U.P.

LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

[Sec. 2, Rule 128]

VIII.EVIDENCE 3. SC issuances [e.g., Judicial Affidavit Rule, Rules
on Procedure for Environmental Cases, Child
A. General Principles Witness Rule, Rules on Electronic Evidence,
Rules on DNA Evidence]

1. Concept of Evidence No Vested Right of Property in Rules of

Evidence
The means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining The general rule is that there is no vested right of
in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter property in rules of evidence [Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, G.R.
of fact [Sec. 1, Rule 128] No. 1164 (1903)] Any evidence inadmissible
according to the laws in force at the time the action
accrued, but admissible according to the laws in force
2. Scope and Applicability of at the time of trial, is receivable [Francisco 8, 1996 Ed.,
the Rules of Evidence citing Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, G.R. No. 1164 (1903)]

Rules of Evidence May be Waived

a. Scope of Application According to Francisco [9, 1996 Ed., citing American
cases], there are rules of evidence established merely
Under the Rules of Court (ROC), the rules of
for the protection of the parties. If, according to the
evidence are specifically applicable only to judicial
well-established doctrine, the parties may waive such
proceedings [Sec. 1, Rule 128]
rules during the trial of a case, there is no reason why
they cannot make the waiver in a contract (ex. a
This rule must be read as referring to the rules of
contract of insurance requiring the testimony of
evidence AS CONTAINED in the ROC, because
eyewitness as the only evidence admissible concerning
obviously constitutional evidentiary rules permeate
the death of the insured person' is valid or a contract
ALL proceedings and is the constant, bottomline
waiving the privilege against the disclosure of
yardstick for the validity of ALL acts in Philippine
confidential communications made by a patient to
territory [Prof. Avena]
physician). However, if the rule of evidence waived by
the parties has been established on grounds of public
Judicial proceedings are of THREE KINDS
policy, the waiver is void (ex. waiver of the privilege
ONLY
against the disclosure of state secrets).
1. Civil action which is of two kinds
a. ordinary civil action, and
b. special civil action 3. Evidence in Civil Cases v.
2. Criminal action
3. Special Proceeding
Evidence in Criminal Cases
[Sec. 3, Rule 1]
Preponderance of Proof beyond
Note: All other proceedings are NON-JUDICIAL, evidence reasonable doubt
hence, application of the rules of evidence in the ROC [Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ]
is not mandatory unless provided to be so by law or Offer of compromise
Offer of compromise
regulation [see Sec. 4, Rule 1] NOT an admission of
by the accused may be
any liability, and is not
received in evidence as
admissible in evidence
b. Uniformity of Application against the offeror
an implied admission of
guilt.
[Sec. 27, Rule 130], as a
General rule: The rules of evidence shall be the same in general rule [Tan v.
all courts and in all trials and hearings [Sec. 2, Rule Exceptions:
Rodil Enterprises, G. R.
128] a. for quasi-offenses
No. 168071 (2006)]
or
Exceptions: b. those allowed by
Exceptions: The party
If otherwise provided by: law to be
making the offer
1. Law [e.g. 1987 Constitution, statutes] compromised,
admits the existence of
2. Rules of Court examples:
an indebtedness

Page 403 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Preponderance of Proof beyond Preponderance of Proof beyond

evidence reasonable doubt evidence reasonable doubt
[Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ] [Sec Rule ]
combined with a 1. Sec 204, RA inserted by
proposal to settle the 8424 (Tax R.A. 8353]
claim amicably. In Tan, Reform Act of
petitioner made 1997), which A plea of guilty later
categorical judicial provides that withdrawn or an
admissions, not only as payment of unaccepted offer of a
to his liability, but also, any internal plea of guilty to a lesser
as to the amount of revenue tax offense, is not
indebtedness in the and all criminal admissible in evidence
form of rentals due: violations may against the accused who
a. Petitioner agreed be made the plea or offer
in open court to compromised, [Sec. 27, Rule 130]
pay the amount of except those Constitutional
P440,000.00, already filed in presumption of
representing Court and innocence does NOT
those apply [Sec. 14, Art. III,
rentals from involving Constitution refers
September 1997 to fraud;
June 2000; and 2. In rape cases,
that petitioner will the subsequent
pay the monthly valid marriage However, the ROC
rentals computed between the requires meeting the
Presumption of
at P13,750.00 on offended party burden of proof [Sec.
innocence a
or before the 5th shall 1, Rule 131] of
constitutional guarantee
day of each month extinguish the preponderance of
on the accused [Sec. 14,
after 30 June 2000, criminal action evidence [Sec. 1, Rule
Art. III, Constitution]
as detailed by the or the penalty 133]. Note also the
Order of the imposed. In disputable
MeTC; and case it is the presumption that a
b. In his Motion to legal husband person is innocent of
Allow Defendant who is the wrong [Sec. 3(a), Rule
to Deposit offender, the 131]. See also Sec. 3(m),
Rentals, petitioner subsequent (p), (x), (aa), and (ff),
stated that the forgiveness by Rule 131; Sec. 3(4),
rentals due on the the wife as the Rule 132; and Sec. 5,
premises in offended party Rule 133.
question from shall
September 1997 extinguish the An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital
up to the present criminal action or other expenses occasioned by an injury is NOT
amounted to or the penalty: admissible as proof of criminal or civil liability for the
P467,500.00, as of Provided, That injury [Sec. 27, Rule 130]
the date of filing the crime shall
the Motion. not be The following distinctions may also be noted
extinguished a. In terms of evidence in connection with
or the penalty constitutional law doctrines e.g., under par. 4,
shall not be Sec. 12, Art. III, Constitution, an uncounseled
abated if the extra-judicial confession elicited during custodial
marriage is investigation will be inadmissible in any criminal
void ab initio case against the accused, but will be admissible in
[Art. 266-C, a civil case for damages by the latter against the
RPC, as violator

Page 404 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC
b. In terms of evidence arising from procedure
e.g.:
1. Judicial Affidavit Rule [A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC]
does not apply to criminal case where
penalty exceeds six years)
2. Guidelines in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and
Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures
[A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC]
admissions made or entered during the pre-
trial conference shall be reduced in writing
and signed by the accused and counsel,
otherwise, they cannot be used against the
accused. The agreements covering the
matters referred to in Section 1 of Rule 118
8, Part
B)
c. The rules on search and seizure in
constitutional law in connection with
criminal procedure do not apply in civil
actions involving infringement of intellectual
property, where the applicable rule is A.M.
No. 02-1-06-SC (Rule on Search and Seizure
in Civil Actions for Infringement of
Intellectual Property Rights)
4. Proof v. Evidence
Proof Evidence
Result or
Mode and manner of proving
effect of
competent facts in judicial
evidence [2
proceedings [Bustos v. Lucero,
Regalado 698,
G.R. No. L-2068, (1948)]
2008 Ed.]
The end result The means to an end
5. Factum Probans v. Factum
Probandum
Evidentiary fact Ultimate fact
Fact by which the factum
Fact sought to
probandum is to be
be established
established
Materials which establish that
Proposition
proposition
[2 Regalado 698-699, 2008 Ed.]
One must adduce during trial the factum probans or
the evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum
Page 405 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
or the ultimate fact can be established. [Dela Llana vs.
Biong, G.R. No. 182356 (2018)]
6. Classes of Evidence
According to Form
a. Object - those addressed to the senses of the
court [Sec. 1, Rule 130]
b. Documentary - consists of writings or any
material containing letters, words, numbers,
figures, symbols or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents
[Sec. 2, Rule 130]
c. Testimonial - evidence elicited from the mouth
of a witness [Riano 180, 2016 Ed., citing
Law Dictionary] It involves two levels of
perception: that of the witness perceiving the
event, and that of the judge evaluating the witness
There is no hierarchy with respect to the physical
forms of evidence. A fact may be proved by any kind;
the court may admit. There is no rule (in general) that
prefers one form rule as against another [Adzuara v.
C.A., G.R. No. 125134 (1999)]
In Adzuara, the petitioner claimed that the medical
certificate presented by the prosecution was
uncorroborated by actual testimony of the physician
who accomplished the same and as such has no
probative value insofar as the physical injuries
suffered by the victim are concerned. The SC
disagreed, ruling that the fact of the injury resulting
from the collision may be proved in other ways such
as the testimony of the injured person.
7. Cumulative and
Corroborative Evidence
Note: This distinction refers to the uniformity of
evidentiary form, not the distinction between forms
of evidence per se [Prof. Avena]
Cumulative Corroborative
evidence evidence
Evidence of the same Additional evidence of a
kind and to the same different character to
state of facts the same point
[2 Regalado 702, 2008 Ed.]
Cumulative evidence refers to pieces of evidence of
the same form, e.g. testimonies. Corroborative
evidence refers to pieces of evidence of different
forms, e.g. object and testimonial.
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

8. and Conclusive Evidence

Conclusive
Class of evidence which the law does not allow
to be contradicted [2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.]

Note: This statement refers only to the second

Standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient
to maintain the proposition affirmed [2 Regalado 703, 2008
Ed.]
e.g. official records such as Police blotter [Sec. 44, Rule 130;
public documents such as notarial register [Sec. 23, Rule
132]
part of the definition of conclusive evidence (i.e.,
its exclusionary feature).
The first part refers to the fact that a rule of law
has provided that it constitutes factum probans
that sufficiently establishes the factum
probandum without need of any other evidence
[Prof. Avena]
e.g. (1) The decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become
incontrovertible, upon the expiration of the one-
year period within which any person deprived of
land or of any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud, to file in the proper court a petition
for reopening and review of the decree of
registration [Sec. 32, P.D. 1529]; (2) The child
shall be considered legitimate although the
mother may have declared against its legitimacy
or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
[Art. 167, FC]. Factum probans that the child
was conceived or born during the marriage of its
parents conclusively establishes the factum
probandum of the legitimate status of that child,
and by providing that this factum probandum
the mother may have declared
against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced

any factum probans presented and offered to

prove the truth of the latter declaration (of the
mother) will be inadmissible in evidence.

9. Disputable and Conclusive b. Sources of above presumptions other than the

Rules of Court:
Presumption 1. law
2. SC issuances
a.
- 10. Primary and Secondary
Evidence
of Court (the latter being a presumption that is
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but which may be Primary evidence is that which the law regards as
contradicted and overcome by other evidence). affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question
[1 Regalado 703, 2010 Ed.]

Page 406 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
Examples of primary evidence
The filiation of legitimate children is established by
any of the following
a. The record of birth appearing in the civil register
or a final judgment; or
b. An admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument
and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the
legitimate filiation shall be roved by:
a. The open and continuous possession of the
status of a legitimate child; or
b. Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
and special laws
[Art. 172, FC]
Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate
filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as
legitimate children [Par. 1, Art. 175, FC]
G.R. No. 177728, July 31,
2009
1) Where the private handwritten instrument is
the lone piece of evidence submitted to
prove filiation, there should be strict
compliance with the requirement that the
same must be signed by the acknowledging
parent; and
2) Where the private handwritten instrument is
accompanied by other relevant and
competent evidence, it suffices that the claim
of filiation therein be shown to have been
made and handwritten by the acknowledging
parent as it is merely corroborative of such
other evidence.
Best Evidence Rule: When the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself
[Sec. 3, Rule 130]
Secondary evidence
In the context of the Best Evidence rule in Sec. 3,
Rule 130, secondary evidence may be admitted
a. When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence
and the cause of its unavailability without bad
faith on his part, may prove its contents by a
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some
Page 407 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated [Sec. 5, Rule 130]
b. If the document is in the custody of under the
control of the adverse party, he must have
reasonable notice to produce it. If after such
notice and after satisfactory proof of its
existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the
case of its loss [Sec. 6, Rule 130]
c. When the original of a document is in the custody
of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office, its contents may be proved by a certified
copy issued by the public officer in custody
thereof [Sec. 7, Rule 130]
Generic, non-
used in
A receipt, which is a written and signed
acknowledgment that money and goods have been
delivered, is the best evidence of the fact of
payment although not exclusive [Vitarich v. Losin,
G.R. No. 181560 (2010)]
Vitarich
is referring to probative weight, not to admissibility.
Vitarich means that the
to be exclusionary.
Lastly, in another case, the SC ruled that a statement
in a written instrument regarding the payment of
consideration is merely in the nature of a receipt and
may be contradicted [Philippine Banking Corporation v.
C.A., G.R. No. 133710 (2004)]. The receipt in the
Philippine Banking case was not excluded as evidence,
but was not given much weight. The respondent-
defendant in Philippine Banking denied receiving the
loan proceeds and presented evidence that on the day
the bank claimed to have credited the subject amount,
it was again debited or withdrawn by the bank,
admittedly upon the instruction of the officials from
head office.
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
B. Admissibility of Evidence
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of
whether or not the circumstance (or evidence) is to be
considered at all. On the other hand, the probative
value of evidence refers to the question of whether or
not it proves an issue [PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation v. C.A., G.R. No. 107518 (1998)]
Admissibility does not concern weight
Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with
weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence
depends on its relevance and competence, while the
weight of evidence pertains to evidence already
admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible,
but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by the Rules
of Court [Dela Llana v. Biong, G.R. No. 182356 (2013)]
Weight involves the effect of evidence admitted, its
tendency to convince and persuade. It is not
determined mathematically by the numerical
superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact,
but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief
on the part of the judge trying the case [Francisco 11,
1996 Ed.]
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law or the rules or is
competent [Sec. 3, Rule 132]. Since admissibility of
evidence is determined by its relevance and
competence, admissibility is, therefore, an affair of
logic and law. On the other hand, the weight to be
given to such evidence, once admitted, depends on
judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in
Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the
Court. Thus, while evidence may be admissible, it may
be entitled to little or no weight at all. Conversely,
evidence which may have evidentiary weight may be
inadmissible because a special rule forbids its
reception. [People v. Turco, G.R. No. 137757, (2000)]
The admissibility of evidence cannot be ruled
upon in a preliminary investigation.
In a preliminary investigation, ... the public
prosecutors do not decide whether there is evidence
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person
charged; they merely determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and that respondent
is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
Page 408 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
the information in court the prosecutor would have
already presented all the evidence necessary to secure
inadmissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a
preliminary investigation. [Maza v. Judge Turla, G.R.
No. 187094 (2017)].
1. Requisites for Admissibility
a. Relevant to the issue; and
b. Not excluded by law or the ROC [Sec. 3, Rule 128]
Regalado
704, 2008 Ed.]
The Importance of Offer In Relation To
Admissibility
Parties are required to inform the courts of the
purpose of introducing their respective exhibits to
assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility in case
an objection thereto is made [Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No.
185454 (2011)]
Objection
a. Objection to evidence offered orally must be
made immediately after the offer is made.
1. As regards the testimony of a witness, the
offer must be made at the time the witness is
called to testify.
2. Documentary and object evidence shall be
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be
done orally unless allowed by the court to be
done in writing.
[Sec. 35, Rule 132]
b. Objection to a question propounded in the
course of the oral examination of a witness shall
be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall
become reasonably apparent.
c. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected
to within three (3) days after notice of the offer
unless a different period is allowed by the court.
d. In any case, the grounds for the objections must
be specified.
[Sec. 36, Rule 132]
Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall
be made at the time such evidence is offered, or as
soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility
have become apparent, otherwise the objection shall
be considered waived [Abrenica v. Gonda, G.R. No. L-
10100 (1916)]
U.P. LAW BOC
Form When objection made
Objection to the qualification of
the witness must be made at the
time he is called to the stand
If the witness is qualified, the
objection should be raised when
the objectionable question is
asked or after the answer is
given if the objectionable
feature became apparent by
reason of such answer
Must be made either:
a. At the time it is presented
in ocular inspection or
demonstration, or
b. When it is formally offered
At the time it is formally offered
[2 Regalado 705, 2008 Ed.]
2. Relevance of Evidence and
Collateral Matters
Relevancy
the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or
non- . 4, Rule 128] e.g., Evidence as to
the age of a person who has been raped is relevant in
a situation where the age would qualify the offence to
statutory rape
Determinable by the rules of logic and human
experience [2 Regalado 704, 2008 Ed.]
Collateral matters
Matters other than the fact in issue and which are
offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or
non-existence of the facts in issue [2 Regalado 708,
2008 Ed.]
General rule: Evidence on collateral matters is NOT
allowed [Sec. 4, Rule 128]
Exceptions: When it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact
in issue [Sec. 4, Rule 128]
Note: What the Rules prohibit is evidence of
irrelevant collateral facts [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed.]
Page 409 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
Example
In an administrative case for sexual harassment, the
respondent did not offer evidence that has a bearing
charges for grave oral defamation, grave threats,
unjust vexation, physical injuries, malicious mischief,
etc. filed against her. These pieces of evidence do not
establish the probability or improbability of the
offense charged [Civil Service Commission v. Belagan,
G.R. No. 132164 (2004)]
Note: The SC in this case discussed Sec. 51(a), Rule
130 (character evidence in criminal cases) in relation
to relevance but after the above-quoted statement
what respondent was trying to establish is
or the improbability of the charge. In this regard, a
11, Rule 132). .
3. 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 requisites of law for its
admissibility therefor [2 Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]
When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is
admissible insofar as it satisfies all rules applicable to
it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy
some other rule which would be applicable to it if
offered for another purpose does not exclude it. Thus,
a confession of an accused may not be competent as
against his co-accused, being hearsay as to the latter,
or to prove conspiracy between them without the
conspiracy being established by other evidence,
nonetheless, the confession of the accused may be
admitted as evidence of his own guilt [Francisco 11,
1996 Ed.]
4. 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 shall be stricken out [2 Regalado
705, 2008 Ed.]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

beyond reasonable doubt [People v. Matito, G.R. No.

5. Curative Admissibility 144405 (2004)]

Note: Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker form of

A party has the right to introduce incompetent
evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence [People v. Matito,
evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted
G.R. No. 144405 (2004)]
incompetent evidence adduced by the adverse party,
[2 Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]
7. Positive and Negative
What determines the rule of curative Evidence
admissibility
a. Whether the incompetent evidence was
seasonably objected to - Lack of objection to Positive
Negative evidence
incompetent evidence constitutes waiver by the evidence
party against whom it was introduced but the Witness affirms Witness states he/she did
opposing party is not deprived of his right to that a fact did or not see or know of the
similar rebutting evidence; and did not occur occurrence of a fact
b. Whether the admission of such evidence will [2 Regalado 703, 2008 Ed.]
cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party
against whom it was admitted 8. Competent and Credible
[2 Regalado 707, 2008 Ed.]
Evidence
6. Direct and Circumstantial Competence
Evidence Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by (i)
law or (ii) the ROC [Sec. 3, Rule 128; 2 Regalado 704,
Direct evidence Circumstantial evidence 2008 Ed.]
Proof of facts from which,
Proves the fact in Determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of
taken collectively, the
dispute without evidence [2 Regalado 704, 2008 Ed.]
existence of a particular fact
the aid of any
in dispute may be inferred as
inference or Note: Exclusionary rules may affect due process. To
a necessary or probable
presumption the extent that they might prejudice substantive
consequence
rights, therefore, they cannot be made to apply
[Francisco 2, 1996 Ed.]
retroactively.
Circumstantial evidence is the evidence of
EXCLUSIONARY RULES OF EVIDENCE
collateral facts or circumstances from which an
a. Constitutional exclusionary rules
inference may be drawn as to the probability or
1. Unreasonable searches and seizures [Sec. 2,
improbability of the fact in dispute. They are evidence
Art. III]
of relevant collateral facts [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed.]
2. Privacy of communication and
correspondence [Sec. 3, Art. III]
Requisites to warrant a conviction based on
3. Right to counsel, prohibition on torture,
circumstantial evidence
force, violence, threat, intimidation or other
a. there is more than one circumstance;
means which vitiate the free will; prohibition
b. the facts from which the inferences are derived
on secret detention places, solitary,
are proven; and
incommunicado [Sec. 12, Art. III]
c. the combination of all the circumstances is such
4. Right against self-incrimination [Sec. 17, Art.
as to produce conviction beyond reasonable
III]
doubt
[Sec. 4, Rule 133]
It is settled that for an extrajudicial confession to be
admissible in evidence against the accused, the same
The totality of the evidence must constitute an
unbroken chain showing the guilt of the accused
of a competent and independent counsel, (c) express,

Page 410 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Moreover, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7438
requires that "any person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by
G.R. No. 218130 (2018)
Fernandez testified that he was brought to the
Binmaley Police Station at 6:00 a.m. on June 16,
2011 and was asked if he was the one responsible
for the crime and if he would rather admit the
same. Despite the fact that he was already
considered as a suspect of the crime, Fernandez
was not assisted by a lawyer at that time. Atty.
Francisco only arrived past 1:00 p.m. after
Fernandez had already been subjected to
questioning by the police officers starting 6:00 a.m.
Thus, prior to 1:00 p.m., while Fernandez was in
the custody of the Binmaley police and under
investigation as a suspect, he was not able to confer
with any lawyer.
Moreover, Atty. Francisco was not an independent
counsel. Atty. Francisco was a legal consultant in
the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Binmaley. As
such, his duty was to provide legal advice to the
Mayor whose duty, in turn, is to execute the laws
and ordinances and maintain peace and order in
the municipality.
device/arrangement to secretly
overhear/intercept/record such information
by using any device, shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial/quasi-
judicial/legislative/administrative hearing or
investigation [Secs. 1 and 4, R.A. 4200 (Wire-
Tapping Act)]
The use of a telephone extension for the
purpose of overhearing a private
conversation without authorization did not
violate R.A. 4200 because a telephone
extension devise was neither among those
therein, following the principle that "penal
statutes must be construed strictly in favor of
Ganaan v. IAC, 145 SCRA
112]
c. Under the ROC, Rule is the applicable
rule in determining the admissibility of
evidence.
d. Court issuances, such as
1. Rule on Electronic Evidence, e.g.
compliance with authentication
requirements for electronic evidence
2. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, e.g.
sexual abuse shield rule
3. Judicial Affidavit Rule

Atty. Francisco cannot be considered as an Competence Credibility

independent counsel since protecting the rights of Eligibility of evidence to Worthiness of belief;
Fernandez as a suspect is in direct conflict with his be received as such
duty to the Municipal Mayor and the local
government of the Municipality. Note: Credibility does not, per se, exclude. It only does
in so far as it makes the piece of evidence irrelavant
Atty. Francisco was not vigilant in protecting the to the fact in issue. (e.g. the cross-examination of a
rights of Fernandez during the course of the witness is primarily about his credibility)
custodial investigation. Atty. Francisco allowed
Fernandez to answer each question without
reminding him that he can refuse to answer them
and/or remain silent.

b. Statutory exclusionary rules

1. Lack of documentary stamp tax to
documents required to have one makes such
document inadmissible as evidence in court
until the requisite stamp/s shall have been
affixed thereto and cancelled [Sec. 201,
NIRC];
2. any communication obtained by a person,
not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication, by tapping any
wire/cable or using any other

Page 411 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
C. Burden of Proof and
Burden of Evidence
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law [Sec. 1, Rule 131]
In civil cases, the quantum of evidence required to
sustain the proponent of an issue is preponderance of
evidence [Sec. 1, Rule 133] The burden of proof is on
the party who would be defeated if no evidence were
given on either side [2 Regalado 816, 2008 Ed.], the
plaintiff with respect to his complaint, the defendant
with respect to his counterclaim, and the cross-
claimant, with respect to his cross-claim.
In criminal cases:
For the issuance of warrant of arrest - evidence
of probable cause that there exist a reasonable
ground that the accused has committed an
offense [Algas v. Garrido, A.M.289-MJ, (1974))
To warrant the filing of an information if
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed
and the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial [Sec. 1, Rule 112]
To sustain a conviction - evidence of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt [Sec. 2, Rule 133]
To deny bail when discretionary when the
evidence of guilt is strong
To accept a plea of guilty to a capital offense
that the accused voluntarily and fully
comprehended the consequences of his plea [Sec.
3, Rule 116]
To grant demurrer to evidence the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a conviction [Sec. 23, Rule
119]
The burden of proof rests on the prosecution [Boac v
People, G.R. No. 180597 (2008)]
A party will have the burden of evidence only (i.e.,
will have to be a proponent) if there is any factum
probandum (whether evidentiary or otherwise) that
the adverse party has already established (whether by
law, rule, or by virtue of evidence that he has
presented) that he (the potential proponent) has to
overcome. That factum probandum may, but does
not have to be, nor is limited to a "prima facie
presumption." Likewise, a party will not have any
burden of evidence at all if the adverse party has not
Page 412 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
established any factum probandum in the first place
[Prof. Avena]
The burden of proof does not shift as it remains
throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is
imposed; the burden of evidence shifts from party
to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in
the course of the trial [2 Regalado 816, 2008 Ed., see
Bautista v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137 (1985)]
The burden of proof is generally determined by the
pleadings filed by the party; the burden of evidence
is generally determined by the developments at the
trial, or by the provisions of the substantive law or
procedural rules which may relieve the party from
presenting evidence on the fact alleged, i.e.,
presumptions, judicial notice and admissions [2
Regalado 816-817, 2008 Ed.]
In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of
evidence lies with the party who asserts an affirmative
allegation [2 Regalado 817, 2008 Ed.]
Example
In a case for collection of a sum of money, if the
defendant asserts that she has paid, then she has the
burden of proving that she had, not on the creditor
that she had not. While the creditor had needed to
prove the existence of a debt, the burden shifts to the
debtor because she alleged an affirmative defense,
Vitarich v.
Losin, G.R. No. 181560 (2010)]
Equipoise Rule or Equipoise Doctrine
The doctrine refers to the situation where the
evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is
doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. In
this case, the decision should be against the party with
the burden of proof [Rivera v. C.A., G.R. No. 115625
(1998); Marubeni v. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998, (2001)]
In criminal cases, the equipoise rule provides that
where the evidence is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the
scales in favor of the accused [Malana v. People, G.R.
No. 173612, (2008)]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

D.Presumptions Realty, G.R. No. 144268

Presumptions are inferences as to the existence of a
fact not actually known, arising from its usual
connection with another which is known, or a
conjecture based on past experience as to what course
human affairs ordinarily take. Presumptions embody
values and revealed behavioral expectations under a
given set of circumstances [University of Mindanao, Inc.
v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65
(2016)]
A rule of law that attaches probative value to specific
facts, or directs that an inference be drawn as to
existence of a fact, not actually known, arising from
its usual connection with other particular facts which
are known or established [Francisco at 51]
A presumption can rest only upon ascertained facts.
It cannot be based on other presumptions,
assumptions, probabilities or inferences [ibid. At 52]
Presumptions are not allegations, nor do they supply
their absence. Presumptions are conclusions. They do
not apply when there are no facts or allegations to
support them [University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65 (2016)]
(2006)]
1. Conclusive Presumptions
a. A party is not permitted falsify a thing whenever:
1. By his own declaration, act or omission;
2. He intentionally and deliberately led another
to believe a particular thing is true;
3. To act upon such belief; and
4. The litigation arises out of such declaration
act or omission.
b. A tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant between them
[Sec. 2, Rule 131]
These conclusive presumptions are based upon the
doctrine of estoppel in pais, see Arts. 1431-1439, Civil
Code [2 Regalado 820, 2008 Ed.]
Once a contract of lease is shown to exist between the
parties, the lessee cannot by any proof, however
strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that the
lessor has a valid title to or a better right of possession
to the subject premises than the lessee [Santos v.
National Statistics Office., G.R. No. 171129, (2011)]

Presumption of fact Presumption of law What a tenant is estopped from denying is the title of
Praesumptiones hominis [2 Praesumptiones juris [2 his landlord at the time of the commencement of the
Regalado 819, 2008 Ed.] Regalado 819, 2008 Ed.] landlord-tenant relation. If the title asserted is one
Those which the law that is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the
Those which the commencement of that relation, the presumption will
requires to be drawn
experience of mankind not apply. Hence, the tenant may show that the
from the existence of
has shown to be valid, landlord's title has expired or been conveyed to
established facts in the
founded on general another or himself; and he is not estopped to deny a
absence of contrary
knowledge and claim for rent, if he has been ousted or evicted by title
evidence; derived from
information; essentially paramount [Ermitaño v Paglas, G.R. No. 174436
the law itself rather
an inference (2013)]
from common logic or
probability
e.g. Inference of guilt
upon discovery of 2. Disputable Presumptions
e.g. Presumption of
bloodied garment in
innocence in favor of a. Person is innocent of crime or wrong;
possession of accused
the accused b. Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent;
c. Person intends the ordinary consequences of his
Conclusive Disputable voluntary act;
Satisfactory if d. Person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
Inferences which the law
uncontradicted, e. Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse
makes so peremptory that it
but may be if produced;
will not allow them to be
contradicted and f. Money paid by one to another was due to the
overturned by any contrary
overcome by latter;
proof however strong
other evidence g. Thing delivered by one to another belonged to
[Datalift Movers v. Belgravia
[Sec. 3, Rule 131] the latter;

Page 413 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
h. Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid;
i. Prior rents or installments had been paid when a
receipt for the later ones is produced;
j. A person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and
doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
which a person possesses or exercises acts of
ownership over are owned by him;
k. Person in possession of an order on himself for
the payment of the money, or the delivery of
anything, has paid the money or delivered the
thing accordingly;
l. Person acting in a public office was regularly
appointed or elected to it;
m. Official duty has been regularly performed;
n. A court, or judge acting as such, whether in the
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful
exercise of jurisdiction;
o. All the matters within an issue raised in a case
were laid before the court and passed upon by it;
and in like manner that all matters within an issue
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were
laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by
them;
p. Private transactions have been fair and regular;
q. Ordinary course of business has been followed;
r. There was a sufficient consideration for a
contract;
s. Negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for
a sufficient consideration;
t. An indorsement of a negotiable instrument was
made before the instrument was overdue and at
the place where the instrument is dated;
u. A writing is truly dated;
v. Letter duly directed and mailed was received in
the regular course of the mail;
w. Presumptions concerning absence:
1. Ordinary but continued absence of:
a. 7 years, it being unknown WON the
absentee still lives, he is considered
dead for all purposes, except for those
of succession
b. 10 years the absentee shall be
considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession; but if he
disappeared after the age of 75 years,
an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient
to open his succession
c. 4 consecutive years the spouse
present may contract a subsequent
marriage if s/he has a well-founded
belief that the absent spouse is already
dead; but where there is danger of
Page 414 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
death, an absence of only 2 years shall
be sufficient for remarriage
2. Qualified absence The following shall be
considered dead for all purposes including
the division of the estate among the heirs
i. A person on board a vessel lost during
a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is
missing, who has not been heard of for
4 years since the loss of the vessel or
aircraft
ii. A member of the armed forces who
has taken part in armed hostilities, and
has been missing for 4 years
iii. A person who has been in danger of
death under other circumstances and
whose existence has not been known
for 4 years
x. Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact
y. Things have happened according to the ordinary
course of nature and the ordinary habits of life
z. Persons acting as co-partners have entered into a
contract of co-partnership;
aa. A man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage;
bb. Property acquired by a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other and who live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under a void
marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts,
work or industry;
cc. In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman
who are not capacitated to marry each other and
who have acquired property through their actual
joint contribution of money, property or
industry, such contributions and their
corresponding shares including joint deposits of
money and evidences of credit are equal;
dd. Presumptions governing children of women who
contracted another marriage within 300 days after
termination of her former marriage (in the
absence of proof to the contrary):
When Child was
Presumption
Born
Considered to have
been conceived during
Before 180 days after
the former marriage,
the solemnization of
provided it be born
the subsequent
within 300 days after
marriage
the termination of the
former marriage
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Considered to have
been conceived during No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy
After 180 days the subsequent There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy
following the marriage, even though of a child born after 300 days following the
celebration of the it be born within the dissolution of marriage or the separation of spouses.
subsequent marriage 300 days after the Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such
termination of the child must prove his allegation [Sec. 4, Rule 131]
former marriage.
The application of disputable presumptions on a
ee. A thing once proved to exist continues as long as given circumstance must be based on the existence of
is usual with things of the nature; certain facts on which they are meant to operate
ff. The law has been obeyed; [University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
gg. A printed/published book, purporting to be G.R. No. 194964-65 (2016)]
printed/published by public authority, was so
printed/published; MCMP contends that the Contract presented by
hh. A printed/published book, purporting to contain Monark is not the contract that they entered into. Yet,
reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the it has failed to present a copy of the Contract even
country where the book is published, contains despite the request of the trial court for it to produce
correct reports of such cases; its copy of the Contract. Normal business practice
ii. A trustee or other person whose duty it was to dictates that MCMP should have asked for and
convey real property to a particular person has retained a copy of their agreement. Thus, MCMP's
actually conveyed it to him when such failure to present the same and even explain its failure
presumption is necessary to perfect the title of gives rise to the disputable presumption adverse to
such person or his successor in interest; MCMP that "evidence willfully suppressed would be
jj. Presumptions regarding survivorship: adverse if produced [MCMP Construction v. Monark
(Applicable for all purposes except succession) Equipment, G.R. No. 201001 (2014)]
1. When 2 persons perish in the same calamity
2. It is not shown who died first; and The adverse presumption of suppression of
3. There are no particular circumstances from evidence is not applicable when:
which it can be inferred, a. The suppression is not willful;
b. The evidence suppressed or withheld is merely
The survivorship is determined from the probabilities corroborative or cumulative;
resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes: c. The evidence is at the disposal of both parties;
Person and
Situation presumed to d. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege
have survived [Tarapen v. People, G.R. No. 173824 (2008)]
Both < 15 y/o The older
Both > 60 y/o The younger The presumption of regularity in the performance of
One < 15 y/o, official duty obtains only when there is no deviation
The one < 15 from the regular performance of duty. Where the
the other > 60 y/o
Both > 15 and < 60 y/o, of official act in question is irregular on its face, no
The male presumption of regularity can arise [People v.
different sexes
Both > 15 and <60 y/o, of Casabuena, G.R. No. 186455 (2014)]
The older
the same sex
One < 15 or > 60 y/o, and The one between When there is gross disregard of the procedural
the other between those ages those ages safeguards set forth in Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002),
kk. As between 2 or more persons called to succeed serious uncertainty is generated as to the identity of
each other: If there is a doubt as to which of them the seized items that the prosecution presented in
died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior evidence. Such doubt cannot be remedied by merely
to the other, shall prove the same. In the absence invoking the presumption of regularity in the
of proof, they shall be considered to have died at performance of official duties [People v. Lagahit, G.R.
the same time. No. 200877 (2014)]
[Sec. 3, Rule 131]

Page 415 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

There is a disputable presumption that things have

happened according to the ordinary course of nature
and the ordinary habits of life. All of the foregoing
evidence, that a person with typical Filipino features
is abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality
where the population of the Philippines is
overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be
more than a 99% chance that a child born in the
province would be a Filipino, would indicate more
than ample probability if not statistical certainty, that
petitioner's parents are Filipinos. That probability and
the evidence on which it is based are admissible under
Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
[Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697
(2016)]
E. Liberal Construction of
the Rules of Evidence
The Rules of Court, including the Revised Rules on
Evidence, shall be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding [Sec. 6, Rule 1]
Rules on Electronic Evidence shall likewise be
liberally construed [Sec. 2, Rule 2, Rules on Electronic
Evidence]

Page 416 of 481

U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
F. Quantum of Evidence
(Weight and Sufficiency
of Evidence)
1. Proof beyond Reasonable
Doubt
In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty
only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind [Sec. 2,
Rule 133]
The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, NOT on the accused to
prove his/her innocence [Boac v People, G.R. No.
180597, (2008)]
The prosecution must not rely on the weakness of the
evidence of the defense [Ubales v People, G.R. No.
175692, (2008); People v. Hu, G.R. No. 182232, (2008)]
2. Preponderance of Evidence
Applicable quantum of evidence in civil cases [Sec. 1,
Rule 133]
Means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a
whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of
the other [Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property
Developer, Inc., G.R. No. 155110, (2005); Bank of the
Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, (2008)]
In determining preponderance of evidence, the court
may consider:
a. All the facts and circumstances of the case;
b.
intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they testify, the nature
of the facts to which they testify, the probability
or improbability of their testimony, their interest
or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately
appear upon the trial;
c. Number of witnesses (although preponderance is
not necessarily with the greater number) [Sec. 1,
Rule 133]
Page 417 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
3. Substantial Evidence
a. Degree of evidence required in cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
b. Definition: Amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.
[Sec. 5, Rule 133]
Also applies to petitions under the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo [Sec. 17, Rule on the Writ of Amparo] and
the Rule on the Writ of Habeas data [Sec. 16, Rule on
the Writ of Habeas data]
Substantial Evidence Rule
Factual findings, especially when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, are accorded not only great respect
but also finality, and are deemed binding upon this
Court so long as they are supported by substantial
evidence [Tan Brothers Corp. v. Escudero, G.R. No.
188711 (2013)]
4. Clear and Convincing
Evidence
The standard of proof required in granting or denying
onvincing
risk and will abide with all the orders and process of
the extradition court [Government of Hongkong Special
Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675,
(2007)]
It must be added that the defenses of denial and
improper motive can only prosper when
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence [People
v. Colentava, G.R. No. 190348 (2015)]
It is used for overturning disputable presumptions,
such as the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties [Portuguez v. People, G.R.
No. 194499, (2015)] or the existence of a valuable
consideration [Tolentino v. Sps. Jerera, G.R. No. 179874
(2015)]
Note direct denial
receipt of mail alleged to have been mailed to it
defeats the presumption in Sec. 3(v), Rule 131 and
shifts the burden upon the party favored by the
presumption to prove that the mailed letter was
indeed received by the addressee [Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Metro Star, G.R. No. 185371 (2010)]
U.P. LAW BOC
It is also the standard of proof for invoking the
justifying circumstance of self-defense for the defense
and proving the aggravating circumstance of
treachery for the prosecution [People v. C.A.sas, G.R.
No. 212565 (2015)] The former is because having
admitted the killing requires the accused to rely on the
strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of
not be disbelieved in view of his admission [People v.
Mediado, G.R. No. 169871 (2011)]
Clear and convincing evidence is more than mere
preponderance, but not to extent of such certainty as
is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal
cases [Manalo v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 102358
(1992)]
Page 418 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
G. Judicial Notice and
Judicial Admissions
1. What Need Not Be Proved
a. Facts of Judicial Notice
b. Judicial Admissions
c. Conclusive Presumptions
Note: Evidence is also not required when the issue is
in Sec. 1, Rule 128
2. Matters of Judicial Notice
Judicial Notice
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that
judges may properly take and act on without proof
because these facts are already known to them. Put
differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact
without need of further traditional evidentiary
support. The principle is based on convenience and
expediency in securing and introducing evidence on
matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute
and are not bona fide disputed [Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166859, (2011)]
a. When Mandatory
1. Existence and territorial extent of states;
2. Their political history, forms of government, and
symbols of nationality;
3. Law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the
Philippines;
6. Official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time; and
9. Geographical divisions [Sec. 1, Rule 129]
Note: Even if not raised or alleged by petitioner, courts
should take mandatory judicial notice of an
amendment to the Rules of Court [Siena Realty v. Gal-
lang, G.R. No. 145169 (2004)]
The Management Contract entered into by petitioner
and the PPA is clearly not among the matters which
the courts can take judicial notice of. It cannot be
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
considered an official act of the executive department.
The PPA was only performing a proprietary function
when it entered into a Management Contract with
petitioner. As such, judicial notice cannot be applied
[Asian Terminals v. Malayan Insurance, G.R. No. 171406
(2011)]
The RTC declared that the discrepancy arose from the
fact that Barrio Catmon was previously part of Barrio
Tinajeros. The RTC has authority to declare so
because this is a matter subject of mandatory judicial
notice. Geographical divisions are among matters that
courts should take judicial notice of [B.E. San Diego,
Inc. v. C.A., G.R. No. 159230 (2010)]
b. When Discretionary
1. Matters of public knowledge;
2. Matters capable of unquestionable
demonstration; and
3. Matters ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions [Sec. 2, Rule 129]
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;
3. It must be known to be within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the court
[State Prosecutors v, Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 (1994)]
Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere
personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial
knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to
make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally
or professionally known, the basis of his action.
Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters
which are "commonly" known [State Prosecutors v,
Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 (1994)]
With Respect to Ordinances
Municipal trial courts are required to take judicial
notice of the ordinances of the municipality or city
wherein they sit [2 Regalado 833, 2008 Ed.]
Regional Trial Courts must take judicial notice of
such ordinances only:
1. When required to do so by statute e.g. in Manila
as required by the city charter [City of Manila v.
Garcia, et al., G.R. No. L-26053 (1967)]; and
2. In a case on appeal before them and wherein the
inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance
involved in said case [U.S. v. Blanco, G.R. No.
Page 419 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
12435 (1917); U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 9699
(1915)]
Note: The principal guide in determining what facts
may be assumed to be judicially-known is that of
notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is
limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts
of general notoriety. Morever, a judicially-noticed fact
must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that
it is either (1) generally known within the territorial
jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of
accurate and ready determination by resorting to
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questionable [Riano 76-77, 2016 Ed.]
c. When Hearing Necessary
During the Trial
The court, on its own initiative, or on request of a
party, may announce its intention to take judicial
notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon [Sec. 3, Rule 129]
After the Trial and Before Judgment or on Appeal
The proper court, on its own initiative or on request
of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and
allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case [Sec. 3, Rule
129]
Records
A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and
records in the same case, of facts established in prior
proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its
own records of another case between the same
parties, of the files of related cases in the same court,
and of public records on file in the same court
[Republic v. C.A., G.R. No. 119288 (1997)]
d. With Respect to Records of
Other Cases
General rule: Courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of the contents or records of other cases even
if both cases may have been tried or are pending
before the same judge [Prieto v. Arroyo, G.R. No. L-
17885 (1965)]
Exceptions:
In the absence of objection, and as a matter of
convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat
all or any part of the original record of a case filed in
U.P. LAW BOC
its archives as read into the record of a case pending
before it, when:
1. With the knowledge of the opposing party,
reference is made to it for that purpose, by name
and number or in some other manner by which it
is sufficiently designated; or
2. The original record of the former case or any part
of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by
the court's direction, at the request or with the
consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of
the record of the case then pending
[US v Claveria, G.R. No. G.R. No. 9282 (1915)]
Courts may also take judicial notice of proceedings in
other causes because of their:
1. Close connection with the matter in controversy.
Ex: In a separate civil action against the
administrator of an estate arising from an appeal
against the report of the committee on claims
appointed in the administration proceedings of
the said estate, the court took judicial notice of
the record of the administration proceedings to
determine whether or not the appeal was taken
on time,
2. To determine whether or not the case pending is
a moot one or whether or not a previous ruling is
applicable in the case under consideration.
3. The other case had been decided by the same
court, involving the same subject matter, with the
same cause of action, and was between the same
parties (which was not denied), and constituted
res judicata on the current cause before the court
[Tiburcio v. PHHC, G.R. No. L-13479, (1959)]
Courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular
accidents cause whiplash injuries [Dela Llana v Biong,
G.R. No. 182356 (2013)]
The classification of the land is obviously essential to
the valuation of the property. The parties should thus
have been given the opportunity to present evidence
on the nature of the property before the lower court
took judicial notice of the commercial nature of a
portion of the subject landholdings [LBP v. Honeycomb
Farms, G.R. No. 166259 (2012)]
It can be considered of public knowledge and
judicially noticed that the scene of the rape is not
always nor necessarily isolated or secluded for lust is
no respecter of time or place. The offense of rape can
and has been committed in places where people
congregate, e.g. inside a house where there are
occupants, a five (5) meter room with five (5) people
inside, or even in the same room which the victim is
Page 420 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
sharing with the accused's sister [People v. Tundag, G.R.
Nos. 135695-96. (2000)]
Laws of nature involving the physical sciences,
specifically biology, include the structural make-up
and composition of living things such as human
beings. The Court may take judicial notice that a
locations [Atienza v. Board of Medicine, G.R. No. 177407
(2011)]
The distance between places may be taken as a matter
of judicial notice [Maceda v. Vda. De Macatangay, G.R.
No. 164947 (2006)]
The Court may take judicial notice of the assessed
value of the property. Considering that the subject
land was more than 4 million square kilometers, RTC
acted properly when it took judicial notice of the total
area of the property involved and the prevailing
assessed value of the titled property, and it would also
be at the height of absurdity if the assessed value of
the property with such an area is less than P20,000
[Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 205966
(2016)]
The Court may not take judicial notice of contracts
entered into by GOCCs in the exercise of their
proprietary function. These cannot be considered an
official act of the executive department [Asian
Terminals v. Malayan Insurance, G.R. No. 171406 (2011)]
3. Judicial Admissions
In General
To be a judicial admission, the same:
a. Must be made by a party to the case;
b. Must be made in the course of the proceedings in
the same case; and
c. May be verbal or written
[Sec. 4, Rule 129]
Note: 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 is not made. Instead, it will be
considered an extrajudicial admission for purposes of
the other proceeding where such admission is offered
[Riano 87, 2016 Ed.]
Judicial admissions may be made in
a. the pleadings filed by the parties,
U.P. LAW BOC
b. in the course of the trial, either by verbal or
written manifestations or stipulations, or
c. in other stages of the judicial proceeding; as in the
pre-trial of the case.
Admissions obtained through depositions, written
interrogatories or requests for admission are also
considered judicial admissions [2 Regalado 836-837,
2008 Ed.]
Examples of item (c) above are
1. Stipulations of facts by the parties in a pre-trial
conference. See People v. Hernandez [G.R. No.
108028 (1996)]
2. Motions, see Republic v. de Guzman, G.R. No.
175021 (2011), where allegations made in a
motion to dismiss were considered to be, among
others requiring denial by the adverse party and
absence of such led to the application of Sec. 4,
Rule 129
Note:
a. Sec. 8, Rule 10
pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends.
However, admissions in superseded
pleadings may be received in evidence
against the pleader
evidenc
judicial in nature the moment the pleading
containing them are superseded by virtue of
amendment. See Bastida v. Menzi & Co, Inc [G.R.
No. L-35840 (1933)], cited in 2 Regalado 837, 2008
Ed.
b. Admissions made by a party pursuant to a request
for admission is for the purpose of the pending
action only [Sec. 3, Rule 26]
c. In criminal cases, all agreements or admissions
made or entered during the pre-trial conference
shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be
used against the accused [Sec. 2, Rule 118]
However, in the civil case instituted with the
criminal case, such admission will be admissible
against any other party.
There are averments made in pleadings which are not
deemed admissions even if the adverse party fails to
make a specific denial of the same like immaterial
allegations [Sec. 11, Rule 8], conclusions, non-
ultimate facts in the pleading [Sec. 1, Rule 8] as well
as the amount of liquidated damages [Sec. 11, Rule 8]
[Riano 89, 2016 Ed.]
Page 421 of 481
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
Note: The theory of adoptive admission has been
adopted by the court in this jurisdiction. An adoptive
by another person when it is reasonable to treat the
or implied by the other person. The basis for
admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that
arising from the ratification or adoption by the party
of the statements which the other person had made.
In the Angara Diary
dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support.
Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to ask Senate
President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider
the option of dignified exit or resignation. Estrada
did not object to the suggested option but simply said
he could never leave the country. His silence on this
and other related suggestions can be taken as an
admission by him [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos.
146710-15 (2001)]
Judicial Proceeding [Sec. 3, Rule 1]
a. Civil includes special civil actions
b. Criminal
c. Special Proceeding
Examples of statements made that are not judicial admissions
a. Statements made during preliminary
investigation
- b. Statements during Court-Annexed Mediation
Note: Execution of judgment is part of a judicial
proceeding. The Court retains control over the case
until the full satisfaction of the final judgment [People
v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736 (1999)]
a. Effect of Judicial Admissions
It does not require proof and CANNOT be
contradicted [Sec. 4, Rule 129]
An original complaint, after being amended, loses its
character as a judicial admission, which would have
required no proof. It becomes merely an extra-judicial
admission requiring a formal offer to be admissible
[Torres v. C.A., G.R. No. L-37420, (1984)]
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
[Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R. No. 165987 (2006)]
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
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from
the field of controversy.
Consequently:
1. an admission made in the pleadings cannot be
controverted by the party making such admission
and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs
to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should
be ignored, whether objection is interposed by
the party or not;
2. The allegations, statements or admissions
contained in a pleading are conclusive as against
the pleader.
3. A party cannot subsequently take a position
contrary of or inconsistent with what was
pleaded. [Florete, Sr. v. Florete, Jr., G.R. No.
223321, (2018)]
b. How Judicial Admissions May
be Contradicted
As an exception to the general rule, judicial
admissions may be contradicted only by showing that:
1. It was made through palpable mistake; or
2. No such admission was made
[Sec. 4, Rule 129]
3. In the case of a pre-trial admission in civil cases,
to prevent manifest injustice [Sec. 7, Rule 18]; or
4. In criminal cases, if the pre-trial admission was
reduced to writing and signed by the accused and
his counsel [Secs. 2 and 4, Rule 118]
This may be invoked when the statement of a party is
taken out of context or that his statement was made
not in the sense it is made to appear by the other party
[Phil. Health Care Providers v. Estrada, G.R. No. 171052,
(2008), citing Atillo, III v. C.A. (1997)]
An admission against interest binds the person who
makes the same, and absent any showing that this was
made through palpable mistake, no amount of
rationalization can offset it, especially so in this case
where respondents failed to present even one piece of
evidence in their defense. [Heirs of Donton v. Stier, G.R.
No. 216491 (2017)]
Page 422 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
4. Judicial Notice of Foreign
Laws, Law of Nations and
Municipal Ordinance
FOREIGN LAWS
General rule: Courts cannot take judicial notice of
foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved as any
other fact [Yao-Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. L-55960
(1988)]
Written foreign law may be proved by:
a. An official publication; or
b. A duly attested and authenticated copy
[Sec. 24, Rule 132]
Attested copy
a. Attestation must be made by the officer having
legal custody of the record or by his deputy [Sec.
24, Rule 132]
1. It must state, in substance, that the copy is a
correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof [Sec. 25, Rule 132]
2. It must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be a
clerk of court having a seal, under the seal of
such court [Sec. 25, Rule 132]
b. It must be accompanied by a certificate that
attesting officer has custody. The certificate may
be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of
the Philippines stationed in the foreign country
in which the record is kept, and authenticated by
the seal of his office [Sec. 24, Rule 132]
Unwritten foreign law
Where the foreign law sought to be proved is
"unwritten," the oral testimony of expert witnesses is
admissible, as are printed and published books of
reports of decisions of the courts of the country
concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in
such courts [Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. v. C.A., G.R.
No. 119602 (2000)]
Doctrine of Processual Presumption
In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be
presumed to be the same as the laws of the
jurisdiction hearing the case [Northwest Orient Airlines
v. C.A., G.R. No. 112573 (1995)]
U.P. LAW BOC EVIDENCE
The court may take judicial notice of the foreign
law
a. Where the foreign law is within the actual
knowledge of the court such as when the law is
well and generally known such as when they are
well and generally known or they had been ruled
upon in other cases before it and none of the
parties claim otherwise [PCIB v Escolin G.R. L-
27860 and L-27896 (1974], citing Moran]
b. When the foreign law is part of a published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is
recognized in his/her profession or calling as
expert in the subject [Sec. 46, Rule 130]
Law Of Nations
The Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the
land [Sec. 2, Art. II, Constitution]
Being part of the law of the land, they are therefore in
the nature of local laws, and hence, subject to
mandatory judicial notice under Sec. 1 of Rule 129.
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
Municipal trial courts are required to take judicial
notice of the ordinances of the municipality or city
wherein they sit [2 Regalado 833, 2008 Ed.]
Regional Trial Courts must take judicial notice of
such ordinances only:
a. When required to do so by statute e.g. in Manila
as required by the city charter [City of Manila v.
Garcia, et al., G.R. No. L-26053 (1967)]; and
b. In a case on appeal before them and wherein the
inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance
involved in said case [U.S. v. Blanco, G.R. No.
12435 (1917); U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 9699
(1915)]
Page 423 of 481
REMEDIAL LAW
H. Object (Real) Evidence
1. Meaning of Object Evidence
Object Evidence
Those addressed to the senses of the court [Sec. 1,
Rule 130]
as object evidence, the same being addressed to the
senses of the court [People v. Rullepa y Guinto, G.R. No.
131516 (2003)]
An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is
permissible [Villaflor v. Summers, G.R., No. 16444
(1920)]
The right against self-incrimination cannot be
invoked against object evidence [People v. Malimit,
G.R. No. 109775 (1996)]
2. Requisites for Admissibility
Basic requisites for admissibility
a. Evidence must be relevant;
b. Evidence must be authenticated;
c. Authentication must be made by a competent
witness; and
d. Object must be formally offered [Sec. 34, Rule
132]
[Riano 101, 2016 Ed.]
Requisites for the admissibility of tape recording
a. A showing that the recording was capable of
taking testimony
b. A showing that the operator of the recording
device is competent
c. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness
of recording
d. A showing that no changes, deletions, or
additions have been made on the recordings
e. A showing of the manner of preservation of the
recording
f. Identification of speakers
g. A showing that the testimony elicited was
voluntarily made without any kind of inducement
[Torralba v. People, G.R. No. 153699 (2005))