COMMERCIAL LISTS

REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

SEC 45. Commercial lists and the like. – No counterpart provision
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.

Under Section 45 of the aforesaid Rule, a document is a commercial list if: (1) it is a statement of
matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation; (2) such statement is contained in a list,
register, periodical or other published compilation; (3) said compilation is published for the use
of persons engaged in that occupation, and (4) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in
the same occupation.
However, in the proposed amendments of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the provision on
commercial lists has been removed, rendering the rule on evidence concerning commercial lists
as obsolete.

LEARNED TREATISES
REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE
Sec. 46. Learned treatises. -A published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of
history, law, science, or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a
witness expert in the subject testifies, that the
writer of the statement in the treatise,
periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Sec. 48. 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 or
her profession or calling as expert in the
subject

In this section, a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science,
or art is admissible as long as:
1. The court takes judicial notice, or
2. An expert witness testifies that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical, or
pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession or calling as an expert in the subject
MANALO vs. ROBLES TRANSPORTATION CO. INC.
FACTS:
A taxicab owned and operated by Robles Transportation and driven by Edgardo Hernandez
collided with a passenger truck. As a result of the accident, the taxicab ran over Amando
Manalo, causing his death due to injuries. Edgardo Hernandez was convicted for homicide
through reckless imprudence and served his sentence, but he failed to pay the costs.
Emilio Manalo and his wife Clara Salvador, father and mother of the victim, filed an action
against Robles Transportation to enforce the subsidiary liability. To prove their case against the
company, the parents introduced a copy of the decision in the criminal case convicting
Hernandez of homicide through reckless imprudence, the writs of execution to enforce the civil
liability, and the returns of the sheriff showing that the two writs of execution were not satisfied
because of the insolvency of Hernandez, the sheriff being unable to locate any property in his
name. The company objected to such evidence, arguing that the evidence is inadmissible..

ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidence presented by the parents are admissible.

RULING:
The Court ruled that the evidence is admissible.
A sheriff's return is an official statement made by a public official in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by the law and forming part of official records, and is prima facie evidence of
the facts stated therein. The sheriff's making the return need not testify in court as to the facts
stated in his entry.
The Court also added that the law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it
presumes they will discharge their several trust with accuracy and fidelity; and therefore,
whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be
taken of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a
degree of caution as the nature and circumstances of each a case may appear to require.

PEOPLE vs. CABUANG

FACTS:
Evelyn De Vera and Maria Victoria Parana, cousins, were walking home one late night when
Modesto Cabuang and Nardo Matabang emerged. They captured Maria Victoria and tried to
capture Evelyn, who escaped and hid in the shadows of the bushes inside a yard. From her hiding
spot, Evelyn saw a tricycle and saw her cousin being ordered to enter, crying and pleading for
help.
The following morning, Maria Victoria was found dead, naked and with stab wounds. When
interrogated by the police, Evelyn executed a sworn statement, identifying Modesto and Nardo
as the suspects and stating that she could identify them because the latter were her barangay
mates. After three days since the incident, the police found possessions of Maria Victoria, which
Evelyn identified as possessions belonging to her cousin. Examination of the personal
belongings so found also showed that cash in the amount of P400.00, in Maria Victoria's
possession the night before, was missing. There was also report from the autopsy concerning the
stab wounds, which were found to be mortal.
Modesto and Nardo were charged for the crime of robbery with rape and homicide. Accused
argued that Evelyn never identified the suspects as the assailants of Maria Victoria, who in fact
had to identify them from a police line-up.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Evelyn correctly identified the suspects

RULING:
The Court ruled that Evelyn correctly identified the suspects.
The failure of Evelyn to specify the accused-appellants as the doers of the horrific rape, killing
and robbery of Maria Victoria the first time she was questioned by the police, does not adversely
affect her credibility. It is firmly settled case law that the delay of a witness in revealing to the
police authority what he or she may know about a crime does not, by itself, render the witness'
testimony unworthy of belief.
It remains only to note that entries in a police blotter, though regularly done in the course of
performance of official duty are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. Testimony
given in open court during the trial is commonly much more lengthy and detailed than the brief
entries made in the police blotter and the trial court cannot base its findings on a police report
merely, but must necessarily consider all other evidence gathered in the course of the police
investigation and presented in court. In the case at bar, we conclude that prosecution witness
Evelyn de Vera did positively and clearly identify Modesto Cabuang and Nardo Matabang as
among those who had raped and killed and robbed the hapless Maria Victoria Parana.

PEOPLE vs. SAN GABRIEL

FACTS:
A fistfight ensued between Jaime Tonog and Ricardo San Gabriel and one “Ramon Doe”. The
fight was broken up by onlookers, but Ricardo and Ramon came back with bladed weapons and
proceeded to stab Jaime in the stomach and at the back. They left, leaving Jaime on the ground.
Jaime was brought to the hospital, where he died.
Ricardo presented a different version. He testified that he saw Tonog drunk; Tonog even
attempted to box him but he parried his blow; Tonog continued walking but when he chanced
upon Ramon he suddenly and without provocation boxed and kicked Ramon; Ramon fought
back but was subdued by his bigger assailant so the former ran towards the highway; when
Tonog met a certain "Mando" he boxed the latter who however fought back despite his (accused)
warning not to; at this moment he saw Ramon return with a bolo on hand; he warned Ramon not
to fight but his advice went unheeded; instead, with bolo on hand Ramon struck Tonog on the
belly; when "Mando" saw what happened he ("Mando") pulled out his knife and also stabbed
Tonog at the back; Ramon and "Mando" then fled towards the highway.
The accused further claimed that he even stayed with the victim and called out the latter's
companions to bring him to the hospital; that prosecution witness Brenda Gonzales only arrived
at the crime scene after Tonog was already taken to the hospital; that Brenda even inquired from
him what happened and then prodded him to testify; that his refusal coupled with the fact that he
owed Gonzales some money earned him the ire of the latter and that was why he was charged for
the death of Tonog.
The accused also defended that based on the Advanced Information Sheet prepared by Pat. Steve
Casimiro, it did not mention him at all and named only “Ramon Doe” as the principal suspect.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Advanced Information Sheet should be considered in favour of the accused

RULING:
The Court ruled that the Advanced Information Sheet should not be considered.
The entry in the police blotter is not necessarily entitled to full credit for it could be incomplete
and inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of suggestions or inquiries,
without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral
circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his memory and for his
accurate recollection of all that pertain to the subject. It is understandable that the testimony
during the trial would be lengthier and more detailed than the matters stated in the police blotter.

Significantly, the Advance Information Sheet was never formally offered by the defense during
the proceedings in the court below. Hence any reliance by the accused on the document must fail
since the court cannot consider any evidence which has not been formally offered.
Parenthetically, the Advance Information Sheet was prepared by the police officer only after
interviewing Camba, an alleged eyewitness. The accused then could have compelled the
attendance of Camba as a witness. The failure to exert the slightest effort to present Camba on
the part of the accused should militate against his cause.
Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer or by a person
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. But to be admissible in evidence three (3) requisites must concur:
(1) The entry was made by a police officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to
do so;
(2) It was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties or by such other person
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and,
(3) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated,
which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information.
Applied in the case at bar: The Advance Information Sheet does not constitute an exception to
the hearsay rule, hence, inadmissible.

PNOC SHIPPING vs. CA

FACTS:
The M/V Maria Efigenia XV, owned by private respondent Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation,
was navigating the waters near Fortune Island in Nasugbu, Batangas on its way to Navotas,
Metro Manila when it collided with the vessel Petroparcel which at the time was owned by the
Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC). Private respondent filed a complaint against LSC, but
was substituted by petitioner PNOC Shipping when the latter had acquired the ownership of the
Petroparcel.
The lower court ruled in favour of private respondent and admitted the various evidence
presented by the private respondent, including the price quotations of the valuables that were lost
due to the collision. CA affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the price quotations should be admitted as evidence by virtue of commercial lists

RULING:
The Court ruled not to admit the price quotations as evidence.
It is true that one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule pertains to "commercial lists and the like"
under Section 45, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. In this respect, the Court of
Appeals considered private respondent's exhibits as "commercial lists." It added, however, that
these exhibits should be admitted in evidence "until such time as the Supreme Court
categorically rules on the admissibility or inadmissibility of this class of evidence" because "the
reception of these documentary exhibits (price quotations) as evidence rests on the sound
discretion of the trial court."
Under Section 45 of the aforesaid Rule, a document is a commercial list if: (1) it is a statement of
matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation; (2) such statement is contained in a list,
register, periodical or other published compilation; (3) said compilation is published for the use
of persons engaged in that occupation, and (4) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in
the same occupation.
In this case, the price quotations are not considered to be commercial lists. They are not
published in any list, register, periodical or other compilation on the relevant subject matter.
Neither are these "market reports or quotations" within the purview of "commercial lists" as
these are not "standard handbooks or periodicals, containing data of everyday professional need
and relied upon in the work of the occupation."

MERALCO vs. QUISUMBING

FACTS:
A previous case was filed by Meralco Employees and Workers Association (MEWA) against
Meralco, wherein the Supreme Court ruled to have MEWA and Meralco execute a collective
bargaining agreement while the retirement fund issue was remanded to the Secretary of Labor for
reception of evidence.
Dissatisfied with the Supreme Court decision, some members of the union filed a motion for
reconsideration. Meralco argued that if the wage increase of P2,200.00 per month as ordered by
the Secretary is allowed, it would simply pass the cost covering such increase to the consumers
through an increase in the rate of electricity. A report from the All Asia Capital was presented as
evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the report from the All Asia Captial should be admitted as evidence.

RULING:
The Court ruled that it cannot be admitted.
Section 45 of Rule 130 states that:
 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.
Under the afore-quoted rule, statement of matters contained in a periodical, may be admitted
only "if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is
generally used and relied upon by them therein." In this case, the report is simply a newspaper
account and not even a commercial list. At most, it is but an analysis or opinion which carries no
persuasive weight for purposes of this case as no sufficient figures to support it were presented.
Neither did anybody testify to its accuracy. It cannot be said that businessmen generally rely on
news items such as this in their occupation. Besides, no evidence was presented that the
publication was regularly prepared by a person in touch with the market and that it is generally
regarded as trustworthy and reliable. Absent extrinsic proof of their accuracy, these reports are
not admissible.

PAJE vs. CASINO

FACTS:
Subic Bay Metropollitan Authority (SBMA) and Taiwan Cogeneration Corporation (TCC)
executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), expressing the intent to construct a coal
power plant in Subic Bay. TCC assigned all its rights and interests to Redondo Peninsula Energy,
Inc. (RP Energy) in order for the latter to take over the MOU. DENR approved the issuance of an
ECC to RP Energy for the coal power plant.
A number of House representatives led by Hon. Teodoro Casino filed a Petition for Writ of
Kalikasan against against RP Energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Jesus P. Paje, in his capacity as
Secretary of the DENR. In said petition, the Casino group alleged that the power plant project
would cause grave environmental and health damage. The Casino group’s claims of ecological
damage were supported by various academic reports.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the academic reports should be admitted as evidence

RULING:
The Court ruled not to admit the evidence.
Indeed, under the rules of evidence, a witness can testify only to those facts which the witness
knows of his orher personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from the witness’ own
perception. Concomitantly, a witness may not testify on matters which he or she merely learned
from others either because said witness was told or read or heard those matters. Such testimony
is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what the witness has
learned. This is known as the hearsay rule. Hearsay is notlimited to oral testimony or statements;
the general rule that excludes hearsay as evidence applies to written, as well as oral statements.
There are several exceptions to the hearsay rule under the Rules of Court, among which are
learned treatises under Section 46 of Rule 130:
"SEC. 46. Learned treatises. -A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subjectof 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."
The alleged scientific studies mentioned in the Petition cannot be classified as learned treatises.
Petitioners cited various scientific studies or articles and websites culled from the internet.
However, the said scientific studies and articles including the alleged Key Observations and
Recommendations on the EIS of the Proposed RPE Project by Rex Victor O. Cruz (Exhibit
"DDDDD") attached to the Petition, were not testified to by an expert witness, and are basically
hearsay in nature and cannot be given probative weight. The article purportedly written by Rex
Victor O. Cruz was not even signed by the said author, which fact was confirmed by Palatino.
Petitioners’ witness, Lacbain, admitted that he did not personally conduct any study on the
environmental or health effects of a coal-fired power plant, but only attended seminars and
conferences pertaining to climate change; and that the scientific studies mentioned in the
penultimate whereas clause of Resolution No. 2011-149 (Exhibit "AAAAA") of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zambales is based on what he read on the internet, seminars he
attended and what he heard from unnamed experts in the field of environmental protection.