Case Law

3) Identity;
4)Plan;
5) System;
6) Scheme;
7) Habit;
8) Custom;
9) Usage, and the like.
Case Law:
The general evidentiary rule is that evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that one did or did not do the same or a
similar thing at another time. However, evidence of similar acts may be received to
prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan system, scheme, habit, custom or
usage and the like. In Citibank N.A., (Formerly First National City Bank) vs. Sabeniano,
the Court explained the rationale for this rule:
The rule is founded upon reason, public policy, justice and judicial convenience.
The fact that a person has committed the same or similar acts at some prior time affords,
as a general rule, no logical guaranty that he committed the act in question. This is so
because, subjectively, a man's mind and even his modes of life may change; and,
objectively, the conditions under which he may find himself at a given time may
likewise change and thus induce him to act in a different way. Besides, if evidence of
similar acts are to be invariably admitted, they will give rise to a multiplicity of
collateral issues and will subject the defendant to surprise as well as confuse the court
and prolong the trial.
Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially to actions
based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a
person; it provides insight into such person's motive or intent; it uncovers a scheme,
design or plan, or it reveals a mistake. (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs.
Custodio, G.R. No. 173780, March 21, 2011)
3) Q:: Is evidentiary value necessary in the determination of the venue where the
criminal information shall be filed?
A: No, such evidentiary rule has no bearing in determining the place where the crime
was committed for purposes of fling a criminal information which merely requires the
existence of probable cause.
Case Law:
On Navaja's argument that the CA's reliance on Labarro's aforesaid statement in
upholding the venue of the case violates Sec. 34, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the
Court holds that such evidentiary rule has no bearing in determining the place where
the crime was committed for purposes of filing a criminal information which merely
requires the existence of probable cause. In Fenequito vs. Vergara, Jr., the Court
expounded on the concept of probable cause in this wise:
Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined
as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term does not mean
“actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on
opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether
there is sufficient evidence procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that act
or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more
likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on
clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances
without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no
technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. What is determined is whether there
is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed,
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not
require an inquiry as to whether there
is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. (Ana Lou Navaja vs. Hon. Manuel De
Castro, G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015)
2. Unaccepted Offer:
Sec. 36, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence
(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule in case of an unaccepted
offer. It states that:
“Sec. 36. 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.”
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the effect in case of an unaccepted offer?
A: The rule on unaccepted offer states that, an offer in writing to pay a particular sum of
money or to deliver written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected
without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money,
instrument, of property.
2) Q: What are the requirements of a valid offer ofpayment?

A: The requirements for a valid tender of payment are as follows, to wit:
1) The offer of payment must be made in writing; and
2) The offer of payment must be followed by the consignation of the amount in
court.
3) Q: What is the reason for the rule?

A: The rule is intended to complement the law on tender of payment under Art. 1256 of
the New Civil Code.
a) Civil Code Provision on Consignation:

Art. 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses
without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the
consignation of the thing or sum due.
1) Q: What are the instances where consignation alone will produce the same effect of
offer of payment?
A: Consignation alone shall produce the same effect of offer of payment in the
following:
1) When the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the place of payment;
2) When the creditor is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due;
3) When without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt;
4) When two or more persons claim the same right to collect;
5) When the title of the obligation has been lost.
b) Tender of Payment a Condition Precedent:

Sec. 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure (A.M.
No. 19-10-20) provides for the rules on affirmative defenses that may be raised in the
answer. It states that:
"Sec. 12. Affirmative defenses - (a) A defendant shall raise his or her
affirmative defenses in his or her answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set
forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the following grounds:
XXX.
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with."
F. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
A. Basic Concept
1) Q: What is hearsay testimony?
A: Hearsay testimony – Testimony offered against a party who had no opportunity to
examine the witness. (People of the Philippines vs. Caballero, 24059-CR, June 13, 1964)
Take Note: (Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge: hearsay
excluded. (Transposed to Sec. 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge.)]
I. HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE

1. Hearsay Evidence:
(A.M. No, 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule in case of hearsay evidence.It
states that:
"Sec. 37. Hearsay - Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant
while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted
therein. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a
person. if it is intended by him or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible
except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
A statement is not hearsay. if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is
subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a)
inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the
penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing. or other proceeding, or in a deposition; (b)
consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied
charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive: or (c)
one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her." (n)
СOMMENTS:
1) Q: What is hearsay?
A: Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a
trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.
Case Law:
Indeed, under the rules of evidence, a witness can testify only to those facts
which the witness knows of his or her 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.
(Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Rodelio Alberto and Enrico Alberto Reyes, G.R. No.
194320, February 1, 2012)
2) Q: What are the statements covered by the hearsay rule?

A: A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person.
if it is intended by him or her as an assertion.
3) Q: What is the nature of hearsay evidence?

A: Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
4) Q: When is a statement not hearsay?

A: A statement is not hearsay, if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is
subject to cross examination concerning the statement, and the statement is:
(a) Inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject
to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing. or other proceeding, or in a deposition;
(b) Consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or
implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or
motive: or
(c) One of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her.
5) Q: What is the rationale for the hearsay evidence rule?
A: Hearsay evidence is excluded by the rules because the party against whom the
evidence is presented is deprived of its right and an opportunity to cross-examine the
person to whom the statements or writings are attributed.
Case Law:
Rule 130, Sec. 36 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides for the Hearsay Rule.
It renders inadmissible as evidence out-of-court statements made by persons who are
not presented as witnesses but are offered as proof of the matters stated. This rule
proceeds from the basic rationale of fairness, as the party against whom it is presented
is unable to cross-examine the person making the statement. (DST Movers Corp. vs.
People's General Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 198627, January 13, 2016)
6) Q: What is the coverage on the application of the rule on hearsay evidence?

A: Hearsay evidence rule applies to oral and documentary evidence hearsay if its
probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness, but on the
knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand.
7) Q: What is the essential prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence?

A: The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting
testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact.
Case Law:
1) The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for
accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A witness
bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon for that
purpose because his testimony derives its value not from the credit accorded to him as a
witness presently testifying but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial
source of his information. (Fernando Manancol Jr. vs. Development Bank of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 204289, November 22, 2017)
2) Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on
the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is
sought to produce. However, while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement
made by another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact
asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of
placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or
the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement,
when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule
does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the
making of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may
constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.
This is the doctrine of independently relevant statements. Thus, all these requisites to
support a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, not to mention the dying
declaration of the deceased victim herself, are existing in the instant case. (People of the
Philippines vs. Jose Belmar Umapas, G.R. No. 215742, March 22, 2017)
8) Q: What is the evidentiary value of hearsay evidence?

A: Hearsay evidence has no probative value.
Case Law:
Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be given credence for having
no probative value. This principle, however, has been relaxed in cases where, in
addition to the failure to object to the admissibility of the subject evidence, there where
other pieces of evidence presented or there were other circumstances prevailing to
support that fact in issue. (Heirs of Policronio Ureta, Sr., et al. vs. Heirs of Liberato M.
Ureta, et al., G.R. No. 165748; Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Policronio
Ureta, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 165930, September 14, 2011)
9) Q: What is the theory of the hearsay evidence rule?

A: The theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human utterance is offered as evidence
of the truth of the fact asserted, the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference,
and, therefore, the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the
witness stand, subject to the test of cross-examination.
Case Law:
The theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human utterance is offered as
evidence of the truth of the fact asserted, the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of
inference, and, therefore, the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on
the witness stand, subject to the test of cross-examination. However, if an extrajudicial
utterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove the matter asserted but without
reference to the truth of the matter asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply. (Anna
Lerima Patula vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012)
10) Q: What is the nature of affidavits as evidence?

A: Affidavits are in the nature of hearsay evidence.
Case Law:
The affidavits partakes the nature of hearsay evidence, since they are not
generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing
the affiant's statement, which may this be either omitted or misunderstood by the one
writing them. The above rule affirms the general requirement in adversarial
proceedings for the examination of the affiant by the party against whom the affidavit is
offered. (Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club vs. Court of Appeals and Eagle Ridge
Employees Union, G.R. No. 178989, March 18, 2010)
11) Q: What is an independent relevant statement? (Bar Exams 2019, 2018, and 1991)
A: It is a statement which is relevant to the fact in issue Independently of whether they
are true or not.
Case Law:
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is
sought to produce. However, while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement
made by another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact
asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of
placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or
the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement,
when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule
does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the
making of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may
constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.
This is known as the doctrine of independently relevant statements. (Jose Espineli vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179535, June 9, 2014)
12) Q: What are the statements which can be made by a witness in which the facts in
issue may be inferred without violating hearsay evidence?
A: Statements from which the facts may be inferred may be testified to by the witness
without violating the Hearsay Evidence Rule, which are follows:
1) A statement of a person showing the following:
a) State of mind;
b) Mental condition;
c) Belief;
d) Intention;
e) Ill will; and
f) Other emotion.
2) A statement of a person which shows his:
a) Physical condition;
b) Illness and the like.
3) A statement of a person from which an inference can be made as to:
а) State of mind of another;
b) Knowledge;
c) Belief;
d) Motive;
e) Good faith or bad faith of the latter.
4) A statement of a person which may identify the following:
a) Date;
b) Place;
c) Person in question.
5) A statement of lack of credibility of the witness.
II. EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE

1) Q: What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule?
A: The exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule are as follows, to wit:
1) Dying declaration (Sec. 38);
2) Statement of a deceased or person of unsound mind (Sec. 39);
3) Declaration against interest (Sec. 40);
4) Acts or declaration about pedigree (Sec. 41);
S Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Sec. 42);
6) Common reputation (Sec. 43);
7) Res gestae (Sec. 44);
8) Records of regularly conducted business activity (Sec. 45);
9) Entries in the official records (Sec. 46);
10) Commercial list and the like (Sec. 47);
11) Learned Treatise (Sec. 48);
12) Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding (Sec. 49);
13) Residual exceptions (Sec. 50)
2) Q: What are the other exceptions to hearsay evidence rule?
14) Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. (Sec. 28 of the Child Witness
Examination Rule [A.M. No. 004-07-SC, December 15, 2000])
15) Inapplicability of the Hearsay Evidence Rule under the Electronic Document
Rule. (Sec. 1, Rule 8)
1. Rule on Dying Declaration (Bar Exams 2017, 2010, 1998, 1996, 1991, 1988, 1997, 1984,
1981, 1980, and 1976):
(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on dying declaration. It states
that:
"Sec. 38. Dying declaration- The declaration of a dying person, made under the
conscious ness 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."
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule on dying declaration?
A: The rule on dying declaration states that, 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.
2) Q: What is dying declaration?
A: An ante-mortem statement which refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances
of the declarant's death, made under the consciousness of an impending death. (People
of the Philippines vs. Lugtu, L-52237, September 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 89)
3) Q: What are the requisites of dying declaration?

A: The four requisites of a declaration of a dying person are made under the
consciousness of an impending death; his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of
the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death; he must be a competent
witness, and must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in
which the declarant is the victim. (People of the Philippines vs. Geraldo Santillan, G.R.
No. 227878, August 9, 2017).
While witnesses in general can only testify to facts derived from their own
perception, a report in open court of a dying person's declaration is recognized as an
exception to the rule against hearsay if it is "made under the consciousness of an
impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case." It is considered as "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."
Four requisites must concur in order that a dying declaration may be admissible,
thus: First, the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of
the declarant's death. This refers not only to the facts of the assault itself, but also to
matters both before and after the assault having a direct causal connection with it.
Statements involving the nature of the declarant's injury or the cause of death; those
imparting deliberation and willfulness in the attack, indicating the reason or motive for
the killing; justifying or accusing the accused; or indicating the absence of cause for the
act are admissible. Second, at the time the declaration was made, the declarant must be
under the consciousness of an impending death. The rule is that, in order to make a
dying declaration admissible. a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must be
entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid
succession of death in point of fact that renders the dying declaration admissible. It is
not necessary that the approaching death be presaged by the personal feelings of the
deceased. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and
looked on death as certainly impending. Third, the declarant is competent as a witness.
The rule is that where the declarant would not have been a competent witness had he
survived, the proffered declarations will not be admissible. Thus, in the absence of
evidence showing that the declarant could not have been competent to be a witness had
he survived, the presumption must be sustained that he would have been competent.
Fourth, the declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or
parricide, in which the declarant is the victim. (People of the Philippines vs. Jose Belmar
Umapas, G.R. No. 215742, March 22, 2017)
4) Q: What is the nature of a dying declaration?

A: It is an exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule.
Case Law:
1) A dying person's declaration is recognized as an exception to the rule against
hearsay if it is made under the consciousness of an impending death that is the subject
of inquiry in the case. (People of the Philippines vs. Jay Maglian, G.R. No. 189834,
March 30, 2011)
2) Generally witnesses can testify only to those facts derived from their own
perception. A recognized exception, though is a report in open court of a dying person's
declaration made under the consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of
inquiry in the case. (People of the Philippines vs. Salcedo, G.R. No. 178272, March 14,
2011)
5) Q: What are the grounds of dying declaration?

A: Dying declarations are grounded on:
1) Necessity- because the declarant's death makes it impossible to obtain his
testimony in court.
2) Trustworthiness- because a person under an impending death has no more
motive to make falsehood, and it has been said that "The truth sits on the lips of a dying
man."
6) Q: What are the kinds of dying declaration?

A: Dying declaration can be classified as:
1) Oral dying declaration;
2) Written;
3) Those made through signs or any other mode of communication which could
be interpreted and testified to by the witness.
7) Q: How to attack a dying declaration?
A: A dying declaration may be attacked on the ground that any of the requisites for its
admissibility are not present.
Case Law:
A dying declaration may be attacked on the ground that "any of the requisites for its
admissibility are not present" and the same may be impeached in the same manner as the
testimony of any other witness on the witness stand. (See U.S. vs. Castillon, 12 Phil. 160;
People vs. Malacon, (CA] 67 O.G. 9024; People vs. Amiel, et al.,
L-34416, February 21, 1980)
8) Q: Can a declaration made under the consciousness of an impending death be

admitted as
Dying declaration and part of res gestae?
A: Yes, it will be 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 reasonably presumed that he uttered the same under a fixed belief
that his own death was already imminent.
Also, if the act, declaration, or exclamation of a person is so intimately
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be
regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates any
premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
Case Law:
For a dying declaration to constitute an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, four (4)
conditions must concur: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) that at the time the declaration was made, the
declarant is conscious of his impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a
witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or
Parricide where the declarant is the victim. On the other hand, a statement to be
deemed to form part of the res gestae, and thus, constitute another exception to the rule
on hearsay evidence, requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (a) the
principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements were made
before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern
the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.
In the case at bar, SPO2 Borre's statements constitute 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 reasonably presumed
that he uttered the same under 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. Verily, 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 same vein, SPO2 Borre's statements may likewise be deemed to form part
of the res gestae. "Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that
grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous
and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and
fabrication. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore,
whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected
with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony." (People of the Philippines vs. Bernabe Planas, G.R. No. 214453,
June 17, 2015)
9) Q: What is the test in determining whether the utterance is a dying declaration?

A: The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looks on
death as certainly impending.
Case Law:
A dying declaration is admissible in evidence if the following circumstances are
present: (1) it concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant's
death; (2) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a
consciousness of impending death: (3) the declarant would have been competent to
testify had he or she survived; and (4) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which
the subject of the inquiry involves the declarant's death. In order to make a dying
declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must be entered
into by the declarant. It is the declarant's belief of his impending death and not the
rapid succession of his death in point of fact that renders his declaration admissible as a
dying declaration. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival
and looks on death as certainly impending. (People of the Philippines vs. Christopher
Badillos, G.R. No. 215732, June 6, 2018)
10) Q: May the declaration of a person under the consciousness of an impending

death be subject to multiple purpose for its admissibility?
A: Yes, a declaration of a person under the consciousness of an impending death may
be used as a dying declaration or part of res gestae.
Case Law:
As an exception to the hearsay rule, a dying declaration is admissible as evidence
because it is "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."
Accordingly, Sec. 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 37. Dyłng 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.
evidence
For a "dying declaration" to be admissible in court, the following requisites must
concur:
a) That the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of
the declarant's death;
b) That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under a
consciousness of impending death;
c) That the declarant is competent as a witness; and
d) That the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or
parricide, in which the declarant is the victim
Without doubt, therefore, the dying declarations of Evelyn to numerous
witnesses that it was Mercado who had attacked her and her partner and eventually set
their house on fire are admissible in evidence.
In any event, even if the statements of Evelyn would not qualify as dying
declarations, they are nevertheless admissible in evidence because they are part of the
res gestae. Sec. 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 42. Part of the res gestae.- Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to
the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the 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.
A declaration made spontaneously after a startling occurrence is deemed as part
of the res gestae when (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2)
the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3)
the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.
The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and statements made by
either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or
immediately after the commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that the
statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the
excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate
and to fabricate a false statement. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the
res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be
regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any
premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. (People of the Philippines vs.
Patrick John Mercado y Anticla, G.R. No. 218702, October 17, 2018)
2. Rule on Statement of a Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind or "Dead Man's

Statute Rule" (Bar Exams 2001, 1997, 1979):
(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on the statement of decedent
or person of unsound mind. It states that:
"Sec. 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind. - In an action
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, where a party or assignor
of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact
occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the person became of
unsound mind, any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind, may
be received in evidence if the statement was made upon the personal knowledge of
the deceased or the person of unsound mind at a time when the matter had been
recently perceived by him or her and while his or her recollection was clear. Such
statement, however, is inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its lack
of trustworthiness."
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is Statement of a Decedent or Unsound Mind Rule?
A: In an action 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, where a
party or assignor of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on
a matter of fact occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the person
became of unsound mind, any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound
mind, may be received in evidence if the statement was made upon the personal
knowledge of the deceased or the person of unsound mind at a time when the matter
had been recently perceived by him or her and while his or her recollection was clear.
Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its
lack of trustworthiness.
2) Q: When will the statement of a deceased person or unable to testify admissible in

evidence?
A: Any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind, may be received in
evidence if the statement was made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or
the person of unsound mind at a time when the matter had been recently perceived by
him or her and while his or her recollection was clear.
3) Q: When will the statement of a deceased person or unable to testify inadmissible

in evidence?
A: Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its
lack of trustworthiness.
4) Q: What are the requisites in order that "Dead Man's Statute" will apply?
A: In order that the statement of a person deceased or unable to testify rule will apply,
the following requisites must concur:
1) That the witness offered for examination is the party plaintiff or assignor of party
to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted;
2) That the case is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind;
3) That the case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased
person or against such person of unsound mind, or cannot testify;
4) That the testimony to be given is on any matter of fact occurring before the death
of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
3. Rule on Declaration Against Interest:

(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on declaration against
interest. It states that:
"Sec. 40. – The Declaration against interest. declaration made by a person
deceased or unable to testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted
in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to the declarant's own
interest that a reasonable person in his or her position would not have made the
declaration unless he or she believed it to be true, may be received in evidence
against himself or herself or his or her successors in interest and against third
persons. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered
to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly
indicate the trustworthiness of the statement." (38a)
COMMΕNTS:
1): What is the rule on declaration against interest?
A: The rule on declaration against interest states that, 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 person in his or her position would not have made the
declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself
or herself or his or her successors in interest and against third persons.
2) Q: What is the rule regarding statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal
liability?
A: A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to
exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly
indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
3) Q: What are the requisites of declaration against interest?
A: Declaration against interest in order to apply must be concurred by the following
requisites:
1) That the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
2) That declaration relates to a fact against the interest of a declarant;
3) That at the time he made said declaration the declarant was aware that the
same was contrary to his interest;
4) That the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be
true. (Ong vs. CA, et al October 30, 1980)
4) Q: What is the distinction between declaration against interest and admission

against interest?
Admissions Against Interest Declarations Against Interest

a. Admission against interest are b. Declaration against interest are
those made by a party to a those made by a person who is
litigation or by one in privity with neither a party nor in privity with
or identified in legal interest with a party to the suit are secondary
such party and are admissible evidence, and constitute an
whether or not declarant is exception to the hearsay rule. They
available as witness are admissible only when the
declarant is unavailable as a
witness. (see cases on page 460
4 Rule on Declaration Against Pedigree (Bar Exams 2000 and 1983):

Sec. 41, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to theRevised Rules on Evidence
(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on act or declaration about
pedigree. It states that:
"Sec. 41. 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 or her by birth, adoption or marriage or in the absence thereof with whose
family he or she was so intimately to be likely to have information concerning his or
her pedigree, may be received in evidence where it occurred before associated as
accurate 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."
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is a pedigree?
A: Lineage, descent, and succession of families, line of ancestors, from which a person
descends; genealogy. An account or register of a line of ancestors. (Black's Law
Dictionary, by Henry Campbell Black, Fifth Edition, p. 589)
2) Q: What is the rule on act or declaration about pedigree?

A: The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the
pedigree of another person related to him or her by birth, adoption or marriage or in the
absence thereof with whose family he or she was so intimately associated as to be likely
to have an accurate information concerning his or her pedigree, 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.
3) Q: What does the word pedigree includes?

A: The word “pedigree" includes the following:
1) Relationship;
2) Family genealogy;
3) Birth;
4) Marriage;
5) Death;
6) The dates when and the places where these facts occurred; and
7) The names of the relatives;
8) It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.
4) Q: What are the requisites in case of an act and declaration about pedigree?
A: Act and declaration about pedigree will be an exception to hearsay evidence rule
when concurred by the following requisites:
1) That the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the subject of
inquiry;
2) That such relationship may be shown by evidence other than the declaration;
3) That declaration was made before death or inability of the declarant to testify;
4) That the declarant is dead or outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines or unable
to testify.
5) Q: What are the incriminating acts or declaration about pedigree which are
acceptable evidence to establish filiation?
A: Filiation may be proven by relevant incriminating verbal and written acts by the
putative father; voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of birth, a
will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing; a notarial
agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by the putative father was
considered acceptable evidence; letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the
child; pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on various occasions; and
certificate of live birth.
Case Law:
The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree. The relevant Sections of
Rule 130 provide:
SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.- The act or declaration of a person
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 facts
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree.
SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. – The reputation or
tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of
any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be
also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles
or other family books or charts, engraving on rings, family portraits and the like, may
be received as evidence of pedigree.
This Court's rulings further specify what incriminating acts are acceptable as
evidence to establish filiation. In Pe Lim vs. CA, it was ruled that the issue of paternity
has to be resolved by conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating verbal and
written acts by the putative father. Under Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary
recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a
court of record, or in any authentic writing. To be effective, the claim of filiation must be
made by the putative father himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative
father. A notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by the
putative father was considered acceptable evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to be
a good father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on
various occasions, together with the certificate of live birth, proved filiation. However, a
student permanent record, a written consent to a father's operation, or a marriage
contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic writing.
Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family pictures are sufficient to
establish filiation. (emphasis supplied) (Benhur Nepomuceno vs. Arhbencel Ann Lopez,
G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010)
6) Q: What are the forms of declaration about pedigree?

A: The forms of declaration about pedigree may be classified as:
1) Oral declaration; and
2) Written declaration (e.g., Family bibles, or other family books, etc.).
5) Rule on Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree:

(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on family reputation or
tradition regarding pedigree. It states that:
"Sec. 42. 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, affinity or adoption. 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."
СOMMENTS:
1) Q: What is a family reputation?
A: As to question of genealogy and generally as to question relating to birth, marriages
and deaths, what is commonly said and understood to be true among the immediate
relatives and family connections of the party to whom the inquiry relates. (Philippine
Law Dictionary, Federico Moreno, 3rd Edition, p. 367)
2) Q: What is a tradition?
A: It is the knowledge, belief or practices, transmitted orally from father to son, or from
ancestor to posterity. (Philippine Law Dictionary, Federico Moreno, 3rd Edition, р. 958)
3) Q: What is the rule on family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree?

A: The rule states that, 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, affinity or adoption.
Case Law:
The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree. The relevant sections of Rule
130 provides:
SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. - The act or declaration of a person
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 facts
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree.
SEC. 40. Family reputation or 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, engraving on rings, family portraits and the like, may
be received as evidence of pedigree. tradition
This Court's rulings further specify what incriminating acts are acceptable as
evidence to establish filiation. In Pe Lim v. CA, a case petitioner often cites, we stated
that the issue of paternity still has to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the
relevant incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative father. Under Article 278
of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of
birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. To be
effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the
writing must be the writing of the putative father. A notarial agreement to support a
child whose filiation is admitted by the putative father was considered acceptable
evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the child and pictures of
the putative father cuddling the child on various occasions, together with the certificate
of live birth, proved filiation. However, a student permanent record, a written consent
to a father's operation, or a marriage contract where the putative father gave consent,
cannot be taken as authentic writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor
family pictures are sufficient to establish filiation. (Ben-Hur Nepomuceno vs. Arhbencel
Ann Lopez, Represented by Her Mother Araceli Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 18,
2010)
4) Q: How to prove family reputation and tradition regarding pedigree?

A: Family reputation and tradition regarding pedigree may be proved by:
1) Entries in family bibles;
2) Other family books or charts;
3) Engravings on rings;
4) Family portraits, etc.
6. Rule on Common Reputation (Bar Examination 2017):

(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on common reputation. It
states that:
"Sec. 43. Common reputation. – Common reputation existing previous to the
controversy, as to boundaries or customs affecting lands in the community and
reputation as to events of general history important to the community, 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."
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is common reputation?
A: Common reputation is the general or undivided reputation. Common reputation as
used in the law of evidence is equivalent to universal reputation. (City of Manila vs. Del
Rosario, 5 Phil. 228)
2) Q: What is the rule on common reputation?

A: Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, as to boundaries of or
customs affecting lands in the community and reputation as to events of general history
important to the community, 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.
3) Q: How to prove common reputation?

A: Common reputation may be proved by the following:
1) By testimonial evidence of a competent witness;
2) Monuments and inscriptions in public places;
3) By documents containing statements of reputation.
4) Q: What are the requisites for common reputation to be applied as an exception to

hearsay evidence rule?
A: Common reputation as an exception to hearsay evidence rule must be concurred by
the following requisites:
1) That the matter to which the reputation referred to is of public or general
interest more than 30 years old;
2) That the reputation is one formed in the community interested;
3) That it existed before any controversy has arisen in the matter sought to be
proved thereby; and 4) That common reputation is with respect to the as to
boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community and reputation as to
events of general history important to the community, or respecting marriage or
moral character.
5) Q: What is to be proven by common reputation?
A: Common reputation may prove matters on the following:
1) Marriage;
2) Moral character.
7. Rule on Part of Res Gestae (Bar Exams 2019, 2014, 1994, 1991, 1988, 1985 and 1984):
(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on part of res gestae. It states
that:
"Sec. 44. Part of res gestae.- Statements made by a person while a starting
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto under the
stress of excitement caused by the occurrence 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."
COMMΕNTS:
1) Q: What is res gestae?
A: Statements, otherwise inadmissible in evidence because they are hearsay, which are
sufficiently contemporaneous with the act they accompany and explain, admissible in
evidence as part of res gestae. (Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil. 255)
2) Q: What is the rule on res gestae?

A:The rule is that, statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking
place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto under the stress caused by the
occurrence 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.
Case Law:
Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the
spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its commission. These
statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the
occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. An
important consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and the
statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental
balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation. For spontaneous
statements to be admitted in evidence, the following must concur: 1) the principal act,
the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the
declarant had time to contrive or devise; and 3) the statements concerned the
occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
Granting there is such doubt, Janice's statement, nevertheless, is admissible as an
exception to the hearsay rule for being part of res gestae. In order for a statement to be
considered part of res gestae, the following elements must concur: (a) the principal act,
the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statement was made before the declarant
had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statement concerns the occurrence in
question and its immediately attending circumstances. All the foregoing elements are
present in the case at bench. (People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Calinawan, G.R. No.
226145, February 13, 2017)
3) Q: What are the classes of res gestae?

A: Res gestae may be classified into two (2):
1) Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto under the stress of excitement caused by the
occurrence with respect to the circumstances thereof (spontaneous exclamation); and
2) Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a
legal significance. (verbal acts)
4) Q: What are the requisites for res gestae to apply?

A: It is essential that the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence, the
statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, and it
concerns the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
Case Law:
1) However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, one of which is res gestae, found
in Sec. 42 of Rule 130, which provides:
SEC. 42. Part of res gestae. – Statements made by a person while a startling
significance may be received as part of the res gestae.
A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and is admissible as an exception
to the hearsay rule when the following requisites are present: (1) the principal act, the
res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant
had time to contrive or devise; and (3) statements must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediately attending circumstances.
In this case, we find that all the requisites are present. The shooting incident is a
startling occurrence, and the statements of Belen, which concern the shooting incident
as he was identifying his assailants, were given before he had time to contrive or devise
a false statement. The mere fact that it took Belen three (3) days before he was able to
give his statement does not remove such statement as part of res gestae.
There are two tests in applying the res gestae rule to determine whether or not
statements should be admissible as part of res gestae: (1) the act, declaration or
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event
that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself; and (2) the
evidence clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. To
ascertain whether the evidence negates fabrication, spontaneity of the statements must
be determined.
Res gestae comprehends a situation which presents a startling or unusual
occurrence sufficient to produce a spontaneous and instinctive reaction, during which
interval certain statements are made under such circumstances as to show lack of
forethought or deliberate design in the formulation of their content. As long as the
statements were made voluntarily and spontaneously so nearly contemporaneous as to
be in the presence of the occurrence, although not precisely concurrent in point of time,
such must be admissible as part of res gestae, if the statements were made under
circumstances which exclude the idea of design or deliberation. (People of the
Philippines vs. Eric Vargas y Jaguarin and Gina Bagacina, G.R. No. 230256, September
18, 2019)
2) Hence, as a general rule, hearsay evidence is inadmissible in courts of law. As an
exception, however, Sec. 42 of Rule 130 allows the admission of hearsay evidence as
part of the res gestae, wit:
Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae.- Statements made by a person while a startling
significance may be received as part of the res gestae.
The following requisites must, thus, be satisfied for the exception to apply: (i) that
the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (ii) that the statements were
made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (iii) that
the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending
circumstances. (People of the Philippines vs. XXX, G.R. No. 205888, August 22, 2018)
5) Q: What does res gestae includes?

A: Res Gestae includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the
main fact and serve to illustrate its character and which are so spontaneous and
contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and
fabrication.
Case Law:
Statements made by a person while startling occurrence is taking place or immediately
prior or subsequent there to with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in
evidence as part of the 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 140, Sec. 42 of then Rules of Court) The term res gestae refers to “those
circumstances which are the undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act and
which are admissible when illustrative of such act." In a general way, res gestae
includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and
serve to illustrate its character and which are so spontaneous and contemporaneous
with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res
gestae encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the participants,
victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during or immediately after the
commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that the statements were
made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion
and there was opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false
statement. (People of the Philippines vs. Gilberto Villarico, et al., G.R. No. 158362, April
4, 2011, Bersamin, J.)
6) Q: What is the test for the admissibility of res gestae?

A: The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is whether the act,
declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal
fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded a part of the principal fact or even
itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony.
Case Law:
The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is whether the act,
declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal
fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded a part of the principal fact or even
itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony. A declaration or an utterance is thus deemed as part of the res
gestae that is admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the
following requisites concur: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(b) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances. (People of the Philippines vs. Gilberto Villarico, et al., G.R. No.
158362, April 4, 2011, Bersamin, J.)
7) Q: What is the basis of the admissibility of res gestae?

A: The admissibility of spontaneous statements rests on the valid assumption that they
were spoken under circumstances where there had been no chance to contrive.
Case Law:
The admissibility of Alice's spontaneous statements rests on the valid
assumption that they were spoken under circumstances where there had been no
chance to contrive. It is difficult to lie in an excited state and the impulsiveness of the
expression is a guaranty of trustworthiness. (People of the Philippines vs. Romy
Fallones y Labana, G.R. No. 190341, March 16, 2011)
8) Q: What are the factors to be considered to determine spontaneity of the

declaration?
A: The factors to be considered are the time that has lapsed between the occurrence of
the act or transaction and the making of the statement; the place where the statement is
made; the condition of the declarant when the utterance is given; the presence or
absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the statement relative
thereto, and the nature and the circumstances of the statement itself.
Case Law:
In People vs. Dianos, the Court acknowledged that there are no hard and fast
rules in determining the spontaneity of a declaration, but at least five factors have been
considered: There is, of course, no hard and fast rule by which spontaneity may be
determined although a number of factors have been considered, including, but not
always confined to;
(1) the time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and
the making of the statement;
(2) the place where the statement is made;
(3) the condition of the declarant when the utterance is given;
(4) the presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the
statement relative thereto; and
(5) the nature and the circumstances of the statement itself. x x X
In People vs. Jorolan, the Court emphasized that there must be no intervening
circumstances between the res gestae occurrence and the time the statement was made
as could have afforded the declarant an opportunity for deliberation or reflection; in
other words, the statement was unreflected and instinctive.
In People vs. Salafranca, the Court cited two tests in applying the res gestae rule:
a) the act, declaration or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the
principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction
itself; and b) the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to
The term res gestae has been defined as “those circumstances which are the
undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible when
illustrative of such act." In a general way, res gestae refers the circumstances, facts, and
declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and to
spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main are so areas to exclude the idea of
deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and
statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime
immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the
circumstances are such that the statements were made spontaneous reaction or
utterance inspired by the as a excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity
for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. The test of admissibility
of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event
that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether
it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their
truth or falsity, the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay
rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the
making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may
constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.
Res gestae speaks of a quick continuum of related happenings, starting with the
occurrence of a startling event which triggered it and including any spontaneous
declaration made by a witness, participant or spectator relative to the said occurrence.
The cases this Court has cited invariably reiterate that the statement must be an
unreflected reaction of the declarant, undesigned and free of deliberation. In other
words, the declarant is spontaneously moved merely to express his instinctive
reaction concerning the startling occurrence, and not pursue a purpose or design
already formed in his mind. In People vs. Sanchez, the Court belabored to explain that
startling events "speak for themselves, giving out their fullest meaning through the
unprompted language of the participants." (People of the Philippines vs. Anecito
Estibal, G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014)
9) Q: What is the most critical factor in determining spontaneity of a statement?

A:The ability or chance to invent a story is a critical factor in determining the
spontaneity of a statement.
Case Law:
The res gestae exception to the hearsay rule provides that the declarations must have
been "voluntarily and spontaneously made so nearly contemporaneous as to be in the
presence of the transaction which they illustrate and explain, and were made under
such circumstances as necessarily to exclude the idea of design or deliberation."
There are three essential requisites to admit evidence as part of the res gestae,
namely: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae be a startling occurrence; (2) the
statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a
falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediate attending circumstances.
In People v. Salafranca, the Court cited two tests in applying the res gestae rule:
(a) the act, declaration of exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the
principal fact or event that it characterizes as to regarded as a part of the transaction
itself; and (b) the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose
There is no hard and fast rule by which spontaneity may be determined although
a number of factors have been considered, including, but not always confined to, (1) the
time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of
the statement, (2) the place where the statement is made, (3) the condition of the
declarant when the utterance is given, (4) the presence or absence of intervening events
between the occurrence and the statement relative thereto, and (5) the nature and the
circumstances of the statement itself.
In the case of People v. Villarama, the Court held that the ability or chance to
invent a story is a critical factor in determining the spontaneity of a statement. In the
said case, the four-year-old victim, at her age, could not have had the sophistication or
malice to fabricate statements and invent a story of rape. It was also settled in the case
of People v. Bisda that children of sound mind are likely to be more observant of
incidents which take place within their view than older persons, and their testimonies
are likely more correct in detail than that of older persons. (Vicente H. Manulat, Jr. vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 190892, Auдust 17, 2015)
10) Q: What is the "doctrine of independent relevant statement"?

A: Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or
falsity, the fact that such statements have been made is relevant.
Case Law:
Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their
truth or falsity, the fact that Such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay
rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the
making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may
constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.
(People of the Philippines vs. Anecito Estibal, G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014)
11) Q: When is declaration considered as part of - gestae not dying declaration?

A: If it does not appear that the declarant himself was conscious of his impending
death.
Case Law:
In his testimony, Jonathan narrated Alex's condition when he uttered the name
of the person who stabbed him While Jonathan was under the impression that his
brother was in the throes of death, it does not appear that the declarant himself was
conscious of his impending death. The fact that Alex was ripping his shirt while he
uttered the name of his assailant is not sufficient to qualify such as a dying declaration.
Nevertheless, while Alex's statement does not qualify as a dying declaration, the
same may still be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule for being part of res
gestae.
For a statement to be considered part of res gestae, the following elements must
concur: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statement
was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statement
concerns the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances. All the
foregoing elements are present in this case. (People of the Philippines vs. Christopher
Badillos, G.R. No. 215732, June 6, 2018)
12) Q: What are the distinctions between Res Gestae and Dying Declaration?
Res Gestae Dying Declaration
a) Res gestae may be that of the killer a) A dying declaration can only be made
himself after or during the killing. by the victim.
(People of the Philippines vs. Reyes, et
al., 82 Phil. 563)
b) res gestae the statement may precede, b) Dying declaration is made only after
accompany or be made after the the homicidal attack has been committed.
homicidal act was committed.
C )res gestae has its basis on spontaneity C ) Dying declaration is being given
based upon the awareness of an
impending death
8. Records of Regularly Conducted:

(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on records of regularly
conducted business. It states that:
"Sec. 45. Records of regularly conducted business activity. -A memorandum,
report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses,
made by writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time
of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge
thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was
the regular practice to make the memorandum, report record, or data compilation by
electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the
custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay
evidence."
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule on regularly conducted business?
A: A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions.
opinions. or diagnoses. made by writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar
means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person
with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business
activity, and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report record, or
data compilation by electronic, optical similar means, all of which are shown by the
testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on
hearsay evidence.
Case Law:
Here, Land Bank has neither identified the persons who made the entries in the
passbooks nor established that they are already dead or unable to testify as required by
Sec. 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Also, and as correctly opined by the CA, "[w]hile
the deposit entries in the bank's passbook enjoy a certain degree of presumption of
regularity x x x," the same do "not indicate or explain the source of the funds being
deposited or withdrawn from an individual account." They are mere prima facie proof
of what are stated therein the dates of the transactions, the amounts deposited or
withdrawn, and the outstanding balances. They do not establish that the total amount
of P4,086,888.89 deposited in Oñate's Trust Account No. 01-125 in November 1980 came
from the proceeds of the pre-terminated loans of Land Bank's corporate borrowers. It
would be too presumptuous to immediately conclude that said amount came from the
checks paid to Land Bank by its corporate borrowers just because the maturity dates of
the loans coincided with the dates said total amount was deposited. There must be
proof showing an unbroken link between the proceeds of the pre-terminated loans and
the amount allegedly "miscredited" to Oñate's Trust Account No. 01-125. As a bank and
custodian of records, Land Bank could have easily produced documents showing that
its borrowers pre-terminated their loans, the checkS they issued as payment for such
loans, and the deposit slips used in depositing those checks. But it did not. (Land Bank
of the Philippines, vs. Emmanuel Oñate, G.R. No. 192371, January 15, 2014)
2)Q: What is the presumption in case of entries in she payrolls in the ordinary course
of business?
A: Entries in the payrolls enjoy the presumption of regularity, it is merely a disputable
presumption that may be overthrown by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Case Law:
While it is true that entries in the payrolls enjoy the presumption of regularity, it
is merely a disputable presumption that may be overthrown by clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary.
Section 43 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
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.
A presumption is merely an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made based
on another fact or group of facts. It is an inference as to the existence of a fact that Is not
actually known, but arises from its usual connection with another fact, or a conjecture
based on past experience as to what the ordinary human affairs take. A presumption
has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the party who would be disadvantaged
by a finding of the presumed fact, Moreover, prima facie evidence is defined as
evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in
favor of the issue it supports, but which may be contradicted by other evidence. Thus,
prima facie evidence is not conclusive or absolute evidence to the contrary may be
presented by the party disputing assumption of fact made by inference of law and the
court may validly consider such. (Ramiro Lim and Sons Agricultural Co., Inc., Sima
Real Estate Development Inc.. and Ramiro Lim vs. Armando Guilaran, et al., G.R. No.
221967, February 6, 2019)
9. Rule on Entries in the Official Records:
Sec. 46, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M.
No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on entries in the official record. It
states that:
"Sec. 46. Entries in official records. -Entries in official records made in the
performance of his or her 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."
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule on entries in the official records to be admissible?
A: Entries in official records made in the performance of his or her 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.
2) Q: What is prima facie evidence?

A: Prima facie evidence is defined as evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted,
is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue it supports, but which may be
contradicted by other evidence. Thus, prima facie evidence is not conclusive or absolute
evidence to the contrary may be presented by the party disputing the assumption of fact
made by inference of law and the court may validly consider such. (Ramiro Lim and
Sons Agricultural Co., Inc., Sima Real Estate Development Inc., and Ramiro Lim vs.
Armando Guilaran, et al., G.R. No. 221967, February 5, 2019)
3) Q: What are the requisites in order that entries in official records are admissible as
evidence?
A: Entries in the official record are admissible in evidence without violating the hearsay
evidence rule when the following requisites are present:
1) That the entries was made by a public officer, or by another person specially
enjoined by law to do so;
2) That the public officer or the person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him
stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official
information.
Case Law:
The Hearsay Rule, however, is not absolute. Secs. 37 to 47 of Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence enumerate the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. Of these, Sec. 44 -
regarding entries in official records- is particularly relevant to this case:
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.
Precisely as an exception to the Hearsay Rule, Rule 130, Sec. 44 does away with
the need for presenting as witness the public officer or person performing a duty
specially enjoined by law who made the entry. This, however, is only true, for as long
the following requisites have been satisfied:
а. that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially
b that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by
such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and
c. that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by
him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official
information.
Respondent, the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, and the Court of
Appeals are all of the position that the Report prepared by PO2 Tomas satisfies these
requisites.
The statements made by this court in Standard Insurance are on point:
[F]or the Traffic Accident Investigation Report to be admissible as prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated, the following requisites must be present:
(a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially
(b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by
such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and
(c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by
him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official
information. (DST Movers Corp. vs. People's General Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 198627,
January 13, 2016)
2) In Alvarez vs. PICOP Resources, this Court reiterated the requisites for the
admissibility in evidence, as an exception to the hearsay rule of entries in official
records, thus: (a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person
specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was made by the public officer in the
performance of his or her duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient
knowledge of the facts by him or her stated, which must have been acquired by the
public officer or other person personally or through official information. (Malayan
Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Rodelio Alberto and Enrico Alberto Reyes, G.R. No. 194320,
February 1, 2012)
4) Q:: What is the rationale of the rule?

A. The necessity of this rule consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the
official's attendance as . witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the course
of his duty. The document's trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of
performance of official duty.
Case Law:
As to the hearsay rule, Sec. 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court similarly provides that
entries in official records are an exception to the rule. The rule provides that entries in
official records made in the performance of the duty of 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. The necessity of this rule consists in the
inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the official's attendance as a witness to testify
to the innumerable transactions in the course of his duty. The document's
trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of official
duty.
Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. The DENR is the department
tasked to execute, supervise and manage the conduct of cadastral surveys. It is,
therefore, clear that the cadastral map and the corresponding list of claimants qualify as
entries in official records as they were prepared by the DENR, as mandated by law. As
such, they are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein. (Dimaguila vs. Jose und Sonia Monteiro, G.R. No. 201011, January 27,
2014)
5) Q: What are the grounds for its admissibility?

A: The grounds for the admissibility of entries in the official records are:
1) Necessity because the litigation is unlimited in which testimony by officials
would be summoned from his ordinary duties to declare as a witness are numberless;
2) Trustworthiness because the law reposes . 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 the discharge of their public duty may be given in
evidence and shall be taken to be true under such degree of caution as the nature and
circumstances of each case may appear to require.
6) Q: Is a police report admissible in evidence even if the police investigator is not

presented in court?
A: Police report is admissible and an exception to Hearsay Evidence Rule.
Case Law:
Notably, the presentation of the police report itself is admissible as an exception
to the hearsay rule even if the police investigator who prepared it was not presented in
court, as long as the above requisites could be adequately proved. (Malayan Insurance
Co., Inc. vs. Rodelio Alberto and Enrico Alberto Reyes, G.R. No. 194320, February 1,
2012)
a) Rule on Entries in the Official Records under Environmental Cases:

Sec. 2, Rule 21, Part V of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
(A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) provides for the rule on the presumption in case of entries in
official record in environmental cases. It states that:
"Sec. 2. 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
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated."
COMMENTS:
1): What is the rule in case of entries in the official records?
A:. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of
the Philippines, or by a person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
10. Rules on Commercial List and the Like:

(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rules on commercial list and the
like. It states that:
"Sec. 47. Commercial list and the like. - Evidence of statements of matter of
interest 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 a person engaged in that occupation and is
generally used and relied upon by them."
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule on commercial list to be admissible as an exception to hearsay
evidence?
A: The rule states that evidence of statements of matter of interest 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 " that compilation is
published for use by a person engaged that occupation and is generally used and relied
upon by them.
2) Q: What are the grounds for its admissibility?

A: Commercial list, register, periodical or other published compilation is admissible
based on two (2) grounds:
1) Necessity– because of the usual inaccessibility of the persons responsible for
the compilation of matters contained in a list, register, periodicals, or other published
compilation, and because of the tremendous inconvenience that would result if the
court of justice would be required to summon the numerous individuals who
undertook the final compilation on the basis of their personal knowledge.
2) Trustworthiness - because the authors of such lists, registers, reports,
periodicals, or other compilation have no motive to deceive, and they further realize
that unless their lists, registers, reports, periodicals, or other compilation are prepared
with care and accuracy, their work will have no commercial or professional value.
11. Rule on Learned Treatises:

(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on learned treatises. It states
that:
"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."
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule on learned treatises to be admissible in evidence?
A: The rule is that 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.
2) Q: What are the requisites in order that treatises are admissible as evidence?
A: Learned treatises shall be admissible as evidence as an exception to the hearsay
evidence rule provided the following requisites are present:
1) That the court can take judicial notice of it;
2) That a witness expert in the subject of history, law, science and math, testifies
that the writer of the statements of the treatise, periodicals, or pamphlet is recognized in
his profession or calling as expert in the subject.
Case Law:
Accordingly, the English translation submitted by petitioner is not an official
publication exempted from the requirement of authentication.
Neither can the English translation be considered as a learned treatise. Under the
Rules of Court, "a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his [or her]
personal knowledge." The evidence is hearsay when it is “not . . . what the witness
knows himself or herself but of what he or she has heard from others." The rule
excluding hearsay evidence is not limited to oral testimony or statements, but also
covers written statements.
The rule is that hearsay evidence "is devoid of probative value." However, a
published treatise may be admitted as tending to prove the truth of its content if: (1) the
court takes judicial notice; or (2) an expert witness testifies that writer is recognized in
his or her profession as an expert in the subject.
Here, the Regional Trial Court did not take judicial notice of the translator's and
advisors' qualifications. Nor was an expert witness presented to testify on this matter.
The only evidence of the translator's and advisors' credentials is the inside cover page of
the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan. Hence, the Regional Trial Court was
correct in not considering the English translation as a
learned treatise. (Genevieve Rosal Arreza a.k.a. "Genevieve Arreza Toyo" vs. Tetsushi
Toyo, G.R. No. 213198, July 1. 2019)
12. Rule on Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding:
(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provide for the rules on testimony or depositionat
a former proceeding. It states that:
"Sec. 49. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. The testimony or
deposition of a witness deceased or out of the Philippines or who cannot, with due
diligence. be found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise 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 or her."
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is a testimony?
A: Testimony - A declaration made by a witness under oath or affirmation. (People of
the Philippines vs. Tolentino, 2 0.G. 685)
2) Q: What is deposition?
A: A deposition is the testimony of a witness, put or taken in writing, under oath or
affirmation, before a commissioner, examiner of other judicial officer, in answer to
interrogatory or cross-interrogatory, and usually subscribed by the witness. (Ayala
Land, Inc. vs. Tagle, et al., G.R. No. 153667, August 11, 2005)
3) Q: What is the rule on testimony or deposition at a former proceeding to be

admissible as evidence?
A: The rule is that testimony or deposition of a witness deceased out of the Philippines
or who cannot, with due diligence. be found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise
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 or her.
4) Q: What are the requisites in order that testimony or deposition at a former

proceeding is admissible as evidence?
A: Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding is admissible as evidence as an
exception to hearsay evidence must comply with the following requisites:
1) That the testimony was made in a former proceeding;
2) It was made between the same parties;
3) Relating to the same matter;
4) That the adverse party has had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness; and
5) That the witness is dead or out of the Philippines or who cannot, with due
diligence, be found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable to testify
Case Law:
Notably, the admissibility of Estela's former testimony in the present case finds
basis in Sec. 47, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence or the “rule on former testimony"
which provides:
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.
Case law holds that for the said rule to apply, the following requisites must be
satisfied:
(a) the witness is dead or unable to testify;
(b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial
or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests;
(c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although
on different causes of action;
(d) the issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue
involved in the present case; and
(e) the adverse party had an opportunity to cross- examine the witness in the
former case.
The reasons for the admissibility of testimony taken at a former trial or
proceeding are the necessity for the testimony and its trustworthiness. However, before
the former testimony can be introduced in evidence, the proponent must first lay the
proper predicate therefor, i.e., the party must establish the basis for the admission of
testimony in the realm of admissible evidence. (Damaso Ambray and Ceferino Ambray
vs. Sylvia Tsourous, et al., G.R. No. 209264, July 5, 2016)
5) Q: What is the effect if the requisites are not present?
A: In the absence of the requisites the testimony should not have been accorded any
probative weight.
Case Law:
Petitioner's objection to the admission in evidence of the testimony of the notary
public who supposedly notarized the deed of sale taken in another case in which
petitioners were not parties is persuasive. Such testimony does not qualify as an
exception to the hearsay evidence rule under Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
None of the circumstances for the admission of the testimony given at a former
proceeding obtains in this case. Not only were the petitioners not parties to a former
proceeding and hence without the opportunity to cross-examine the notary public,
there was also no proof that the notary public was already deceased or unable to testify.
Hence, the testimony should not have been accorded any probative weight. (Ilao-
Quianay vs. Mapile, G.R. No. 154087, October 25, 2005)
6) Q: Can deposition take the place of the actual testimony of a party or witness?
A: No, deposition as evidence is not meant to substitute for actual testimony in court.
Case Law:
While deposition may be used as evidence in court proceedings, they are
generally not meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party
or witness. Stated differently, a deposition is not to be used when the deponent is at
hand. Indeed, any deposition offered during trial to prove the facts stated therein set
out, in lieu of actual oral testimony of the deponent in court, may be opposed and
excluded on the ground of hearsay evidence. However, depositions may be used
without the deponent being called to the witness stand by the proponent, provided the
existence of certain conditions is first satisfactorily established. Five exceptions for the
admissibility of a deposition are listed in Sec. 4. (Sales vs. Sabino, G.R. No. 133154,
December 9, 2005)
7) Q: How to construe the provision of Sec. 4, Rule 23 in relation to Sec. 47, Rule 130
as to the use of
deposition?
A: Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court does not only require due observance of its
sub-paragraphs (a) to (d); it also requires, as a condition for admissibility, compliance
with "the rules on evidence.", but must be read in conjunction with Sec. 47, Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court before the deposition may be used in evidence.
Case Law:
On the other hand, Sec. 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. - The testimony or
deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given a former in a саse 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.
A plain reading of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court readily rejects the petitioner's
position that the Bane deposition can be admitted into evidence without observing the
requirements of Sec. 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Before a party can make use of the deposition taken at the trial of a pending
action, Sec. 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court does not only require due observance of its
sub-paragraphs (a) to (d); it also requires, as a condition for admissibility, compliance
with "the rules on evidence." Thus, even Sec. 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court makes an
implied reference to Sec. 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court before the deposition may be
used in evidence. By reading Rule 23 in isolation, the petitioner failed to recognize that
the principle conceding admissibility to a deposition under Rule 23 should be consistent
with the rules on evidence under Sec. 47, Rule 130. In determining the admissibility of
the Bane deposition, therefore, reliance cannot be given on one provision to the
exclusion of the other; both provisions must be considered. This is particularly true in
this case where the evidence in the prior proceeding does not simply refer to a witness'
testimony in open court but to a deposition taken under another and farther
jurisdiction.
A common thread that runs from Sec. 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court and Sec.
47, Rule 130 of the same Rules is their mutual reference to depositions.
A deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery whose primary function is to
supplement the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute
between the parties and affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for
trial. Since depositions are principally made available to the parties as a means of
informing themselves of all the relevant facts, depositions are not meant as substitute
for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. Generally, the deponent
must be presented for oral examination in open court at the trial or hearing. This is a
requirement of the rules on evidence under Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
(Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division], et. al., G.R. No.
152375, December 16, 2011)
13. Residual Exception:
Sec. 50 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No.
19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on residual exceptions. It states that:
"Sec. 50. Residual exception.- A statement not specifically covered by any of
the foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that (a) the statement is offered
as evidence of a material fact: (b) the statement is more probative on the point for
which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through
reasonable efforts: and (c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of
justice will be best served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a
statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent makes
known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial
stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a fair
opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement
and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant." (n)
СOMMENTS:
1) Q: What are the other statements which are admissible as an exception to hearsay
evidence as
residual exception?
A: A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions, having
equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court
determines that:
(a) The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact:
(b) The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any
other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts: and
(c) The general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will be best
served by admission of the statement into evidence.
2) Q: What are the requirements for the admissibility of the statements?

A: A statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent makes
known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial
stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a fair
opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and
the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.
III. ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE

1. Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Cases:
Sec. 28 of the Child Witness Examination Rule (A.M. No. 004-07-SC, December
15, 2000) provides for the exception to hearsay evidence in child abuse cases. It states
that:
"Sec. 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases.- 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 rules:
(a) 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 circumstance must be proved by the proponent.
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall
consider the time, content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of
reliability. It shall consider the following factors:
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie;
(2) The general character of the declarant child;
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement;
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child
and
witness;
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant
child;
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote; and
(8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason
to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following
situations:
(1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or
will be exposed to severe psychological injury; or
(2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been
unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means.
(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be
admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence.”
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule on hearsay exception in case of child abuse cases?
A: 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.
2) Q: What are the rules to be followed in order that a statement made by a child in
case of a child abuse is admissible?
A: Before such hearsay statement in child abuse cases may be admitted, its proponent
shall:
1) Make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its
particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object
2) 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;
3) When the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by
the proponent.
3) Q: What will be the course of action of the court?

A: In ruling the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the
time content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It
shall consider the following factors:
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie;
(2) The general character of the declarant child;
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement;
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child
and witness;
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant
child;
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote; and
(8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason
to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
4) Q: When is a child witness unavailable?

A: The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:
(1) When he is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental
illness, or will be exposed to severe psychological injury; or
(2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been
unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means.
5) Q: What is the effect if the child witness is unavailable?

A: When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only
if corroborated by other admissible evidence.
2. Inapplicability of Hearsay Evidence Rule under the Electronic Evidence Rule:

Sec. 1, Rule 8 of the Electronic Document Rule provides for the rule on the
inapplicability of the hearsay evidence rule. It states that:
"Sec. 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. - A memorandum, report, record or
data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by
electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission
or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the
regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular practice to
make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or
similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other
qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence."
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule on the inapplicability of the hearsay evidence rule under the
Electronic Evidence Rule?
A: A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions,
opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the
time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge
thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was
the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by
electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the
custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
2) Q: What are the requisites in order that electronic business records will be an
exception to hearsay evidence rule?
A: There must be an authentication through the affidavit of the custodian or other
qualified person, otherwise it cannot be admitted and appreciated as business records
and excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
Case Law:
Even the section on "Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay Rule" of Rule
8 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence requires authentication by the custodian or other
qualified witness:
SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. - A memorandum, report,
record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made
by electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept
in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular
practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic,
optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or
other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
In the absence of such authentication through the affidavit of the custodian or
other qualified person, the said annexes or attachments cannot be admitted and
appreciated as business records and excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
Consequently, the annexes to the complaint fall within the Rule on Hearsay Evidence
and are to be excluded pursuant to Sec. 36, Rule 130 of the Rules. (RCBC Bankard
Services Corporation vs. Moises Oracion, Jr. and Emily L. Oracion, G.R. No. 223274,
June 19, 2019)
3) Rule on Overcoming the Presumption:
Sec. 2, Rule 8 of the Electronic Document Rule provides for the rule on
overcoming the presumption the under the rules. It states that:
"Sec. 2. Overcoming the presumption. - The presumption provided for in
Section 1 of this Rule may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the
source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation,
transmission or storage thereof.”
COMMENTS:
1) Q: How to overcome the presumption of the inapplicability of hearsay evidence
rule?
A: The presumption provided for in Sec. 1 of this Rule may be overcome by:
1) Evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or
circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof.
G. OPINION RULE
A. Basic Concept
1) Q: What is Opinion Evidence or Testimony?
A: Opinion evidence or testimony refers to evidence of what the witness thinks, believes
or infers in regard to facts in dispute (Medel Arnaldo Belen vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 211120, February 13, 2017)
1. Rule on Opinion of a Witness:

19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on opinion of witness. It states that:
“Sec. 51. General rule. - The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in
the following sections.”
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule on opinion of a witness?
The rule is that the opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the
following sections.
2) Q: What are the exceptions to opinion rule?

A: The exceptions to the opinion rule are as follows, to wit:
1) Opinion of an expert witness (Sec. 49);
2) Opinion of an ordinary witness with respect to:
(a) The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted; and
(d) The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person.
2. Rule on Opinion of Expert Witness:

19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on opinion of an expert witness. It states
that:
"Sec. 52. Opinion of expert witness. - The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training or education which he or she
shown to posses, may be received in evidence."
СOMMENTS:
1) Q: Who is an expert witness?
A: A person who by study or experience has acquired particular knowledge or
experience upon matters of technical knowledge and skill relating to a specific business
or employment. (Dilag & Co. vs. Merced, 45 O.G. 5542)
2) Q: What are the factors required of an expert witness?

A: Factors required of an expert witness:
1) Training and education;
2) Particular, first hand familiarity with the facts of the case;
3) Presentation of authorities or standards on which his opinion is based. (People
vs. Santos, 65 O.G. 7472)
3) Q: What is the rule in case of an opinion of an expert witness?

A: The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience
or training or education which he shown to possess, may be received in evidence.
Case Law:
Under Rule 130, Sec. 48 of the Rules of Court, 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. In turn, the determination of the credibility of the
expert witnesses and the evaluation of their testimony is left to the discretion of the trial
court whose ruling is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion. Here, the
RTC found that Villanueva had no special knowledge or training with regards to car
painting and that his method of examination of Spouses Batalla's vehicle was wanting
as it was limited to a mere visual examination rendering its results inconclusive.
(Spouses Luis G. Batalla and Salvacion Batalla vs. Prudential Bank, Nagatome Auto
Parts, Alicia Rantael, and Honda Cars San Pablo, Inc., G.R. No. 200676, March 25, 2019)
4) Q: What are the factors to be considered in giving weight and sufficiency on expert
testimony?
A: The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the
province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness,
his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he
has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favour of the side for whom he testifies,
the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative for study or observation of the matters
about which he testifies, and any other matters which serve to illuminate his statements
opportunities
Case Law:
Rule 130, Sec. 49 of the Revised Rules on Evidence specifies that courts may
admit the testimonies of expert witnesses or of individuals possessing "special
knowledge, skill, experience or training."
Testimonies of expert witnesses are not absolutely binding on courts. However,
courts exercise a wide latitude of discretion in giving weight to expert testimonies,
taking into consideration the factual circumstances of the case.
Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place
whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the
case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony Is peculiarly within the
province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness,
his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he
has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favour of the side for whom he testifies,
the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study or observation of
the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which serve to illuminate his
statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be
considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when
common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. (20
Am. Jur., 1056-1058) The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the
evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling
thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.
This analysis applies in the examination of forged documents:
Due to the technicality of the procedure involved in the examination of forged
documents, the expertise of questioned document examiners is usually helpful. These
handwriting experts can help determine fundamental, significant differences in writing
characteristics between the questioned and the standard or sample specimen signatures,
as well as the movement and manner of execution strokes. (Teodoro Tortona, et al. vs.
Julian Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 202612, January 17, 2018)
5) Q: What is the function of the expert witness?

A: The expert's function being to place before the court data upon which the court can
form its own opinion.
Case Law:
It bears stressing that the opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily
binding upon the court, the expert's function being to place before the court data upon
which the court can form its own opinion. This principle holds true especially when the
question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be
determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with
those of the currently existing ones. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on
the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent
examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as
to its authenticity. (Heirs of Peter Donton vs. Duane Stier and Emily Maggay, G.R. No.
216491, August 23, 2017)
a) Rule on Questioned Document:
1) Q: What are factors in determining the probative value of the testimony of a
handwriting expert witness?
A: The factors to consider are his statements of whether a writing is genuine or false,
distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and
false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an
unpracticed observer.
Case Law:
While credentials of an expert witness play a factor in the evidentiary and
persuasive weight of his testimony, the same cannot be the sole factor in determining its
value. The judge must conduct his own independent examination of the signatures
under scrutiny.
The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere
statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may
afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and
between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice
or detection from an unpracticed observer. (Tamani vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 171497, April
4, 2011)
2)Q: What is the nature of the testimony of a handwriting expert?

A: The testimony of a handwriting expert is not indispensable in examining or
comparing the handwriting or signature.
Case Law:
1) True, the use of the word "may" in Sec. 49, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence
signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory
on the part of the courts. Jurisprudence is also replete with instances wherein this Court
dispensed with the testimony of expert witnesses to prove forgeries. However, we have
also recognized that handwriting experts are often offered as expert witnesses
considering the technical nature of the procedure in examining forged documents. More
important, analysis of the questioned signature in the deed of donation executed by the
late Andres Navarro, Sr. in crucial to the resolution of the case. (Luisa Navarro Marcos,
vs. The Heirs of the Late Dr. Andres Navarro, Jr., Namely Nonita Navarro, Francisca
Navarro Malapitan, Soledad Navarro Brochler, Nonita Barrun Navarro, Jr., Imelda
Navarro, Andres Navarro lii, Milagros Navarro Yap, Pilar Navarro, Teresa Navarro-
Tabita, and Lourdes Barrun- Rejuso, G.R. No. 198240, July 3, 2013)
2) The testimony of a handwriting expert, while useful, is not indispensable in
examining or comparing handwritings or signatures. (Equitable Cardnetwork, Inc. vs.
Josefa Borromeo Capistrano, G.R. No. 180157, February 8, 2012)
3) Q: Who has the authority to give probative value on questioned document?

A: It is the court which has the discretion and authority on whether to give probative
value to the results of the examination.
Case Law:
It is of no moment that the examination of the Deed of Absolute Sale was
commissioned by the respondents. In the end, it is the court which has the discretion
and authority on whether to give probative value to the results of the examination. As
held in Sali v. Abubakar, the fact that the NBI conducted the examination of certain
contested documents upon the request of a private litigant does not necessarily nullify
the examination thus made:
X x x Its purpose is, presumably, to assist the court having jurisdiction over said
litigations, in the performance of its duty to settle correctly the issue relative to said
documents. Even a non-expert private individual may examine the same, if there are
facts within his knowledge which may help the courts in the determination of said
issue. Such examination, which may properly be undertaken by a non-expert private
individual, does not, certainly, become null and void when the examiner is an expert
and/or an officer of the NBI.
Indeed, any person, expert or not, either in his private or in his official capacity,
may testify in court on matters, within his personal knowledge, which are relevant to a
suit, subject to the judicial authority to determine the credibility of said testimony and
the weight thereof. [On] the other hand, the question whether a public official may or
shall be ordered or permitted by his superior to examine documents and testify thereon
in a given case, is one mainly administrative in character, which is within the
competence of said superior officer, or the Bureau Director or Head of the Office, or the
corresponding department head to decide, and is independent of the validity of the
examination thus made or of the credence and weight to be given by the Court to the
conclusions reached, in consequence of said examination, by the official who made it.
(Sps. Patricio and Myrna Bernales vs. Heirs of Juhan Sambaan, namely: Emma S.
Felicilda, et al., G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010)
b) Rule on Medical Negligence/Malpractice:

1) Q: How to prove medical negligence/malpractice?
A: Medical negligence cases are best proved by opinions of expert witnesses belonging
in the same general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice as defendant
physician or surgeon can be proved by expert witness.
Case Law:
This Court has recognized that medical negligence cases are best proved by
opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same general neighborhood and in the
same general line of practice as defendant physician or surgeon. The deference of courts
to the expert opinion of qualified physicians stems from the former's realization that the
latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most instances are incapable of
intelligently evaluating, hence the indispensability of expert testimonies.
There are four (4) essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice
action based upon the doctrine of informed consent: "(1) the physician had a duty to
disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; (3)
as a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to
treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff was injured by
the proposed treatment." The gravamen in an informed consent case requires the
plaintiff to "point to significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment which
would have altered her decision to undergo it." (Dr. Rubi Li vs. Sps. Soliman, G.R. No.
165279, June 7, 2011)
2) Q: What is the rule on the liability of the hospital in case of negligence of its
doctor? What is the "Doctrine of Apparent Authority"?
A: As a rule, hospitals are not liable for the negligence of its independent contractors.
However, it may be found liable if the physician or independent contractor acts as an
ostensible agent of the hospital. This exception is also known as the "doctrine of
apparent authority."
Case Law:
As a rule, hospitals are not liable for the negligence of its independent
contractors. However, it may be found liable if the physician or independent contractor
acts as an ostensible agent of the hospital. This exception is also known as the "doctrine
of apparent authority."
The US case of Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, abrogated the hospitals'
immunity to vicarious liability of independent contractor physicians. In that case, the
Illinois Supreme Court held that under the doctrine of apparent authority, hospitals
could be found vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor:
Therefore, we hold that, under the doctrine of apparent authority, a hospital can
be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician providing care at the
hospital, regardless of whether the physician is an independent contractor, unless the
patient knows, or should have known, that the physician is an independent contractor.
The elements of the action have been set out as follows: For a hospital to be liable under
the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the hospital, or its
agent, acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the
individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital;
(2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also
prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff
acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary
care and prudence.
The doctrine was applied in Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center, where this
Court, through the ponencia of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, discussed the two
factors in determining hospital liability as follows:
The first factor focuses on the hospital's manifestations and is sometimes
described as an inquiry whether the hospital acted in a manner which would lead a
reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was
an employee or agent of the hospital. In this regard, the hospital need not make express
representations to the patient that the treating physician is an employee of the hospital;
rather a representation may be general and implied.
XXXX
The second factor focuses on the patient's reliance. It is sometimes characterized
as an inquiry on whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital
or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence. (Citation omitted)
In sum, a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a
physician (or an independent contractor) providing care at the hospital if the plaintiff
can prove these two factors: first, the hospital's manifestations;and second, the patient's
reliance. (Noel Casumpang, Ruby Sanga-Miranda and San Juan De Dios Hospital, vs.
Nelson Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127; Dra. Ruby Sanga-Miranda, Petitioner vs. Nelson
Cortejo, Respondent; G.R. No. 171228 San Juan De Dios Hospital vs. Nelson Cortejo,
G.R. No. 171228, March 11, 2015)
c) Rule on Psychological Incapacity:

1) Q: How to prove psychological incapacity?
A: Psychological incapacity may be proven by independent evidence adduced by the
person alleging said disorder.
Case Law:
Although there is no requirement that a party to be declared psychologically
incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or a psychologist, there is
nevertheless a need to prove the psychological incapacity through independent
evidence adduced by the person alleging said disorder. (Jordan Paz vs. Jeanice Pavon
Paz, G.R. No. 166579, February 18, 2010)
2) Q: What are the requirements in the presentation of an expert witness to prove

psychological incapacity?
A:The presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of
the parties by the psychologist or expert.
Case Law:
Correspondingly, the presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and
in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive
diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity. (Jordan
Paz vs. Jeanice Pavon Paz, G.R. No. 166579, February 18, 2010)
3) Q: What are the matters covered by psychological incapacity?

A: Psychological incapacity covers most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to
marriage.
Сase Law:
In Perez-Ferraris vs. Ferraris, we said:
As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or isolated
characteristics associated with certain personality disorders, there is hardly a doubt that
the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity"
to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to marriage. (Jordan Paz vs.
Jeanice Pavon Paz, G.R. No. 166579, Febrиary 18, 2010)
4) Q: What are the acts to be proven in psychological incapacity?

A: The acts to be proven are gravity, judicial antecedence, and incurability.
Case Law:
In Santos vs. Court of Appeals, the court first declared that psychological
incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) judicial antecedence; and (c)
incurability. It must be confined "to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage."
In Dimayuga-Laurena vs. Court of Appeals, the Court explained:
Gravity - it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;
Judicial antecedence - it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and
Incurability – it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved. (Jordan Paz vs. Jeanice Pavon Paz, G.R. No.
166579, February 18, 2010)
3. Rule on Opinion of Ordinary Witness:

19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rules on opinion of ordinary witness. It
states that:
"Sec. 53. 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 or she has adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person." (44a)
СOMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule in case of an opinion of ordinary witness?
A: The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
evidence regarding:
1) The identity of a person about whom he or she has adequate knowledge;
2) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity;
3) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently acquainted;
and
4) The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition, or appearance of a person. (44a)
a) Opinion of an Ordinary Witness as to Familiarity in the Handwriting of a Person

and Behavior:
1) Q: What is the rule in case of an opinion of an ordinary witness based on her
familiarity in the handwriting of a person or person?
A: Opinion in which the witness has sufficient familiarity and the behavior of the
person relating to the fact in issue must be proven.
Case Law:
The CA mainly relied on the handwritten letter of AAA, which was identified by
her mother BBB in open court, to find that CCC is guilty of the crimes of rape. BBB was
familiar with her daughter's handwriting; and thus, she was able to identify the
penmanship of her daughter. Under the Rules of Court, BBB's opinion is admissible in
evidence:
Rule 130, 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;
(Ъ) 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.
The letter was left by AAA when she ran away from home sometime after the
alleged incidents, which began on the wake of BBB's mother as referred to by AAA in
the letter.
However, even if the Supreme Court would admit and appreciate the testimony
of BBB regarding AAA's change in behavior, it does not by itself prove the guilt of CCC.
Likewise, the handwritten letter of AAA does not prove that CCC indeed raped
his daughter. In the handwritten letter, AAA accuses her own father of being a
“MANYAK" and that "7 Bises NIYA IYON GINAWA SA AKIN SIMULA NG
NAMATAY SI LOLA." However, AAA never explained what her father did to her.
Characterizing her father as a “manyak" does not automatically mean that he raped her,
as it may pertain to other acts which are lascivious that do not necessarily constitute
rape. Without proving the very acts that CCC did to AAA, the Supreme Court cannot
uphold the conviction of CCC. (People of the Philippines vs. CCC, G.R. No. 228822,
June 19, 2019)
b) Opinion of an Ordinary Witness as to Mental Sanity of a Person:

1) Q: When will the opinion of an ordinary witness on the mental sanity of the
person be sufficient?
A:The observations of the trial judged coupled with evidence establishing the person's
state of mental sanity will suffice
Case Law:
An ordinary witness may give his opinion on the mental sanity of a person with
whom he is sufficiently acquainted (Sec. 50, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court). Where the
sanity of a person is at issue expert opinion is not necessary. The observations of the
trial judged coupled with evidence establishing the person's state of mental sanity will
suffice. (Hernandez vs. Santos, G.R. No. 166470, August 7, 2009)
c) Opinion of an Ordinary Witness as to their Impression or Understanding:

1) Q: When is the rule on the opinion of an ordinary witness as to their impression
and understanding?
A: Opinion of an ordinary witness on the contents of a document is merely based on
their own understanding of what they had read.
Case Law:
As a rule, the opinion of a witness is inadmissible because a witness can testify
only to those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge and it is for the
court to draw conclusions from the facts testified to. Opinion evidence or testimony
refers to evidence of what the witness thinks, believes or infers in regard to facts in
dispute, as distinguished from his personal knowledge of the facts themselves. In this
case, however, prosecution witnesses Michael, Flores and Enseo barely made a
conclusion on the defamatory nature of the statements in petitioner's Omnibus Motion,
but merely testified on their own understanding of what they had read. (Medel Arnaldo
Belen vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 211120, February 13, 2017)
H. CHARACTER EVIDENCE RULE

A. Basic Concept
1)Q: What is character evidence?
A: Evidence of person's moral standing in the community based on reputation. (Black's
Law Dictionary, Harry Campbell Black, Fifth Ed., p. 120)
1. Rule on Character Evidence:

19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rules on character evidence. It states that:
"Sec. 54. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions. - Evidence of a
person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving
action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
a)In Criminal Cases:
(1) The 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.
(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral character, pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged. However, the prosecution may not prove
his or her bad moral character unless on rebuttal.
b) In Civil Cases:
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.
c) In Criminal and Civil Cases:
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character
has been impeached.
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is
admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the
form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific
instances of conduct.
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential
element of a charge: claim or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of
that person's conduct."
(51a; 14, Rule 132)
COMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule on the admissibility of character evidence?
A: Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the
purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.
2) Q: What are the exceptions to the above rule?

A: The exception to the above rule shall be as follows, to wit:
a) In Criminal Cases:
4) Q: Is evidence of moral character of the victim material in rape cases? A: The victim's
moral character is immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of an accused for rape,
there being absolutely no nexus between it and the odious deed committed.
Case Law:
In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the
testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature
and the normal course of things, as in this case. Here, the victim's testimony was even
corroborated on material points by the testimonies of Mrs. Aris and Dr. Pastor as well
as by the documentary evidences adduced. It takes a certain amount of psychological
depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father to jail
for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself to a
lifetime shame. The victim's moral character was immaterial in the prosecution and
conviction of an accused for rape, there being absolutely no nexus between it and the
odious deed committed. (People of the Philippines vs. Avelino Felan, G.R. No. 176631,
February 2, 2011)
b) In Civil Cases:
1) Q: What is the rule on moral character of a party in a civil case?
A: 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 Civil Cases and Criminal Cases:

1) Q: What is the rule on evidence of good character of a witness?
A: Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has
been impeached.
2) Q: What is the rule on evidence or character or trait of a person?

A: In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is
admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the
form of an opinion.
3) Q: When to inquire on the relevant specific instances of conduct?

A: On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of
conduct.
d) Character as an Essential Element of a Charge, Claim or Defenses:

1) Q: What is the rule on character or trait of a person which is an essential element of
the charge, claim or defense?
A: In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element
of a charge: claim or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that
person's conduct.

Case Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3) Identity;

2) Q: What are the requirements of a valid offer ofpayment?

3) Q: What is the reason for the rule?

a) Civil Code Provision on Consignation:

b) Tender of Payment a Condition Precedent:

I. HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE

2) Q: What are the statements covered by the hearsay rule?

3) Q: What is the nature of hearsay evidence?

4) Q: When is a statement not hearsay?

6) Q: What is the coverage on the application of the rule on hearsay evidence?

7) Q: What is the essential prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence?

8) Q: What is the evidentiary value of hearsay evidence?

9) Q: What is the theory of the hearsay evidence rule?

10) Q: What is the nature of affidavits as evidence?

II. EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE

3) Q: What are the requisites of dying declaration?

4) Q: What is the nature of a dying declaration?

5) Q: What are the grounds of dying declaration?

6) Q: What are the kinds of dying declaration?

8) Q: Can a declaration made under the consciousness of an impending death be

9) Q: What is the test in determining whether the utterance is a dying declaration?

10) Q: May the declaration of a person under the consciousness of an impending

2. Rule on Statement of a Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind or "Dead Man's

2) Q: When will the statement of a deceased person or unable to testify admissible in

3) Q: When will the statement of a deceased person or unable to testify inadmissible

3. Rule on Declaration Against Interest:

4) Q: What is the distinction between declaration against interest and admission

Admissions Against Interest Declarations Against Interest

4 Rule on Declaration Against Pedigree (Bar Exams 2000 and 1983):

2) Q: What is the rule on act or declaration about pedigree?

3) Q: What does the word pedigree includes?

6) Q: What are the forms of declaration about pedigree?

5) Rule on Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree:

3) Q: What is the rule on family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree?

4) Q: How to prove family reputation and tradition regarding pedigree?

6. Rule on Common Reputation (Bar Examination 2017):

2) Q: What is the rule on common reputation?

3) Q: How to prove common reputation?

4) Q: What are the requisites for common reputation to be applied as an exception to

2) Q: What is the rule on res gestae?

3) Q: What are the classes of res gestae?

4) Q: What are the requisites for res gestae to apply?

5) Q: What does res gestae includes?

6) Q: What is the test for the admissibility of res gestae?

7) Q: What is the basis of the admissibility of res gestae?

8) Q: What are the factors to be considered to determine spontaneity of the

9) Q: What is the most critical factor in determining spontaneity of a statement?

10) Q: What is the "doctrine of independent relevant statement"?

11) Q: When is declaration considered as part of - gestae not dying declaration?

Res Gestae Dying Declaration

8. Records of Regularly Conducted:

2) Q: What is prima facie evidence?

4) Q:: What is the rationale of the rule?

5) Q: What are the grounds for its admissibility?

6) Q: Is a police report admissible in evidence even if the police investigator is not

a) Rule on Entries in the Official Records under Environmental Cases:

10. Rules on Commercial List and the Like:

2) Q: What are the grounds for its admissibility?

11. Rule on Learned Treatises:

3) Q: What is the rule on testimony or deposition at a former proceeding to be

4) Q: What are the requisites in order that testimony or deposition at a former

2) Q: What are the requirements for the admissibility of the statements?