What are the kinds of admissibility of evidence?

Explain each

 The following are the kinds of admissibility of evidence:

a.) Multiple Admissibility – where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or
more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the purposes for
which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its
admissibility therefore.
Example: Oral statement or testimony of a dying person may be treated as a dying
declaration if such person dies, otherwise it will be considered as part of res gestae.
b.) Conditional Admissibility- where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be
immaterial or irrelevant, unless it is connected with the other facts to be
subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other
facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence already given will be stricken
out.
Example: For instance, Mr. P files an action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of
land against Mr. D. The complaint alleges that Mr. P is the owner of the property.
During the trial, Mr. P testifies and adduces evidence that sometime in 1995, the
property subject of the action was bought by Mr. O from a certain Mr. M. The
defendant, Mr. D, objects on the ground that the evidence is irrelevant to support
the claim of ownership of Mr. P. The problem presented in such a situation is
whether or not to interrupt the examination of the witness to first present the
connecting evidence or to admit the testimony conditionally, subject to
presentation of the said connecting evidence later in the trial. Mr. P may ask the
court to conditionally allow the testimony with the undertaking to show later that
he bought the property from Mr. O who in turn bought it from Mr. M.
c.) Curative Admissibility – this doctrine treats upon the right of a party to introduce
evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence
adduced by the adverse party. It is allowed to answer the inadmissible evidence.
Note: the incompetent evidence presented by the adverse party must be objected
to by the party who will be presenting rebutting incompetent evidence.
Example: For example, in an action for damages arising from a car accident, the
plaintiff, despite objection by the defendant, introduced evidence to show that on
several occasions the defendant in the past had injured pedestrians because of his
negligence. The evidence was offered to prove the defendant's propensity for
negligence. Of course, under the rules, this kind of evidence is inadmissible because
evidence that a person did a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
he did the same or a similar thing. If we were to follow the concept of curative
admissibility, the court may be asked to give the party against whom the evidence
was admitted the chance to contradict or explain the alleged past acts he committed
and to show evidence of past acts of diligence of the defendant to counteract the
prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused.
Also, if hearsay evidence prejudicial to the defendant is erroneously admitted
despite objection, under the principle of curative admissibility, the court should
allow hearsay evidence favorable to the same defendant.
Explain the principle of Flight or Non-flight of the Accused

 The fact that appellants never fled the locality where the crime was committed is not by
itself a valid defense against the prosecution's allegations because non-flight does not
signify innocence. Non-flight is simply inaction, which may be due to several factors. It
cannot be singularly considered as evidence or as a manifestation determinative of
innocence. It is established in this jurisdiction that while flight indicates guilt, non-flight
does not mean innocence.
 There is no law or principle holding that non-flight per se is proof, let alone conclusive
proof, of innocence. Much like the defense of alibi, the defense of non-flight cannot
prevail against the weight of positive identification of the appellants. On the other hand,
flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not always be attributed to one's
consciousness of guilt. Flight alone is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other
circumstances because flight alone is inherently ambiguous. However, in a case where
the accused escaped from detention during the pendency of the case, flight was
considered as an indication of guilt or of his guilty mind: "x x x the wicked flee even
when no man pursues, but the righteous stand fast as bold as a lion".

Explain Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence

 Cumulative evidence – is the kind of evidence which is of the same kind and character
tending to prove the same proposition.
Example: For example, when a witness testifies that he saw the event testified to and
two other witnesses testify having seen the same event which the first witness claimed
he saw, the subsequent testimonies constitute cumulative evidence.
 Corroborative evidence – is the kind of evidence which merely supplements evidence
which has already been given tending to strengthen the same. It is additional evidence
of a different character to the same point.
Example: if W testifies that the gun marked as Exhibit "A" was the weapon used in the
shooting of the victim, the findings of the crime laboratory that the gun bears only the
fingerprints of the accused corroborates the testimony of W.
How are the Rules on Evidence construed?

 Considering that the Rules on Evidence is part of the Rules of Court, it shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

Explain the principle that “No one can have a vested right in the rules of evidence”

 There is no vested right in the rules of evidence, because the rules of evidence are
subject to change by the Supreme Court pursuant to its powers to promulgate rules
 concerning pleading, practice and procedure. The change in the rules of evidence is
however, subject to the constitutional limitation on the enactment of ex post facto law.

Waiver of the Rules of Evidence

 The rules of evidence may be waived. When an otherwise objectionable evidence is not
objected to, the evidence becomes admissible because of waiver.
 For instance, while as a rule hearsay evidence is excluded and carries no probative
value, the rule admits of an exception. Where a party failed to object to hearsay
evidence, then the same is admissible (SSS Chemicals Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 128538, February 28, 2001).

When is judicial notice mandatory?

 Judicial notice is based on the maxim, "what is known need not be proved," hence,
when the rule is invoked, the court may dispense with the presentation of evidence on
judicially cognizable facts.
 The following are matters subject to mandatory judicial notice.
(a) the existence and territorial extent of states;
(b) the political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality of states;
(c) the law of nations;
(d) the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
(e) the political constitution and history of the Philippines;
(f) the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines;
(g) the laws of nature;
(h) the measure of time; and
(i) the geographical divisions.
Rule 129, Sec. 1

When is judicial notice discretionary

 Under the principle of discretionary judicial notice, "A court may take judicial notice
of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions"
Sec. 2, Rule 129
 the principles of discretionary judicial notice will apply where the following
requisites are met:
(a) The matter must be one of common knowledge;
(b) The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt (if there is any uncertainty
about the matter, then evidence must be adduced); and
(c) The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court

When hearing is necessary for judicial notice?

  During pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu propio or upon motion, shall hear the
parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu propio or upon motion, may take judicial
notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a
material issue in the case. Sec.3, Rule 129

People vs. Tundag, G.R. Nos. 135695-96, October 12, 2000

People v. Rebancos, 172 SCRA 426 (1989)

Asian Terminals Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance, G.R. No. 171406, April 04, 2011

Spouses Latip vs. Chua, G.R. No. 177809, October 16, 2009

Can Philippine courts take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments?

 It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign
laws. Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved,….. Australian marital laws
for example, are not among those matters that judges are supposed to know by reason
of their judicial functions
 In general, and in the absence of statutory requirement to the contrary, the courts of
the forum will not take judicial notice of the law prevailing in another country. Foreign
laws must be alleged and proved. In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be
presumed to be the same as the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the case under the
doctrine of processual presumption
.

What is the doctrine of processual presumption?

 doctrine of processual presumption - Foreign laws must be alleged and proved. In the
absence of proof, the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as the laws of the
jurisdiction hearing the case.
 Foreign law not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that
foreign law is the same as ours.

Juan vs. Juan, G.R. No. 221732, August 23, 2017

Can the court take judicial notice on laws enacted by Congress?

 Yes, court shall take judicial notice, without introduction of evidence, of the official acts of
the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines.
Can the court take judicial notice on municipal ordinances?

 Municipal trial courts must take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the
municipality in which they sit.
 A Court of First Instance (now RTC), should also take judicial notice of municipal
ordinances in force in the municipalities within their jurisdiction but only when so
required by law. For example, the charter of the City of Manila requires all courts sitting
therein to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the city council. Such court
must take judicial notice also of municipal ordinances on appeal to it from the inferior
court in which the latter judicial took notice of,


How to prove foreign laws?

 The foreign law must be proved like any other fact (Sec. 24&25, Rule 132 RoC)

 To prove a written foreign law, the requirements of Sees. 24 and 25, Rule 132 must be
complied with, that is, by an official publication or by a duly attested and authenticated
copy thereof. The provisions of the foreign law may also be the subject of judicial
admission under Sec. 4 of this Rule. Absent any of the foregoing evidence or admission,
the foreign law is presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines, under the so-
called doctrine of processual presumption.

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co and/ or Chemical Bank vs. Rafael Ma, G.R. No. 136804, February 19,
2003

What are the material requisites on taking judicial notice?

 Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites:

(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
(2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

Give example on this - Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges ought to know because of their
judicial functions but judicial notice is not judicial knowledge.

 Local ordinances of other municipalities where the judge may have knowledge about it
but the court where he or she sits shall not take judicial notice on it for it is beyond its
territorial jurisdiction. The judge may have personal knowledge about it but it is not a
judicial knowledge of the court.


Can the court take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case?
  Yes. A court may take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case
(Republic v. Court of Appeals, 277 SCRA 633).

Can the court take judicial notice on post office practice on registered mail?

 This post office practice is not covered by any of the instances under the Rules and is
not of unquestionable demonstration (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 107 SCRA 504).
 That a registered letter when posted is immediately stamped with the date of its
receipt, indicating therein the number of the registry, both on the covering envelope
itself and on the receipt delivered to the person who delivered the letter to the office is
not a proper subject of judicial notice.

Can the court take judicial notice on bank practices?

 While a court is not mandated to take judicial notice of this practice under Section 1 of
Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, it nevertheless may do so under Section 2 of the same
Rule on discretionary judicial notice. Sec. 2 of Rule 129 provides that a court may take
judicial notice of "matters which are of public knowledge, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions." Thus, the Court has taken judicial notice of the
practices of banks and other financial institutions. Precisely, it has noted that it is their
uniform practice, before approving a loan, to investigate, examine and assess would-be
borrowers' credit standing or real estate offered as security for the loan applied for
(Solidbank Corporation v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation, 464 SCRA 409).

What are judicial admissions?

 Under Sec. 4 of Rule 129, judicial admissions are described and defined as follows:

Section 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in

the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may
be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the
imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (4a)

What are the elements of judicial admissions?

 To be a judicial admission under Sec. 4 of Rule 129, certain elements must be

considered:
 First, the same must be made by a party to the case. Admissions of a non-party do not
fall within the definition of Sec. 4 of Rule 129.
 Second, the admission to be judicial, must be made in the course of the proceedings in
the same case. Thus, an admission made in another judicial proceeding will not be
deemed a judicial admission in another case where the admission was not made.
Instead, it will be considered an extrajudicial admission for purposes of the other
proceeding where such admission is offered.
It has been held that " . . . To be considered as a judicial admission, the same must be
made in the same case in which it is offered (Programme Incorporated v. Province of
Bataan, G.R. No. 144635, June 26, 2006; Camitan v. Fidelity Insurance Corporation,
G.R. No. 163684, April 16, 2008).
  Third, Sec. 4 of Rule 129 does not require a particular form for an admission. Such form
is immaterial because the provision recognizes either a verbal or a written admission.

When can a party make judicial admissions

 A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings, (b) during the trial, either by
verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial
proceeding (Sps. Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 154430, June 16,2006).

Silot, Jr. vs. De La Rosa, G.R. No. 159240, February 04, 2008

Constantino vs. Constantino, G.R. No. 181508, October 02, 2013

Study Rule 26 Sec. 1, Sec. 2, Sec. , Sec. 4 of the new Rules on Civil Procedure

Diman vs. Lacalle, G.R. No. 131466, November 27, 1998

When a pleading is amended, what is the effect on the admissions in a superseded pleading?

 When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it
amends and the admissions in the superseded pleading may be received in evidence
against the pleader (Sec. 8, Rule 10, Rules of Court).
 It has been held that the admissions in a superseded pleading are to be considered as
extrajudicial admissions which must be proven (Torres v. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA
24). In Ching v. Court of Appeals (331 SCRA 16), the Supreme Court held that pleadings
that have been amended disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings and
cease to be judicial admissions, and to be utilized as extrajudicial admissions, they must,
in order to have such effect, be formally offered in evidence.

When a pleading is dismissed, what is the effect on the admissions made therein?

 Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are merely extrajudicial
admissions (Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 643).

Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 643

Bon vs. People, G.R. No. 152160, January 13, 2004

What is the exception to the rule that admissions by counsel are conclusive upon a client?
  General Rule: Admissions by a counsel are generally conclusive upon a client (De Garcia
v. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 129). Even the negligence of counsel binds the client
(Sarraga v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, 393 SCRA 566). This rule is not
however, without exception.
 Exception: In cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of
due process of law, or when its application will result in outright deprivation of the
client's liberty or property, or when the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded
the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or
negligence (Salazar v. Court of Appeals, 376 SCRA 459; Silot v. De la Rosa, G.R. No.
159240, February 4, 2008).

What are the consequences of judicial admissions?

 A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact, as judicial
admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial
admission removes the admitted fact from the field of controversy. Consequently, an
admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such
admission and are conclusive to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or
inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed or not. The
allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against
the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent
with what was pleaded (Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R. No. 165987, March 31, 2006).
 No evidence is needed to prove a judicial admission and it cannot be contradicted
unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made (Arroyo, Jr. v. Taduran, 421 SCRA 423) but despite the presence of
judicial admissions in a party's pleading, the trial court is still given leeway to consider
other evidence presented (Santos v. Lumbao, G.R. No. 169129, March 28, 2007 citing
Atillo v. CA, 266 SCRA 596; Philippine HealthCare Providers, Inc. v. Estrada I Cara Health
Services, G.R. No. 171052, January 28, 2008) because said admissions may not
necessarily prevail over documentary evidence (Asian Pacific Planners v. City
ofUrdaneta, G.R. No. 162525, September 23 2008).

What are the effects of judicial admissions?

 Judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it and cannot thereafter
take a position contradictory to, or inconsistent with his pleadings.
 An admission by a party may be given in evidence against him (Sec. 26, Rule 132, Rules
of Court). His admission is not admissible in his favor, because it would be self-serving
evidence. Declarations of a party favorable to himself are not admissible as proof of the
facts asserted (Cole v. Ralph, 252 US 286, 64 L Ed 567, 40 SC Ct 312, USTC 312a, 3 AFTR
3051; State v. Warren, 242 Iowa 1176, 47 NW2d 221; Jones v. Dugan, 124 Md. 346, 350,
92 A. 775).
Atillo v CA, G.R. No. 119053

Distinguish judicial admissions from extrajudicial admissions

When is extrajudicial admission admissibile?