement for cross-examination by the
adverse party. When the child is
unavailable, the fact of such circumstances
must be proved by the proponent (Sec. 28,
Rule on Examination of Child Witness).
Sexual abuse shield rule
1. The following evidence is not admissible in
any criminal proceeding involving alleged
child sexual abuses:
a. evidence offered to prove that the
alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behaviors; and
b. evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim.
2. Evidence of specific instances of sexual
behavior by the alleged victim to prove
that a person other than the accused was
the source of semen, injury, or other
physical evidence shall be admissible
(Sec. 30, Rule on Examination of Child
Witness)
Protective orders
1. Any videotape or audiotape of a child that
is part of the court record shall be under a
protective order that provides as follows:
(a) Tapes may be viewed only by parties
their counsel, their expert witness and
the guardian ad litem
(b) No tape, or any portion thereof, shall
be divulged by any person mentioned
in sub-section (1) to any other person,
except as necessary for the trial;
(c) No person shall be granted access to
the tape, its transcription or any part
thereof unless he signs a written
affirmation that he has received and
read a copy of the protective order; that he
submits to the jurisdiction of the court
with respect to the protective order; and
that in case of violation thereof, he will be
subject to the contempt power of the
court.;
(d) Each of the tape cassettes and
transcripts thereof made available to
the parties, their counsel, and
respective agents shall bear the
following cautionary notice “This
object or document and the contents
19
 thereof are subject to a protective
order issued by the court in (case
title), (case number). They shall not be
examined, inspected read, viewed, or
copied by any person, or disclosed to
any person, except as provided in the
protective order. No additional copies
of the tape or any of its portion shall
be made, give, sold, or shown to any
person without prior court order. Any
without prior court order. Any person
violating such protective order is
subject to the contempt power of the
court and other penalties prescribed by
law.”
(e) No tape shall be given, loaned, sold or
shown to any person except as ordered
by the court; (6) Within thirty (30)
days from receipt, all copies of the
tape and any transcripts thereof shall
be returned to the clerk of court for
safekeeping unless the period is
extended by the court on motion of a
party and (7) This protective order
shall remain in full force and effect
until further order of the court (Sec.
31[b], Rule on Examination of a
Child Witness).
2. The court may notu porprio or motion of
any party, the child, his parents, legal
guardian, or the guardian ad litem, issue
additional orders to protect the privacy of
the child (Sec. 31[c], Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness)
Offer and objection
When the offer of evidence is made depends
upon the nature of the evidence:
a. As regards the testimony of a witness,
the offer must be made at the time the
witness is called to testify;
a. Documentary and objective evidence
shall be offered after the presentation of
a party’s testimonial evidence. Such
offer shall be done orally unless allowed
by the court to be done in writing. (Rule
132, Sec. 35, Rules of Court).
Objection
1. An objection must point out the specific
ground of the objection and if it does not
do so, no error is committed in overruling
it (75 Am. Jur. 2d, 2nd Ed., 254-256). The
last paragraph of Sec. 36, Rule 132
provides, “. . . the grounds for the
objection must be specified.” An objector
must be explicit as to be legal ground he
invokes.
1. The following examples are considered
as general objections;
a. “Objection, the evidence is
incompetent!”;
b. “Objection! Inadmissible!”;
c. “Objection: incompetent, irrelevant,
and improper!”;
d. “Objection; Improper!” They do not
clearly indicate to the judge the
ground upon which the objections
are predicated.

Offer of evidence
3.
The court shall consider no evidence which has
not been formally offered. The purpose for
which the evidence is offered must be specified
(Rule, Sec. 34, Rules of Court).
When to make an offer
Jurisprudence:
a. The records of the case are bereft of
evidence that appellant, during trial,
interposed any objection to the non-
marking of seized items in his presence
and the lack of information on the

20
 whereabouts of the shabu after it was
examined by P/Insp. Calabocal. While
he questioned the chain of custody
before the CA, the alleged defects
appellant is now alluding to were not
among those he raised on appeal. The
defects raised before the CA were
limited to the alleged lack of physical
inventory, non-taking of photographs of
the seized items, and the supposed
failure of the police officers to mark the
sachets of shabu at the crime scene. He
should have done so early on before the
RTC. The court has already brushed
aside an accused’s belated contention
that the illegal drugs confiscated from
his person is inadmissible for failure of
the arresting officers to comply with
Section 21 of R.A. 9168. This is
considering that “[w]hatever justifiable
grounds may excuse the police officers
from literally complying with Section 21
will remain unknown, because
[appellant] did not question during trial
the safekeeping of the items seized from
him. Objection to evidence cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal; when
a party desires the court to reject the
evidence offered, he must so state in the
form of an objection. Without such
objection, he cannot raised the question
for the first time on appeal.” [Peaople V.
Jimmy Gabuya y Adlawan, GR. 195245
(2015)]
a. The rules of court provides that “the
court shall consider o evidence which
has not been formally offered.” This is
to enable the trial judge to know the
purpose or purposes for which the
proponent is presenting the evidence. It
allows opposing parties to examine the
evidence and object to its admissibility.
A formal offer is
necessary because judges are mandated to rest
their findings of facts and judgment strictly and
only upon the evidence offered by the parties at
trial. Consequently, review by the appellate
court is facilitated for it will not be required to
review documents not previously scrutinized by
the trial court. Hence, strict adherence to this
basic procedural rule is required, lest evidence
cannot be assigned any evidentiary weight or
value. In certain instances, however, this Court
has relaxed the procedural rule and allowed the
trial court to consider evidence not formally
offered on the condition that the following
requisites are present: (1) the evidence must
have been duly identified by testimony duly
recorded; and (A) the same must have been
incorporated in the records of the case. (HEIRS
OF SERAPIO MABBORANG vs.
HERMOGENES MABBORANG, G.R. No.
182805, April 22, 2015)
Repetition of an offer
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the
course of the examination of a witness that the
questions being propounded are of the same
class as those to which the 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 37, Rules of Court).
Ruling
1. The ruling of the court must be given
immediately after the objection is made
except when the court desires to take
reasonable time to inform itself on the
questions presented. However, the court
must give its ruling during the trial and at
such time as will give a party an
opportunity to meet the situation presented
by the ruling. (Rule 132, Sec. 38, Rules of
Court).
2. The ruling of the court sustaining or
overruling an objection need not be stated
21
 except if the objection is based on two or
more grounds. In such case, a ruling
sustaining the objection must specify the
ground or grounds relied upon (Rule 132,
Sec. 38, Rules of Court).
Striking out of an answer
Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully
its objection to the same, and such objection is
found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain
the objection and order the answer given to be
stricken off the record. On proper motion the
court may also order the striking out of answers
which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise
improper (Rule 132, Sec. 39, Rules of Court).
Tender of excluded evidence
1. If the documents or things offered in
evidence are excluded by the court, the
offeror may have the same attached to or
made part of the record. If the evidence
excluded is oral the offeror may state for
the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony (Rule
133, Sec. 40, Rules of Court).
1. The forgoing rule, called “offer of
proof” in other jurisdictions, embodies
the procedure for the “tender of excluded
evidence.” Why make a tender of
excluded evidence? There are two
reasons (1) to allow the court to know
the nature of the testimony or the
documentary evidence and convince the
trial judge to permit the evidence or
testimony; and (2) even, if he is not
convinced to reverse his earlier ruling
the tender is made to create and preserve
a record for appeal.
✔️EXCERPT FROM THE RULES OF
COURT:
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. Qualification of Witnesses
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. —
Except as provided in the next succeeding
section, all persons who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make their known perception to
others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be
ground for disqualification. (18a)
Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental
incapacity or immaturity. — The following
persons cannot be witnesses:
(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 truthfully. (19a)
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of
marriage. — During their marriage, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against
the other without the consent of the affected
spouse, except in a civil case by one against the
other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants. (20a)
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death
or insanity of adverse party. — Parties or
assignor of parties to a case, or persons in whose
behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor
or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, or against a person of unsound
mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such deceased person or against such person
of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became
of unsound mind. (20a)
22
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of
privileged 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;
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be examined
as to any advice or treatment given by him or
any information which he may have acquired in
attending such patient in a professional capacity,
which information was necessary to enable him
to act in capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient;
(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)
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. (20a)
3. Admissions and Confessions
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. (22)
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. (24a)
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. (25a)
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. (26a)
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. (27)
Section 31. Admission by privies. — Where one
derives title to property from another, the act,
23
declaration, or omission of the latter, while
holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former. (28)
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. (23a)
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.
(29a)
4. Previous Conduct as Evidence
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 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. (48a)
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. (49a)
5. Testimonial Knowledge
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. (30a)
6. Exceptions 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. (31a)
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 is 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.
(32a)
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.
— The act or declaration of a person deceased,
or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
another person related to him by birth or
marriage, may be received in evidence where it
occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between the two persons is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration.
The word "pedigree" includes relationship,
family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and the places where these fast
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It
embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree. (33a)
Section 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. (34a)
Section 41. Common reputation. — Common
reputation existing previous to the controversy,
respecting facts of public or general interest
more than thirty years old, or respecting
marriage or moral character, may be given in
evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public
places may be received as evidence of common
reputation. (35)
Section 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,
24
may be given in evidence as part of res gestae.
So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal
act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res
gestae. (36a)
Section 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. (37a)
Section 44. Entries in official records. —
Entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer of
the Philippines, or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law,
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated. (38)
Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. —
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a
list, register, periodical, or other published
compilation is admissible as tending to prove the
truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation and is generally used
and relied upon by them therein. (39)
Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of
history, law, science, or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a
witness expert in the subject testifies, that the
writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical
or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or
calling as expert in the subject. (40a)
Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding. — The testimony or deposition of a
witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a
former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, may be given in evidence against
the adverse party who had the opportunity to
cross-examine him. (41a)
7. Opinion Rule
Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of
witness is not admissible, except as indicated in
the following sections. (42)
Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he shown to posses, may be received in
evidence. (43a)
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)
8. Character Evidence
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.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in
civil case is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section
14, (46a, 47a)
25

RULE 132
Presentation of Evidence
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 1. Examination to be done in open
court. — The examination of witnesses
presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in
open court, and under oath or affirmation.
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
the questions calls for a different mode of
answer, the answers of the witness shall be
given orally. (1a)
Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. — The
entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including
the questions propounded to a witness and his
answers thereto, the statements made by the
judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses
with reference to the case, shall be recorded by
means of shorthand or stenotype or by other
means of recording found suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings
made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or
recorder and certified as correct by him shall be
deemed prima facie a correct statement of such
proceedings. (2a)
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness.
— A witness must answer questions, although
his answer may tend to establish a claim against
him. However, it is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests
of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very
fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in
issue would be presumed. But a witness must
answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a)
Section 4. Order in the examination of an
individual witness. — The order in which the
individual witness may be examined is as
follows;
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4)
Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct
examination is the examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue. (5a)
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and
extent. — Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-examined
by the adverse party as to many matters stated in
the direct examination, or connected therewith,
with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose
and extent. — After the cross-examination of the
witness has been concluded, he may be re-
examined by the party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers given during the cross-
examination. On re-direct-examination,
questions on matters not dealt with during the
cross-examination, may be allowed by the court
in its discretion. (12)
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the
conclusion of the re-direct examination, the
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness
on matters stated in his re-direct examination,
and also on such other matters as may be
allowed by the court in its discretion. (13)
Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the
examination of a witness by both sides has been
concluded, the witness cannot be recalled
without leave of the court. The court will grant
or withhold leave in its discretion, as the
interests of justice may require. (14)
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions.
— A question which suggests to the witness the
answer which the examining party desires is a
leading question. It is not allowed, except:
26
 (a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct
and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of
feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an
officer, director, or managing agent of a public
or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated.
It is not allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a)
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's
witness. — A witness may be impeached by the
party against whom he was called, by
contradictory evidence, by evidence that his
general reputation for truth, honestly, or
integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made
at other times statements inconsistent with his
present, testimony, but not by evidence of
particular wrongful acts, except that it may be
shown by the examination of the witness, or the
record of the judgment, that he has been
convicted of an offense. (15)
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own
witness. — Except with respect to witnesses
referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section
10, the party producing a witness is not allowed
to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or
hostile only if so declared by the court upon
adequate showing of his adverse interest,
unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having
misled the party into calling him to the witness
stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or
the witness who is an adverse party, may be
impeached by the party presenting him in all
respects as if he had been called by the adverse
party, except by evidence of his bad character.
He may also be impeached and cross-examined
by the adverse party, but such cross-examination
must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief. (6a, 7a)
Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence
of inconsistent statements. — Before a witness
can be impeached by evidence that he has made
at other times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony, the statements must be
related to him, with the circumstances of the
times and places and the persons present, and he
must be asked whether he made such statements,
and if so, allowed to explain them. If the
statements be in writing they must be shown to
the witness before any question is put to him
concerning them. (16)
Section 14. Evidence of good character of
witness. — Evidence of the good character of a
witness is not admissible until such character
has been impeached. (17)
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of
witnesses. — On any trial or hearing, the judge
may exclude from the court any witness not at
the time under examination, so that he may not
hear the testimony of other witnesses. The judge
may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and
to be prevented from conversing with one
another until all shall have been examined. (18)
Section 16. When witness may refer to
memorandum. — A witness may be allowed to
refresh his memory respecting a fact, by
anything written or recorded by himself or under
his direction at the time when the fact occurred,
or immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew
that the same was correctly written or recorded;
but in such case the writing or record must be
produced and may be inspected by the adverse
party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine
the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence.
So, also, a witness may testify from such writing
or record, though he retain no recollection of the
particular facts, if he is able to swear that the
writing or record correctly stated the transaction
when made; but such evidence must be received
with caution. (10a)
Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or
record given in evidence, the remainder, the
27
remainder admissible. — When part of an act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record is
given in evidence by one party, the whole of the
same subject may be inquired into by the other,
and when a detached act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record is given in
evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.
(11a)
Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to
witness. — Whenever a writing is shown to a
witness, it may be inspected by the adverse
party. (9a)
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION
Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall
consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified. (35)
Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards
the testimony of a witness, the offer must be
made at the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be
offered after the presentation of a party's
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done
orally unless allowed by the court to be done in
writing. (n)
Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence
offered orally must be made immediately after
the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the
course of the oral examination of a witness shall
be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall
become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected
to within three (3) days after notice of the unless
a different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must
be specified. (36a)
Section 37. When repetition of objection
unnecessary. — When it becomes reasonably
apparent in the course of the examination of a
witness that the question being propounded are
of the same class as those to which objection has
been made, whether such objection was
sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary
to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the
adverse party to record his continuing objection
to such class of questions. (37a)
Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court
must be given immediately after the objection is
made, unless the court desires to take a
reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented; but the ruling shall always be made
during the trial and at such time as will give the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to
meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an
objection need not be stated. However, if the
objection is based on two or more grounds, a
ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of
them must specify the ground or grounds relied
upon. (38a)
Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a
witness answer the question before the adverse
party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and such objection is
found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain
the objection and order the answer given to be
stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the
striking out of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If
documents or things offered in evidence are
excluded by the court, the offeror may have the
same attached to or made part of the record. If
the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may
state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance
of the proposed testimony. (n)
Reference(s):
 
*Compilation of Notes from the following:
 -Rules of Court
28
- Rule on Examination of Child Witness
- Judicial Affidavit Rule
-UJSR Bar Review Operations 2016
-Book of Regalado
-Book of Riano & Riguerra
-UCLaw Notes (c/o Atty. Laarni M.)

29