Criminal Evidence

POINTERS TO REVIEW IN
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
RULE 128 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Q – WHAT IS EVIDENCE?
A – Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Revised Rules of Court, of
ascertaining to a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
(Sec. 1, Rule 128)
Q – DEFINE THE FOLLOWING TERM:

a) Rule of Evidence
b) Material Evidence
c) Relevant Evidence
d) Competent Evidence
e) Direct and circumstantial evidence
f) Primary or best or secondary evidence
g) Positive and negative evidence
h) Export evidence
i) Cumulative evidence
j) Corroborative evidence
k) Rebutting evidence
l) Prima facie evidence
m) Conclusive evidence
n) Real evidence
o) Testimonial evidence
a) Rule of Evidence – expresses the mode of manner of proving the facts

and circumstances upon which the party relies to establish the fact in
dispute ( Ruporto Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines. Vol. V. citing
20 Am. Jur. 34, p. 1 )
b) Material evidence – tends to prove the fact in issue as that issue is
determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings ( Jaime R.
Nuevas, Remedial Law Reviewer, 1971 Ed., citing Wigmore, Student’s
Ed., p. 530 )
c) Relevant evidence – evidence is relevant when it has a tendency in
reason to establish the probability or improbability if a fact in issue
( Vicente Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, 1990
Ed., citing 1 Elliot on Evidence, p. 5 )
d) Competent evidence – not excluded by law in a particular case ( Bautista
vs. Aparece, ( CA ), 51 O.G. 805 )
e) Direct and circumstantial evidence – direct evidence proves the fact in
dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption., while
circumstantial evidence is the proof of a fact or facts from which, taken
either singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute
may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence ( 5 Moran,
Remedial Law Review, p. 2 )
f) Primary or best and secondary evidence – primary or best evidence is
that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in
question, while secondary evidence is that which is inferior to the primary
evidence and is permitted by the law only when the best evidence is not
available ( 5 Moran, op. cit., p. 3 )
g) Positive and negative evidence – evidence is positive when the witness
affirms that a fact did or did not occur, and negative when the witness
states he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact ( People vs.
Ramos, L-30420, Sept. 22, 1971 )
h) Expert evidence – given by one possessing in regard to a particular
subject or department of human activity knowledge does not usually
acquired by other persons ( U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530 )
i) Cumulative evidence – evidence of the same kind and character as that
already given, and tends to prove the same proposition ( Francisco, Ibid.,
citing Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray ( Mass. 434 ), p. 5 )
j) Corroborative evidence – additional evidence of different kind and
character, tending to prove the same [point ( Francisco, supra, citing
Wyne vs. Newman, 75, Va., 811, 817, p. 4 )
k) Rebutting evidence – evidence given to repel, counteract or disprove
facts proved by the other side ( Nuevas, citing State vs. Silva, 21 Ida. 247,
p. 531 )
l) Prima facie evidence – evidence which suffices for the proof of a fact in
issue until rebutted or overcome by other evidence ( Nuevas, citing Cal.
Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1833, p. 531 )
m) Conclusive evidence – evidence which is inconvertible ( Nuevas, citing

Wood vs. Chapin, 13 NY 509, p. 531 )
n) Real evidence – object ( real ) evidence is that which is addressed to the
senses of the tribunal, as where objects are presented for the inspection
of the court ( Franciso, citing 1 Jones on Evidence, 2 nd ed., Sec. 16, p. 9 0
o) Testimonial evidence – testimony given to the court of deposition by one
who has observed that to which he is testifying; or one who, though who
has not observed the facts, is nevertheless qualified to give an opinion
relative to the fact ( Francisco, citing Gilbert, Law Summaries of Evidence,
p. 9 )
Q – WHERE ARE OUR RULES OF EVIDENCE FOUND?

A – Our entire rule s of evidence have been incorporated in the Revised
Rules of Court
Q – DISTINGUISH EVIDEMNCE FROM PROOF

A – Evidence is the means of proof: proof is the effect of evidence, the
establishment of as fact by evidence. Proof results as a probative effect
of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of mind resulting from a
consideration of the evidence (Jaime R. Nuevas, Remedial Law
Reviewer, 1971 Ed., p. 531)
Q – WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE RULES OR LAW OF EVIDENCE/

A – The law of evidence deals with the rules to be followed in presenting a
matter of fact to a court for its use in the judicial investigation. (1) it
prescribes the manner of presenting the evidence personally by one who
knows the thing, the subject to cross-examination, or by means of a
preposition (2) it fixes the qualification and the privileges of witnesses,
and the mode of examining them (3) and chiefly, it determines, as
among probative matter, what classes of things shall not be received
( Ruperto Martin, Rules of Courts in the Philippines, Vol. V, 1978 Ed., pp.
1-2 )
Q – WHAT IS THE OBJECT OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE?

A – The object of the law of evidence is to have a specific inquiry of the truth
to establish the truth by the use of the perceptive and reasoning faculties
( Martin, supra., p. 2 )
Atty. Juvy R. Manwong 2

Criminology Reviewer in Criminal Jurisprudence
Q – DISTINGUISH FACTUM PROBANDUM FROM FACTUM PROBANS
A – Factum probandum is the ultimate fact or the fact to be established;
factum probans is the evidentiary fact, or the fact by which the factum
probandum is to be established ( Nuevas, citing Wigmore 5-9, p. 531-
532 )
Q – ARE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE THE SAME, IN CRIMINAL AS WELL

AS IN CIVIL CASES?
A – Yes, the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials
and hearings except as otherwise provided by law or these rules ( Sec.
2, Rule 128 )
Q – WHEN IS EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE?

A – Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules ( Sec. 3, Rule 128 )
Q – WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE/

A – In order that the evidence may be admissible, two requisites must concur,
namely:
a. that is relevant to the issue; and
b. that is competent. That is, that it does not belong to the class of
evidence which is excluded by the law or Rules of Evidence ( Vicente
Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. VII, 1990 Ed.,
p. 19 )
Q – WHEN IS EVIDENCE RELEVANT?

A – Evidence to be relevant must throw light upon, or have logical relation to
the facts in issues to be established by one party or disproved by the other
( Ruperto G. Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. V., 1987 ed.,
citing 20 Am. Jur. 240, p. 9 )
Q – WHEN IS EVIDENCE COMPETENT?

A – Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by any of the rules of
evidence such as when it is hearsay or because it is not best evidence
which is within the power of a party to produce. Evidence must not only
be logically relevant, but must be of such character as to be receivable in
courts of justice ( Ruperto G. Martin, Ibid., citing Gilbert Law Summaries
on Evidence, p. 3 )
Q- IS EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED ADMISSIBLE? WHY?

A – Evidence illegally obtains is admissible, the reason being that exclusion
of such kind of evidence is the only practical way of enforcing the
constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure ( Stonehill
vs. Diokno, L-19550, June 19, 1967 )
Q – WHAT ARE THE TWO AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY WHICH

UNDERLIE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE?
A – The following:
a. none but facts having rational probative value are admissible,
which is the axiom on relevancy; and
b. all facts having rational probative value are admissible, unless
some specific rule forbids, which is the axiom on competency ( Nuevas, citing
1 Wigmore 289-95, p. 532 )

Q – WHAT ARE THE THREE KINDS OR CLASSES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE?
A – They are:
a. multiple admissibility;
b. conditional admissibility;
c. curative admissibility
Q – WHAT IS MEANT BY MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

A – This means evidence which is [plainly relevant and competent for two or
more purposes. When this happens, such evidence will be received if it
satisfies all the requirements prescribed by law in order that it may be
admissible for the purpose for which it is presented, even if it does not
satisfy the other requisites for its admissibility for other purposes ( People
vs. Yatco. 97 Phil. 940 )
Q – WHAT IS MEANT BY CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

A – It means that the evidence which appear to be material is admitted by the
court subject to the condition that its connection to other facts
subsequently to be proved will be established( People vs. Yatco. Supra )
Q – WHAT IS MEANT BY CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

A – This means that evidence, otherwise improper is admitted to contradict
improper evidence introduce by the other party ( Jaime R. Nuevas,
Remedial Law reviewer, 1971 ed., A & J Publishing citing Wigmore 304-
09, p. 533 )
Q - STATE THE RULE OF RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE

A - Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief
in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matter shall not
be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish
the probability or improbability of the fact of issue ( Sec. 4, Rule 128 )
Q – WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE ON RELEVANCY?

A - The purpose of the rule on relevancy is to restrict the field of inquiry to its
proper scope and to prevent the issues of becoming beclouded. It also
aims to prevent surprise on the litigant, or the subjection to the party to the
necessity of meeting the evidence that is possibly prejudicial and of which
he has no means of anticipating ( Martin, p. 15 citing 2 Jones on
Evidence, 2nd Ed., 1086, 1087 )
Q- WHAT ARE COLLATERAL MATTERS?

A – Collateral matters are those other than the facts in issue and which are
offered as a basis for inference as to existence of the facts in issue ( Sec.
4, Rule 129 )
Q – WHEN MAY THE COURT ALLOW EVIDENCE ON COLLATERAL

MATTERS?
A – Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends
in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the
fact in issue ( Sec. 4, Rule 128 )

Q – GIVE THE CONCEPT OF (1) PROSPECTANT COLLATERAL
MATTERS; (2) CONCOMITANT COLLATERAL MATTERS; (3)
RETROSPECTANT COLLATERAL MATTERS
A – (1) Prospectant collateral matters are those preceding of the fact in issue
but pointing forward to it, like moral character, motive; conspiracy, etc.
(2) Concomitant collateral matters are matters are those accompanying
the fact in issue and pointing to it, like alibi, or opportunity and
incompatibility;
(3) Retrospectant collateral matters are those succeeding the fact in
issue but pointing forward to it, like flight and concealment, behavior of
the accused upon being arrested; finger prints or foot prints; articles left
at the scene of the crime which may identify the culprit ( Judge Ed
Vincent S. Albano, Remedial Law Reviewer 1 st Ed. 1995, Rex Book
Store, p. 888 citing 1 Wigmore 442-43 )
Q – WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE?

A – The basis upon which all rules of evidence must rest, if they are to rest
upon reason, is their adaptation to the successful development of the
truth; and the rule of evidence at one time though necessary to the
ascertainment of truth should yield to the experience has clearly
demonstrate the fallacy or unwisdom of the old rule ( Nuevas Remedial
Law Reviewer, 1971 Ed., A & J Publishing, p. 534 citing Funk vs. U.S.,
290 U.S. 391 )
RULE 129 - WHAT NEED TO BE PROVED?
Q – DEFINE JUDICIAL NOTICE

A – Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may
properly take and act on without proof because they already know them.
It means no more than that the court will bring to its aid and consider,
without proof of the facts, its knowledge of those matter of public
concern which are known by all well-informed persons ( Martin,
Revised Rules of Evidence, 1985 Ed., Premium Book Store, p. 3 citing
C.J.S. 509 )
Q – WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF JUDICIAL NOTICE?

A – It displaces evidence since, as it stands for proof, it fulfills the object
which evidence is designed to fulfill and make evidence unnecessary
( Nuevas, Ibid., p. 535 citing State vs. Main, 69 Conn 123 )
Q – STATE THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH JUDICIAL NOTICE IS BASED?

A – The doctrine of judicial notice is based upon obvious reasons of
convenience and expediency and operated to have trouble, expense
and time which would be lost in establishing, in the ordinary way, facts
which do not admit of contradiction ( Nuevas, Ibid., p. 535 citing 20 Am.,
Jur. 47; Tracy’s Handbook, 62 ed., p. 44 )
Q- WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE MANDATORY?

A – A court shall take judicial notice without the introduction of evidence, of
the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms
of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the
admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature,
the measure of time and the geographical divisions ( Sec. 1, Rule 129,
Revised Rules on Evidence )

Q- WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE?
A – Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material
requisites, namely:
a. the matter be common and general knowledge;
b. the matter must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain; and
c. the matter must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of
the court ( Martin, Ibid. p. 35 citing 1 Jones on Evidence, 2 nd ed., 643; 20 Am.
Jur. 48 )
Q – WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY?

A – 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 )
Q – WHEN IS HEARING NECESSARY IN JUDICIAL NOTICE?

A – During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of the party,
may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow
the parties to be heard thereon
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court.
On its own initiative or 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 )
Q – IS THERE ANY NEED TO PROVE ADMISSIONS IN THE COURT OF

PROCEEDING IN COURT?
A – An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof ( Sec. 4, Rule 129 )
Q – HOW MAY AN ADMISSION BE CONTRADICTED?

A – Through admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made
( Sec. 4, Rule 129 )
RULE 130 - RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
Q – WHAT ARE THE OBJECTS AS EVIDENCE?

A – Objects as evidenced are those addressed to the senses of the court.
When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it mat be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court ( Sec. 1, Rule 130 )
Q – WHAT IS THE PRO BATIVE VALUE OF OBJECT AS EVIDENCE?

A – Proof which is addressed directly to the senses of the court is a most
convincing and satisfactory class of proof ( Martin, p. 57 citing 20 Am.
Jur. ) object evidence is usually the most trustworthy type of evidence
( Martin, citing Gilbert Law Summaries on Evidence, p. 1 )
Q – WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT

EVIDENCE?
A – The following :
a. the evidence must e relevant; ( Sec. 1, Rule 130 )
b. indecent or improper objects should be excluded, unless the
same is necessary for ascertaining the truth; ( Brown vs. Swineford, 28 Am.
Rep. 582 )

c. repulsive objects should also be excluded if not absolutely
necessary for the administration of justice (Knowless vs. Crampton, 55 Conn.
366 )
Q – WHAT IS THE SCOPE OB OBJECT OF EVIDENCE?

A – It is the best and the highest form of proof (Gentry vs. Mominiss, 3 Dana,
Ky. 382 )
Q – WHAT IS THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE

OBJECT EVIDENCE?
A – The object must be first identified, which means that it must be shown, by
independent evidence, that the object offered is the thing in dispute
( People vs. Besold, 154 Cal. 363)
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Q – WHAT ARE DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE?

A – Documents as evidence 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 )
Q – STATE THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

A – 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 )
Q – THE RULE IS THAT, NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE OTHER

THEN THE DOCUMENTS ITSELF, ARE THERE EXCEPTION?
A – Yes, in the following cases:
a. when the original has been lost or destroy, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
b. when the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice;
c. when the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and
fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
d. when the original is a public record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public office ( Sec. 3, Rule 130 )
Q – WHAT ARE CONSIDERED ORIGINALS OF A DOCUMENT?

a. the original of a document is one of the contents of which are the
subject of inquiry
b. when a document is in two or more copies executed at or about
the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded
as originals
c. when an entry is repeated in a regular course of business, one
being copied from another at or near the time of transaction, all the entries
are likewise equally regarded as originals ( Sec. 4, Rule 130 )

SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Q – HOW MAY THE ORIGINAL OF A LOST OR DESTROYED DOCUMENT

BE PROVED?
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 its part, may prove its
contents by a copy or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
documents, or by the testimony of witness in the order stated ( Sec. 5,
Rule 130 )
Q – WHEN MAY SECONDARY EVIDENCE BE SHOWN IF THE ORIGINAL

OF A DOCUMENT IS IN THE POCESSION OF THE ADVERSE PARTY?
A – If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party
he must have a reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and
after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce that document
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its lost ( Sec. 6,
Rule 130 )
Q – HOW MAY A PUBLIC DOCUMENT BE PROVED?

A – When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer and is
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public office in custody thereof ( Sec. 7, Rule 130 )
Q – IS THE PARTY WHO CALLS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A

DOCUMENT BOUND TO OFFER IT IN EVIDENCE?
A – No. A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the
same is not obliged to offer it as evidence
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Q – WHAT IS PAROL EVIDENCE?

A – Parol evidence literally means oral or verbal testimony of a witness
( Ballentine’s Law Dict.., 2 nd Ed., p. 932 ) However, in the application of
the rule, it has been extended to writings other than the complete written
agreement of the parties ( Phil. Sugar Estates Dev. Co. vs. Gov’t of P.I.
247 U.S. 385; Woodhous vs. Halili, 93 Phil. 526 ) Another term for parol
evidence is intrinsic evidence or evidence aliunde ( Uy Coque vs. Sioca,
43 Phil. 405 )
Q – STATE THE RULE WHEN THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT ARE PUT TO

WRITING
A – When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written agreement ( Sec. 9, Rule
130 )
Q – UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES MAY A PARTY PRESENT

EVIDENCE TO MODIFY, EXPLAIN OR ADD TO THE TERMS OF THE
WRITTEN EVIDENCE?
A – A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of
the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading;
a. an intrinsic ambiguity mistake, or imperfection in the written
agreement;
b. the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;

c. the validity of written agreement;
d. the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement
The term “ agreement “ includes wills ( Sec. 9, Rule 130 )
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Q- HOW SHALL THE LANGUAGE OF A WRITING BE INTERPRETED?

A – The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal
meaning, it bears in the place of execution, unless the parties intended
otherwise ( Sec. 10, Rule 130 )
Q- GIVE SOME RULES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS

A – They are:
a. in the construction of an instrument where there are several
provision of particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as
will give effect to all ( Sec. 11, Rule 130 )
b. in the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is
to be pursued and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent,
the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a
general one that is inconsistent with it ( Sec.12, Rule 130 )
c. for the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances
under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of
the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be place in the position
of those whose language he is to interpret ( Sec. 13, Rule 130 )
d. the terms of writing are presumed to have been used in their
primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they
have local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used
and understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must
be constructed accordingly ( Sec. 14, Rule 130 )
e. when an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of
a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter
( Sec. 15, Rule 130 )
f. when the character in which the instruments are difficult to be
deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the evidence of
persons skilled in deciphering the character, or who understand the language
is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language ( Sec.
16, Rule 130 )
g. when the terms of an agreement have been intended in a
different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against
either party in which he supposed the other understood it, and when different
constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken
which the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made (
Sec. 17, Rule 130 )
h. when an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations,
one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be
adopted ( Sec. 18, Rule 130 )
i. an instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to
determine its true character ( Sec. 19, Rule 130 )

C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. Qualification of Witness
Q - WHO ARE COMPETENT TO BE WITNESSES?

A – All persons who can perceive, and perceiving can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses
Neither religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the
case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not
be a ground for disqualification.(Sec. 20, Rule 130 )
Q - WHO MAY NOT BE A WITNESS BY REASON OF MENTAL

INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY?
A – The following persons cannot be witnesses:
a. those whose mental condition, at the time of there production for
examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known
their perception to others; and
b. children whose mental maturity is such to render them incapable
of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating
them truthfully ( sec. 21, rule 130 )
Q – WHEN ARE INSANE PERSONS ICOMPETENT TO TESTIFY/

A – What renders insane persons incompetent to testify is their insanity “ at
the time of their production “ Insanity at the time of the occurrence on
which as witness is called upon to testify merely affects his credibility,
not his competency ( Moran, Remedial Law Reviewer, p. 578 )
Q – WHAT DEGREE OF INSANITY DISQUALIFIES A PERSON FROM

TESTIFYING?
A – A person is incompetent to testify if he is insane to such degree as to be
incapable of perceiving and making known his perception to others
( Moran, ibid., p. 578 citing State v. Meyers, 46 Nebr. 152 )
Q – IS A DEAF AND DUMB PERSON COMPETENT TO TESTIFY?

A – A deaf and dumb person may testify in any manner satisfactory to the
court, as by writing or signs through an interpreter. ( People vs. De Leon
50 Phil. 539 ) If he testifies by signs, there must be an interpreter with
whom he may have an understanding by such means ( Territory vs.
Duran 3 N.M. 189 ) Otherwise he cannot testify ( People vs. Bustos, 51
Phil. 385 )
Q – IS THE INTOXICATED PERSON COMPETENT TO TESTIFY/

A – Drunkenness does not pursue disqualify a witness from testifying. The
port of Pennsylvania said on this matter: “ The point of inquiry is the
moment of examination. Is the witness then offered so besotted in his
understanding as to be deprived of his intelligence? If he is, excluded him;
even if he be a hard drinker or habitual drunkard yet, if at that time, he is
sober, and possessed of a sound mind, he is to be perceived. “ ( Gebhar
vs. Shindle, 15 Serg. & R. ( Pa. ) 283 )
Q – IS A PERSON UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OPIUM OR OTHER

DRUGS, COMPETENT TO TESTIFY?
A – If the witness at the time of his examination, is so intoxicated by opium or
other drugs that he is deprived of his mental powers to such a degree as
to be capable of making known his perceptions, he is disqualified from
testifying. Otherwise, he is competent

Q – HOW CAN THE COMPETENCY OF AN INFANT BE DETERMINED?
A – It is a doctrine laid down in modern decisions that the test of an infant’s
competency to testify is his capacity to receive just impressions truly. If he
possesses the necessary mental capacity to that effect and comprehends
the obligation of an oath, he is a competent witness ( Moran, Ibid., p. 579
citing Wheeler vs. U.S. 523 )
Q – WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED TO BE WITNESS BY REASON OF

MARRIAGE?
A – During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a
civil case by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants ( Sec. 22, Rule 130 )
Q – WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE RULE FORBIDDING ONE SPOUSE

TO TESTIFY FOR OR AGAINST THE OTHER?
A - The rule forbidding one spouse to testify or against the other is based on
principles which are deemed important to preserve the marriage relation
as one of full confidence and affection, and that this is regarded as more
important in public welfare than that the exigencies of the lawsuits should
authorize domestic peace to be disregarded for the sake of ferreting out
some fact within the knowledge of strangers ( U.S. vs. Concepcion, 31
Phil 182 )
Q – WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF THE RULE OF FORBIDDING ONE

SPOUSE TO TESTIFY FOR OR AGAINST THE OTHER?
A – There are three:
a. that the spouse for or against whom the testimony of the other is
offered, is a party to the case;
b. that the spouse are legally married; and
c. that the case is not by one against the other ( Moran, Remedial
Law Reviewer, p. 584 )
Q – IN ONE CASE, THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS ACCUSEDOF KILLING

HIS SON TESTIFIED IN HIS OWN BEHALF DID NOT LIMIT HIMSELF TO
DENYING THAT HE WAS A KILLER BUT WENT FURTHER AND IMPUTED
THE CRIME TO HIS WIFE. MAY THE WIFE BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN
REBUTTAL AGAINST THE HUSBAND’S CONSENT?
A – Yes. In giving such testimony, the husband must, in all fairness, be held
to have intended all its natural and necessary consequences. By his said
act, the husband – himself exercising the very right which he would deny
to his wife upon the ground of their marital relations – must be taken to
have waived all objections to the latter’s testimony upon rebuttal, even
considering that such object would have been available at the outset.
(People vs. Francisco, 78 Phil 694)
Q - WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO BE WITNESS BY REASON OF DEATH OR

INSANITY OF ADVERSE PARTY?
A – Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a
case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound
mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased
person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any
matter of fact occurring before the death of such diseased person or
before such person became of unsound mind. (Sec. 23, Rule 130)

Q – WHO MAY NOT BE A WITNESS AS TO MATTERS LEARNED IN
CONFIDENCE?
A – The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence
in the following cases:
a. the husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be
examined without the consent of the other as to any communication receive in
confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in the criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants;
b. an attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be
examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice
given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment,
nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without
the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge
of which has been acquiring in such capacity;
c. a person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
cannot in a
Q- WHO MAY NOT BE A WITNESS AS TO MATTERS LEARNED IN

CONFIDENCE?
A- The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in
the following cases:
a. The husband of the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be

examined without the consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in
a civil case by one against the other, or in criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants;
b. An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to

any communication made by client to him, or his advice given thereon in
the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an
attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge
of which has been acquired in such capacity;
c. A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a

civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any
advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have
acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which
information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and which
would blacken the reputation of the patient.
d. A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the
confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional
character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the
minister or priest belongs;
e. A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or

afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence,
when the courts finds that the public interest would suffer by the
disclosure. (Sec., Rule 130)

Q – GIVE THE REQUISITES OF THE RULE ON MARITAL COMMUNICATIONS.
a. The spouses are legally married;
b. The communication, oral or written, is made during the marriage;.
c. The communication is confidential. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 559)
Q – WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS PRIVELEGE?

A – The reason is to preserve the peace of families and maintain the sacred
institution of marriage. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 559 citing Mever svs. State, 40 Fla.
216).
Q – MAY THE PRIVILEGE BE WAIVED AND IF SO, HOW AND BY WHOM?

A – The privilege is claimable by the spouse not called as a witness, so that it is
waivable only by him or her; and it is waivable by any act of such spouse
which might be considered as an express or implied consent to the
disclosure of the communication. (Neuvas, Ibid., citing People vs. Hayes,
140 N.Y. 484).
Q – GIVE THE REQUISITES OF THE PRIVILEGE OF ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

a) There must be a relation of attorney and client;
b) There must be a communication by the client to the attorney, or advice
thereon given by the latter to the former;
c) The communication or advice must have been given confidentially;
d) The communication must have been made in the course of
professional employment.
Q – WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS PRIVILEGE?

A – The reason is to promote the confidence of the people in attorneys for their
work is essential to the administration of justice and to encourage the
freedom of consultation of lawyers for clients. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 561 citing
Fosters vs. Hall, 12 Pick 89; Alexander vs. U.S., 138 U.S. 353)
Q –MAY THE LAWYER BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY ON COMMUNICATIOS

MADE TO HIM AS TO A FUTURE CRIME OR WRONG? WHY?
A – YES, because those communications are not covered by the privilege for the
reason that a lawyer is not supposed to be consulted on a future crime or
wrong. (Matthews vs. Hoaglang, 21 Atl. 1054)
Q – MAY A LAWYER BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY ON COMMUNICATIONS

MADE TO HIM AS TO A PAST CRIME OR WRONG? WHY?
A – NO, for those communications are protect by the privilege. (Alexander vs.
U.S., 138 U.S. 353)
Q – WHAT IS THE DURATION OF THIS PRIVILEGE?

A - Its duration is forever. (Carter vs. West, 93 Ky. 211)
Q – GIVE THE EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRIVILEGE AND

REASON THEREFOR.
A – This privilege does not apply to an action filed by the lawyer against his
client, and this exception is for the protection of the lawyer. (Hunt vs.
Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464)

Q – GIVE THE REQUISITES OF THE PRIVILEGE OF PHYSICIAN AND
PATIENT.
a) That the privilege is claimed in a civil case;
b) That the person against whom the privilege is claimed, is one duly
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
c) That such person acquired the information while he was attending the
patient in his professional capacity, which information was necessary
to enable him to act in that capacity; and
d) That the information was confidential, and if disclosed, shall tend to
blacken the character of the patient.
Q – IS THE PRIVILEGE OF COMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND

PATIENT APPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL CASES?
A – In criminal cases, the privilege does not apply.
Q – WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS PRIVILEGE?

A – The reason is to facilitate and make safe, full and confidential disclosure by
patient to physician of all symptoms, untrammeled by apprehension of their
subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness stand.
(Nuevas, Ibid., 562 citing Will of Bruendl, 102 Wis. 47)
Q – WHEN IS THERE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT OF A PHYSICIAN?

A – There is such employment of a physician when he is called for the purpose
of treatment, whether curative, preventive or palliative. (Smart vs. Kansas
City, 208 Mo. 162) There is no professional employment when a physician
is consulted for an unlawful purpose, like the procuring of an abortion.
(Nuevas, Ibd., p. 563 citing Seifert vs. State, 67 N.E. 100)
Q – WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS PRIVILEGE?

A - The privilege applies not only to the testimony of the physician on the stand,
but also to affidavits, certificates, prescription, and hospital records. (Krap
vs. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 143 Mich. 309)
Q – GIVE THE REQUISITES OF THE PRIVILEGE OF PRIEST AND PENITENT.

a) There must be a priest and a penitent;
b) There must be a confession;
c) The confession must have been given to the priest in his professional
capacity; and
d) The confession must have been made in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the penitent belongs.
Q – WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE?

A – The reason is to preserve the sanctity of the confessional institution.
(People’s vs. Philipps, 1 West L.J. 109)
Q – GIVE THE REQUISITES OF THE PRIVILEGE OF A PUBLIC OFFICER.

a) There must be a confidential official communication;
b) The communication must have been made to a public officer; and
c) The disclosure of the communication would affect public interest.
Q – WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THEPRIVILEGE

A – The privilege is intended not for the protection of public officers, but for the
protection of public interest. (Morn, Ibid., p. 599 citing Vogel vs. Gruaz, 110
U.S. 311)

Q – WHAT IS THE DURATION OF THE PRIVILEGE
A - The public officer is privileged not to testify to official secrets, not only during
his term of office, but also afterwards. The law, therefore, intends that
secrecy be permanent. (Moran, Ibid., p. 509)
2. Testimonial Privilege
Q – IS A DESCENDANT DISQUALIFIED TO TESTIFY, IN A CRIMINAL CASE,

AGAINST HIS PARENTS OR HIS ASCENDANTS?
A - A descendant is not disqualified to testify against his parents and
descendants. The rules provides that “No person may be compelled to
testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants.” (Sec. 25, Rule 130)
3. Admission and Confessions
Q – WHAT IS AN ADMISSION?
A - The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him. (Sec. 26, Rule 130)
Q – AGAINST WHOM ARE ADMISSION RECEIVABLE?

A – Admissions are receivable against the party who made them, but not in his
favor, because then they would be self-serving evidence (5 Moran,
Comments, p. 212, 1963 Ed.)
Q – DEFINE SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE AND STATE IF IT IS ADMISSIBLE.

WHY?
A – Self-serving evidence is an admission favorable to the party making it.
(Lichauco vs. Atlantic Gulf, etc., 84 Phil. 330). It is not admissible in
evidence because of its hearsay character, and for the further reason that a
man may be safely believed if he declares against his own interest, but not if
he advocates his interest. (Lichauco vs. Atlantic Gulf, etc., supra).
Q – CLASSIFY ADMISSIONS
A – Admissions are generally divided into two classes:
1. Judicial or those made on the record, or in connection with the judicial
proceeding in which it is offered;
2. Extra-judicial, or those made elsewhere, irrespective of time, place, or to
whom made. (Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence, p. 209 citing The
Chamberlayne Trial Evidence, p. 42)
Q – DISTINGUISH ADMISSION FROM A CONFESSION.

A - Admission operates equally in both civil and criminal cases and with the
same effect, while confession is an admission by the person accused of
having committed the act of which he is accused. “It pertakes largely of the
nature of an offer to compromise with the criminal authorities. (Martin, Ibid.,
p 210 citing The Chamberlayen Trial Evidence, p. 441).
Q – STATE THE RULE ON OFFER OF COMPROMISE.

A - In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability,
and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt.

A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a lea of
guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused
who made the plea or offer. (Sec. 27, Rule 130).
Q – GIVE THE EFFECTS OF AN OFFER TO COMPROMISE.

A- It depends on whether the offer is made in a civil or criminal case.
It made in a civil case, it is not an admission that anything is due and,
therefore, not admissible in evidence. (Obejera vs. Iga Sy, 76 Phil. 580)
If made in a criminal case, it is an implied admission of guilt and,
therefore, admissible in evidence, unless those involving quasi-
offense(criminal negligence) or those allowed by laws to be compromised.
(Sec. 27, Rule 130).
Q – DEFINE COMPROMISE
A – A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal
concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end tone already commenced. (Art.
2028, Civil Code of the Philippines)
Q – WHAT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER OF COMPROMISE?

A – It is often difficult to determine in a particular case what amounts to an
ordinary admission and what constitutes an offer of compromise. The
intention of the parties must be the guide in each case. If the proposal is
tentative, and any statement made in connection with it is hypothetical – if
the offer was made to “buy peace” and in contemplation of mutual
concessions, it is as to such point a mere offer of compromise. On the other
hand, if the intention is apparently a liability recognized as such, the
proposal is an ordinary admission. (Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence,
1985 Ed., p. 220 citing 31- A C.J.S. 728-729)
Q – STATE THE RULE OF RES INTER ALIOS ACTA AND THE EXCEPTIONS.
A – The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission
of another (Sec. 28, Rule 130) Except when between the party making the
admission and the party against whom the admission is offered, the relation
of (a) partnership, (b) agency, (c) joint interest, (d) conspiracy or (e) privity
exists. (Secs. 29 to 33, Rule 130).
Q – GIVE THE REASON FOR THE RULE OF RES INTER ALIOS ACTA
A – On the principle good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s acts, conduct
and declarations are binding upon him and, therefore, evidence, against
him. Yet, it does not only seem inconvenient, but also manifestly, unjust,
that a man should be bound by the acts of strangers, neither can their acts
or conduct be used as evidence against him. (Nuevas, Ibid, p. 568 citing
Stack on Evidence, 35d., pp. 58-59)
Q – WHEN MAY THE ACT OR DECLARATION OF CO-PARTNER OR AGENT

BE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS PRINCIPAL?
A - The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scoop of
his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be
given in evidence of the partnership or agency, against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner,
joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party. (Sec. 29, Rule
130).

Q – WHEN MAY AN ADMISSION OF A PARTNER BE RECEIVED IN
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS CO-PARTNER?
A – When the following requisites occur:
a) The partnership must be established by independent evidence;
b) The statement refers to a matter within the scope of the partnership; and
c) The statement was made during the existence of the partnership. (Sec.
29, Rule 130).
Q – WHEN MAY THE ADMISSION OF AN AGENT BE RECEIVED IN

EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS PRINCIPAL?
A - When the following requisites concur:
a) The agency must be established by independent evidence;
b) The statement refers to a matter within the scope of the agency; and
c) The statement was made during the existence of the agency. (Nuevas,
Ibid., p. 569 citing Hitchman Coal etc. vs. Mithcell, 245 U.S. 229)
Q – STATE THE RULE ON ADMISSION BY CONSPIRACTOR?

A – The act or declaration of a conspiractor relating to the conspiracy and during
its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. (Sec.
30, Rule 130).
Q – WHEN IS THE ADMISSION OF A CONSPIRACTOR RECEIVABLE IN

EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS CO-CONSPIRACTOR?
A - When the following requisites concur:
a) The conspiracy must be established by independent evidence;
b) The statement refers to the purpose or object of the conspiracy: and
c) The statement was made during the existence of the conspiracy. (Sec.
30, Rule 130); People vs. Dacanay, 92 Phil. 873)
This rule refers to extrajudicial acts and declarations of a
conspiractor, and not to his testimony as a witness at the trial. (People vs.
Dacanay, supra).
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON ADMISSION BY PRIVIES.

A – Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or
omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former. (Sec. 31, rule 130).
Q – DEFINE PRIVIES.
A – The word “privies” denotes not only the idea of succession in right of heirship
or testamentary legacy, but also succession by virtue of acts intervivos, as
by assignment, subrogation, or purchase – in fact any act whereby the
successor is substituted in the place of the predecessor in interest.
(Alpuerto vs. Pastor & Roa, 38 Phil. 785).
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON ADMISSION BY SILENCE, THE REASON

THEREFORE, AND THE EXCEPTION, IS ANY.
A – An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or
observation of a party who does or say nothing when the act or declaration
is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when
proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.
(Sec. 32, Rule 130). This rule applies to both civil and criminal cases. The
reason is the recognized rule that if a man remains silent when he ought to
speak, he will be debarred from speaking later. Qui tacet consentire videtur
or silent means consent. (Gabriel vs. Baens, 56 Phil. 314)

The exceptions to this rule are the following:
a) Where no good reason exists for the party to comment on the act or
declaration as when the act or declaration was not specifically directed
to the party who remained silent (80 A.L.R., Anno., 1272)
b) When the party had no opportunity to comment on the act or declaration;
(People vs. Ranario, 49 Phil. 220)
c) Where the act or declaration was made in the course of an official
investigation; (U.S. vs Dela Cruz 12 Phil. 87)
Q – WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE RULE ON ADMISSION BY SILENCE?

A – The basis of such rule is that the natural reaction of one accused of the
commission of a crime or of the implication therein is to deny the accusation
if it is unjust or unfounded. (Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence, p. 252
citing Mathews vs. State, 55 Ala, 187, 28 Ann. Rep. 698)
Q – DEFINE CONFESSION
A – The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
charged or of any offence necessarily included therein, may be given in
evidence against him. (Sec. 33, Rule 130).
Q – DISTINGUISH CONFESSION FROM ADMISSION

A – A confession as distinguished from an admission is a declaration made at
any time by a person voluntarily, without compulsion or inducement, stating
or acknowledging that he has committed or participated in the commission
of a crime. The term admission on the other hand is usually applied in
criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly
involve an acknowledgement of the guilt of the accused or of criminal intent
to commit the offense with which he is charged. (U.S. vs. Corraled, 28 Phil.
362; U.S. vs. Razon & Tayag, 37 Phil. 856)
Q – CLASSIFY CONFESSIONA AND DEFINE EACH

A – A confession may be judicial or extra-judicial. A judicial confessions is that
made in the trial court in the due course of legal proceedings, whereas an
extra-judicial confession is that made elsewhere, either in a prior trial, in the
preliminary investigation, or out of court to any person. (Nuevas, Ibid., p.
571 citing Underhill on Criminal Evidence, p. 241).
Q – WHEN IS A CONFESSION ADMISSIBLE?

A – A confession is admissible when it is voluntary. (People vs. Pulido, 85 Phil.
695)
Q – WHEN MAY A CONFESSION BE REJECTED? WHY?

A – A confession may be rejected when the following requisites concur:
a) The confession is involuntary; and

b) The confession is false (People vs. Villanueva, 98 Phi. 327; People vs.
De Los Santos, 93 Phil. 83)
The reason for the rule is that what the law abhors is compelling
an accused, by means of force, violence, or intimidation, to tell a
falsehood, and not compelling him by the same means to tell the truth.
(People vs. Prias, L-13767, July 30, 1960) So that, even if a confession is
involuntary, if it is proved or turns out to be true, the same is admissible.
(Ibid).

Q – IN ORDER TO RENDER A CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY ON THE
GROUND OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE , IS IT REQUIRED THAT IT BE
DIRECTLY EMPLOYED UPON THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED?
WHY?
A – No, because it is enough that the force or violence were employed upon the
person of his co-accused, in his presence and within his observation, such
that he had reasonable grounds to believe that he would suffer the same
maltreatment. (U.S. vs. Baluyot, 1 Phil. 451)
Q – WHEN IS THREAT SUFFICIENT TORENDER A CONFESSION

INVOLUNTARY?
A – It must be a threat of bodily harm or injury and accompanied by overt acts
showing determination to carry out the threat. (People vs. Cabrera, 82 Phil
839).
Q – WHEN IS A PROMISE OF REWARD OR LENIENCY SUFFICIENT TO

RENDER A CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY?
A – It must be a promise of immunity from or leniency in the criminal prosecution
and made by a person who is in a position to grant the same. (People vs.
Hernandez, 91 Phil. 334)
Q – AGAINST WHOM IS A CONFESSION ADMISSIBLE? WHY? GIVE THE

EXCEPTIONS, IF ANY.
A – A confession is admissible only against the accused who made it and not
against his co-accused, for, as against the latter, the confession would be
hearsay and res inter alios acta (People vs. Talledo, 85 Phil. 533)
The exceptions to this rule are the following:
a) When the confession of an accused implicating his co-accused is made

judicially at a joint trial; (U.S. vs. Macamay, 36 Phil 893)
b) When the offer in evidence of an extra judicial confession against a co-
accused is not objected to; (People vs. Atienza, 83 Phil 576)
c) When the co-accused against whom an extra-judicial confession is offered
had, by his acts, conduct and declarations, adopted the confession as his
own; (People vs. Atienza, supra)
d) Where several accused, without collusion, made extra judicial confessions
which are identical in essential details and corroborated by other
evidence, each confession is admissible against the others; (People vs.
Go, 88 Phil. 203)
e) The confession of a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirators
provided it was made during the existence of the conspiracy; (People vs.
Ramirez, L-5875), May 15, 1953)
f) When the recitals in the extra judicial confession of an accused is
corroborated in its important details by other proofs in the record, it may
be admitted against the other accused. (People vs. Villanueva, L12687,
July 31, 1962)
Q – WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF AN EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF A

THIRD PERSON TENDING TO EXCULPATE AN ACUSED?
A – Unless such confession can be considered as part of the res gestae, it
cannot be received in favor of the accused for the reason that the same is
hearsay. (People vs. Catalino, L-25403, March 15, 1968) Besides, the court
before which said extra-judicial confession is offered has ample power to
determine its credibility, and the court may discard the same if it finds the
confession in inherently improbable. (Ibid)

Q – WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF A CONFESSION?
A – It depends on whether the confession is judicial or extrajudicial.
A judicial confession, like a plea of guilty, is in law and in fact evidence

of guilt of the most trustworthy kind, is conclusive upon the court and is
sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction. (People vs. Lastimoso, 83 Phil.
714)
A extrajudicial confession is not sufficient for conviction unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (People vs. Mananla, L – 13142,
Jan. 30, 1959)
4. Previous Conduct as Evidence
Q – STATE THE RULE ON SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE

A – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge,
identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (Section
34, Rule 130).
Q – WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE RULE ON SIMILAR ACTS AS

EVIDENCE?
A – To admit the proof of crimes other that the particular one with the accused is
charged would be unfair to the accused. It will compel the defendant to meet
the charges of which the indictment gives him no information, confuses him in
his defense, raises a variety of issue, and thus diverts the attention of the
court from the charge immediately before it. In fact it would be allowing
evidence of collateral offenses as substantive evidence of the offense on trial
(Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence, p. 290 citing 20 Am. Jur. 288-289
Q – GIVE THE RULE ONUNACEPTED OFFER.

A – An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money 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. (Sec. 35, Rule 130)
5. Testimony Knowledge
Q – IN GENERAL, TO WHAT FACTS MAY A WITNESS TESTIFY?

A – A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, exception as
otherwise provided in these rules. (Sec. 36, Rule 130)
Q – WHAT IS A HEARSAY EVIDENCE?

A – Hearsay evidence is that which derives its value, not solely from the credit to
be given to the witness upon the stand, but in part from the veracity and
competency of some other person. (Clement vs. Packer, 125 U.S. 309) It is
not limited to oral testimony; it also includes writings. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 576
citing 20 Am. Jur. 400)?
Q – IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE? WHY?

A – Hearsay evidence is not admissible because it knows of his own knowledge
a witness can testify only on facts which he knows of his own knowledge
(Sec. 36, rule 130); and, furthermore, to preserve the right of parties ot cross-
examine the original witness or person claiming to have knowledge of the
transaction or occurrence. (People vs. Pagkaliwagan, 76 Phil. 457) The right

to cross-examine the adverse party’s witnesses is essential in the
administration of justice for it is the only means of testing the credibility of
witnesses and their testimony, and this right is not available in respect of
hearsay evidence since the declarant is not in court. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 576
citing Donnelly vs. United States, 228 U.S. 243)
6. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule
Q – GIVE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE.

a) Dying declaration;
b) Declaration against interest;
c) Act or declaration about pedigree;
d) Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree;
e) Common reputation;
f) Part of the res gestae;
g) Entries in the course of business;
h) Entries in official records;
i) Commercial lists and the like;
j) Learned treatises; and
k) Testimony or disposition at a former proceeding.
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON DYING DECLARATION

A – 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. (Sec. 37, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence)
Q – WHEN IS DYING DECLARATION ADMISSIBLE?

A – When the following requisites concur:
a) The declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of
the declarant’s death;
b) The declaration was made under consciousness of impending death;
c) The declaration is offered in a criminal case wherein the subject of
inquiry is the declarant’s death. (Sec. 37, Rule 130; People vs.
Sagrario, L-18659, June 29, 1965)
Q – WHAT IS A DYING DECLARATION?

A – A dying declaration is that made by a person at the point of death,
concerning the case and circumstances of the injury from which he thereafter
dies. (Moran, Remedial Law Review, p. 619)
Q – WHY IS A DYING DECLARATIN ADMISSIBLE? DISCUSS BRIEFLY.

A – A dying declaration is admissible on two grounds, namely, (a) necessity and
(b) trustworthiness. Necessity, because the declarants’s death makes it
impossible to obtain his testimony is the best evidence of the crime. (U.S. vs.
Virrey, 37 Phil. 618) Trustworthiness, because it is made at the point of death,
a situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to that created
by a positive oath administered in a court of justice. (U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil.
530)
Q – WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF A DYING DECLARATION?

A – It must be received with utmost care and given the same weight as the
testimony of a living witness. (People vs. Almendralejo, 48 Phil. 268)

Q – IS IT NECESSARY THAT THE DECLARANT STATE EXPLICITY THAT HE
HAD GIVEN HOE OF LIVING?
A – No. it is not necessary to the validity or admissibility of a declaration that the
declarant expressly state that he has lost all hope of recovery; it is sufficient
that the circumstances are such to lead inevitably to the conclusion that at the
time the declaration was made, the declarant did not expect to survive the
injury from which he actually died. (Peole vs. Serrano, 58 Phil. 669)
Q – IS THE INSTANTEOUS DEATH OF DECLARANT SHOULD FOLLOW

IMEDIATELY AFTER MAKING HIS DYING DECLARATION?
A – No. The force of dying declaration is not affected by the circumstances that
the declarant did not die until many hours or days afterwards provided he
finally did die from the wound, whose gravity did not diminish from the time he
made his declaration until the hour of his death. (Ruperto Martin, Revised
Rules on Evidence, Vol. IV, Premium Book Store, 1989 Ed., pp. 311-312
citing Moore vs. State, 96 Ten. 209 and U.S. vs. Mallari, 29 Phil. 14)
Q – WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF RECOVERY OF DECLARANT FATAL WOUND

INFLICTED UPON HIM ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DYING
DECLARATION?
A – The admissibility of the dying declaration of a deceased person with respect
to the person who inflicted the fatal injury depends upon whether at the time
the declaration was made the deceased believed that the injury receive would
be fatal. The circumstances that he thereafter recovered sufficiently to
engender the belief that he was going to live, does not render the declaration
inadmissible, where death in fact resulted from the same injury. (People vs.
Lara, 54 Phil. 96).
Q – IS THE OPINION CONTAINED IN A DYING DECLARATION

ADMISSIBLE?
A – Opinions in dying declarations are inadmissible. Dying declarations should
consists solely of facts, and not of conclusions, mental impressions or
opinions. Thus, a dying statement that the deceased thought or believed the
accused had shot him, or that he expected the accused would try to kill him,
is inadmissible where the deceased did not see his assailant, but based his
declaration wholly upon threats which had been made by the accused.
(Ruperto Martin, Ibid., p. 318 citing state vs. Horn, 204, No. 528, 103 S.W. 96)
Q – EXPLAIN BRIEFLY THE MEANING OF “CONSCIOUSNESS OF AN

IMPENDING DEATH.”
A – The declarant’s belief must be that death was inevitable, not merely possible,
nor even probably, but sure. In other words, the declarant, at the time he
makes his declaration, must have no hope of recovery. If at the time he had
an expectation, even only a little hope of recovery, the declaration would be
inadmissible. Fear, or even belief, that illness end in death, if consistent
with hope, is not sufficient. There must be a settled hopeless expectation.
(Mora, Ibid., p. 621)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST.

A – The 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 declarant’s own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless
he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his
successors in interest and against third person. (Sec. 38, Rule 130)

Q – WHY IS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST ADMISSIBLE?
DISCUSS BRIEFLY.
A – It is admissible on two grounds, name, (a) necessity, and (b) trustworthiness.
Necessity, because the declarant is dead or not available as witness, and
trustworthiness, because it is against the declarant’s interest, and therefore,
a guarantee of its truth. (Jaime R. Nuevas, Remedial Law Reviewer, 1971
Ed., A & J Publishing, p. 581 citing Fitch vs. Chapman, 10 Conn. 11; Smith
vs. Moore, 142 N.C. 277)
Q – WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIN OF DECLARATION

AGAINST INTEREST?
A – To render a statement admissible as a declaration against interest the
following requirements must be met:
a) Declarants must be unavailable as a witness:
b) The declaration must have related a fact against the apparent
pecuniary or proprietary or moral interest of declarant when his
statement was made.
c) The declaration must have concerned a fact personally cognizable by
declarant.
d) That circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify
existed . (Ruperto Martin, Ibid., p. 327 citing C.J.S. 959)
Q – GIVE 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 by birth or marriage, may
be received in evidence where it occured 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. 39, Rule 130)
Q – WHEN IS AN ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE ADMISSIBLE?

a) The declarant is related to the person whose pedigree is in question;
b) Such relationship is shown by evidence other than the act or declaration;
c) The act or declaration was made ante litem motam; and
d) The declarant is dead or unable to testify. (Sec. 39, Rule 130)
Q – WHY IS AN ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE ADMISSIBLE?

DISCUSS BRIEFLY?
A – It is admissible on two grounds, namely (a) necessity and (b) trustworthiness.
Necessity, because facts about pedigree are usually those which occurred
long before the trial and known to only a few persons, and trustworthiness,
because those facts are matters which members of the family are presumed
to be interested in ascertaining the truth. (J.Nuevas, Ibid., p. 582 citing
Fulkenson vs. Holmes, 117 U.S. 389; III Wigmore 218; Tracy’s Handbook, 62
Ed., p. 259
Q – WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE TERM “PEDIGREE”?

A – The word “pedigree” includes:
a) Relationship;
b) Family genealogy;
c) Birth;
d) Marriage;
e) Death;
f) Dates when the places where these facts occurred;

g) Names of relatives; and
h) Facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. (Sec. 39,
Rule 130)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION

REGARDING PEDIGREE.
A – The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in
respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in
evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family,
either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family
books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be
received as evidence of pedigree. (Sec. 40, rule 130)
Q – WHEN IS FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING

PEDIGREE ADMISSIBLE?
a) the reputation or tradition must refer to the pedigree of any member of
such family;
b) the reputation or tradition must have been formed previous to the
controversy, i.e., ante litem motam and
c) the witness testifying thereto must be a member of the familiy. (R.
Martin, Ibid., p. 340)
Q – MAY FACTS OF PEDIGREE BE PROVED BY COMMON REPUTATION?

A – No; fact of pedigree, if provable by reputation, can be proved only by
reputation in the family, but not by reputation in the community, except
marriage which is provable by both family and common reputation. (Sison
vs. Amblada, 30 Phil. 118)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON COMMON REPUTATION

A – Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting facts of
public or general interest more than thirty years old or respecting marriage
or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions
in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. (Sec.
41, Rule 130)
Q – WHEN IS EVIDENCE OF COMMON REPUTATION ADMISSIBLE?

a) The reputation refers to a matter of public or general interest more than
thirty (30) years old; or to marriage or moral character;
b) The reputation is ancient:
c) The reputation was formed ante litem motam; and
d) The reputation is one formed in the community interested. (Sec. 41,
Rule 130)
Q – WHY IS EVIDENCE OF COMMON REPUTATION ADMISSIBLE ?

DISCUSS BRIEFLY?
A – It is admissible on two ground, namely, (a) necessity and (b)trustworthiness.
Necessity, because the fact to be proved is of too ancient a date such that
eye-witnesses are no longer available, and trustworthiness, because if the
reputation had existed for so long a time, there be some truth to it. (J.
Nuevas, Ibid., p. 584 Mc Kinnon vs. Bliss, 21 N.Y. 206; Reg. vs Bedforshire,
4E. 535)

Q – WHEN IS EVIDENCE OF COMMON REPUTATION NOT HEARSAY?
EXPLAIN BRIEFLY.
A – It is not hearsay if common reputation is the fact in issue, or part thereof.
Thus, in a prosecution for maintenance of a house of ill-fame, a gambling
house, or an opium joint, the reputation of the house itself is the issue, so
that testimony of witnesses thereto is not hearsay. (U.S. vs. Choa Chick, 36
Phil. 831)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON RES GESTAE.

A – Statement made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior to subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res getae. 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.
Q – WHAT STATEMENTS MAY BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AS PART OF

THE RES GESTAE?
A – They are of two classes:
a) Spontaneous statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto
with respect to the circumstances thereof; and
b) Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and
giving it legal significance.
The former is referred to as spontaneous exclamations, while the latter
as verbal acts.
Q – DEFINE RES GESTAE

A – Res gestae literally means, “thing done,” and includes the circumstances,
facts and declarations incidental to the main fact or transaction necessary to
illustrate its character. It is so connected therewith as to constitute a part of
the transaction. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 349 citing Underhill’s Criminal Evidence,
p. 348)
Q – WHAT IS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE?

A – What is admissible as part of the res gestae are not the details of an
occurrence, but the human assertions or statements about those details.
Q – WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS?

A – The requisites for the admissibility of this kind of evidence as an exception to
the rule excluding hearsay are the following:
a) Statements must have been made while a startling occurrence is taking
place or immediately prior or subsequently thereto;
b) Such statements must be spontaneous; and
c) Such statements must relate to the circumstances of the startling
occurrence. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 350- 351 citing 32 C.J.S. and People vs.
Ricaplaza, 23 SCRA 374)
Q – WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE RULE ON RES GESTAE?

A – The principle rests upon the common experience that utterances made under
such circumstances are devoid of self-interest, and are in the same category
as exclamations. The probability of falsehood is so remote as to be
negligible. (People vs. Gondayao, 30 SCRA 226)
Q – WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF VERBAL ACTS?

A – The requisites of verbal acts are:
a) The res gestae is an equivocal act;
b) The equivocal act must be material to the issue;

c) The statement in question must be necessary for the understanding of
the equivocal act; and
d) The statement must accompany the equivocal act. (J. Nuevas, Ibid.,
p. 587 citing Tracy’s Handbook, 62 Ed., p 22).
Q – WHY ARE SPONTANEOUS EXCLAMATIONS AND VERBAL ACTS

ADMISSIBLE/ DISCUSS BRIEFLY?
A – The are admissible on two ground, namely, (a) necessity and (b)
trustworthiness. Necessity, because such natural and spontaneous
utterances are more convincing than the testimony of the same person on the
stand; and trustworthiness, because those statements are made instinctively.
(Jaime Nuevas, Ibid., p. 587 citing Mobile vs. Ascraft, 48 Ala. 31 and Wesley
vs. State, 53 Ala. 182)
Q – DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A DYING DECLARATION AND A

DECLARATION AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE.
A – If the requsites of a dying declaration do not concur, the declaration may be
admitted as part of the res gestae. (People vs. Talledo, 85 Phil. 533)
Q – WHAT IS AN EQUIVOCAL ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE ON

VERBAL ACTS?
A – An equivocal act is one susceptible of various interpretations. (Allen vs.
Duncan, 11 pick 308)
Q – WHAT ARE VERBAL ACTS? ILLUSTRATE.

A – Verbal acts are statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the
issue and giving it legal significance. Such declarations are called verbal
acts, because they are considered as verbal parts of the equivocal or
ambiguous acts which they explain. For example, when one delivers
money to another, such act does not by itself show whether the money is
intended, say as a gift or as a payment of a debt. But if the act of delivery is
accompanied by the statement that the money is for payment of a debt, or is
a birthday gift, the statement gives legal significance to the act.
Q – MAY AN EQUIVOCAL ACT EXTEND OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME?

MAY THE STATEMENTS NECESSARY FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF
SUCH EQUIVOCAL ACT BE ADMISSIBLE AS VERBAL ACTS?
A – The equivocal act may extend over a long period of time, and during that
period, those statements that are necessary for an understanding of the
meaning of said equivocal act, are admissible as verbal acts. If a man and
a woman are cohabiting together and for a certain period of time they have
been appearing in public together, there is here an equivocal conduct which
may be interpreted either as licit or illicit. According to the present rule, any
statements made by the parties during such equivocal conduct showing it to
be matrimonial, meretricious or otherwise, are admissible as verbal acts.
(Morann, Ibid., p. 636 citing Matter of Taylor, 9 Paige (N.Y.), 611)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.

A – Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a
person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to known the
facts therein stated, maybe received as prima facie evidence, if such person
made the entries in h is professional capacity or in the performance of duty
and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty (Sec. 43, Rule 130)

Q – WHEN ARE ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ADMISSIBLE?
a) The entries must have been made at or near the time of the transaction
to which they refer;
b) The person who made the entry must be, at the time the entry is
presented as evidence, deceased, outside of the Philippines or unable
to testify;
c) The person who made the entry must be in a position to know the facts
there in stated at the time he made the entries;
d) The entries must have been made in his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty; and
e) The entries must have been made in the ordinary or regular course of
business. (Ruperto G. Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence, vol. IV. 1989
Ed., p. 363)
Q – WHY ARE ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ADMISSIBLE?

DISCUSS BRIEDLY.
A – They are admissible on two grounds, namely, (a) necessity, and (b
trustworthiness. Necessity, because the entrant is dead or not available as
witness, and no equally satisfactory proof of the entry can be had; and
trustworthiness, because a man who makes regular entries for purposes of
business or duty usually makes them with accuracy. As these entries are
relied upon by businessmen everyday they can be relied upon the courts.
(J. Nuevas, Ibid., p. 589 citing Welsh vs. Barret, 15 Mass. 380 and Tracy’s
Handbook, 62 Ed., p. 276)
Q – IN SHORT, TO WHAT KIND OF ENTRIES DOES THIS RULE REFER?

A – It refers to an entry made by a person whose business or duty it was to
make the entry, and which appears to be part of a regular system of entries
kept in that establishment. (Jaime Nuevas, Ibid., p. 590 citing O’Day vs.
Spencer, 189 Pac. 394; Kibbe vs. Bancraft, 77 III. 19)
Q – IF THE ENTRANT IS ALIVE WOULD HIS ENTRY BE RECEIVABLE AS

INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE?
A – No; the entrant must be presented as witness. However, while on the stand,
he can refer to his entry as memorandum to refresh his memory. (Cang Ui
vs. Gardner, 34 Phil. 376). But, if notwithstanding the aid of his entry as a
memorandum, the entrant cannot recollect the facts stated therein, then his
entry is admissible as independent evidence, provided all the other
requisites for its admissibility are present. (Shove vs. Wiley, 18 Mass. 558)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON OFFICIAL ENTRIES.

A – Entries in official records made in the performance of h is duty by a public
officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
especially enjoined bylaw, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated. (Sec. 44, Rule 130)
Q – WHEN ARE ENTRIS IN OFFICIAL RECORDS ADMISSIBLE?

A – To render such entries admissible the following requisites concur:
a) The entry must be made by a public officer or by another person
especially enjoined by law to do so;
b) It must be made by a public officer in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law; and
c) The entrant must have personal knowledge of the facts stated by him.
(Ruperto Martin. Ibd., p. 370 citing V. Wigmore on Evidence, p.

Q – WHY ARE ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS ADMISSIBLE? DISCUSS
BRIEFLY.
A – They are admissible on two grounds, namely, (a) necessity, and (b)
trustworthiness. Necessity, because litigations are numberless in which the
testimony of public officials is required, and trustworthiness, because the
law reposes a particular confidence in public officials such that is presumes
that they will discharge their duties with fidelity and accuracy. (Antillon vs.
Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148)
Q – WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL

RECORDS?
A – They are prima facie evidence of the fact therein entered. (Sec. 44, Rule
130)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON COMMERCIAL LISTS.

A – Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published
compilation is admissible as tending to proved the truth of any relevant
matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged
in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein.
(Sec. 45, Rule 130).
Q – WHEN ARE COMMERCIAL LIST AND THE LIKE ADMISSIBLE?

a) such statements are contained in a list;
b) the compilation is published for use by person engaged in that
occupation; and
c) it is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (Ruperto Martin,
ibid., p. 378)
Q – WHEN ARE THESE COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE ADMISSIBLE?

A – They are admissible if published for use by persons engaged in that
occupation, and is generally used and relied upon by them. (Sec. 45, Rule
130)
Q – GIVE THE RULES ON LEARNED TREATISES.

A – A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law,
science or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject
testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise periodical or
pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject.
(Sec. 46, Rule 130)
Q – WHEN ARE LEARNED TREATISES ADMISSIBLE?

A – They are admissible if the fact therein stated can be judicially noticed, or if
another expert testifies that the author is a recognized expert on the subject.
(Sec. 46, Rule 130).
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER

PROCEEDING.
A – The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given
in a former caser of 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. (Sec. 47,
Rule 130)

Q – WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT THE TESTIMONY OR
DEPOSITION OF A WITNESS AT A FORMER PROCEEDING MAY BE
ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING?
A – There are five requisites:
a) That the testimony was rendered in a former case;
b) Between the same parties;
c) Relating to the same matter;
d) That the witness is dead, out of the Philippines, or unable to testify in the
subsequent proceeding; and
e) That the adverse party has had an opportunity to cross-examine the
witness. (Moran, Ibid., p. 645)
Q – IS THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE A LEGISLATIVE OR

ADMINSITRATIVE COMMITTEE ADMISSIBLE IN A SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDING?
A – No, because they are not judicial in character. Besides, in legislative and
administrative investigations, the rules of evidence are not binding. (Moran,
Ibid., p. 645)
7. Opinion Rules
Q – DISCUSS BRIEFLY THE OPINION RULE.

A – As a rule, a witness must confine his testimony to matters within his actual
knowledge. He cannot be asked questions calling for his opinion or
conclusions upon facts, which are for the court to make. (J. Nuevas, Ibid., p
595 citing 20 Am. Jur. 635). Hence, the opinion of a witness is not
admissible. (Sec. 48, Rules 130)
Q – GIVE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE OPINION RULE.

A – The following are admissible:
a) 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. (Sec. 49, Rule 130)
b) 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 has adequate
knowledge;
2. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
3. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted.
c) The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion,
behavior, condition or appearance of a person. (Sc. 50, Rule 130)
Q – WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE?

a) The fact to be proved is one requiring expert knowledge; and
b) The witness is really an expert. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 595 citing 20 Am. Jur.
647-649)
Q – WHAT IS MEANT BY “QUALIFYING THE WITNESS”? HOW IS IT DONE?

A – “Qualifying the witness” means proving that the witness presented is an
expert, and this is done by asking him preliminary questions as to his
education, training, experience, and the like. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 596 citing
Tracy’s Handbook, 62 Ed., p. 207)

Q – WHAT IS MEANT OF OPINION EVIDENCE?
A – “Opinion evidence” as the term is used in law, means the testimony of a
witness, given or offered in the trial of an action, that the witness is of the
opinion that some fact pertinent to the case exists or does not exists, offered
as proof of the existence or non-existence of the fact. (R. Martin, Ibid., p.
396 citing 20 Am. Jur. 634)
Q – WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY?

A – Expert testimony no doubt constitutes evidence worthy of meeting
consideration although not exclusive on questions of a professional
character. Courts of justice, however, are not bound to submit their findings
necessarily to such testimony. They are free to weigh, them, and they can
give or refuse to give them any value as proof, or they can even counter-
balance such evidence with the other elements of conviction which may
have been adduced during the trial. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 409 U.S. vs. Trono,
et. al., 3 Phil. 219-220).
Q – DEFINE EXPERT EVIDENCE.

A – Expert Evidence may be defined as the testimony of one possessing in
regard to a particular subject or department of human activity, knowledge
not usually acquired by other persons. (U.S.A vs Gil, 13 Phil. 530)
Q – WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE NECESSARY?

A – Expert evidence is necessary when there are certain matters which do not
come within the knowledge of ordinary witnesses. (Moran, Ibid., p. 650)
Q – WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE NECESSSARY TO PROVE THE

GENUINENESS OF A HANDWRITING?
A – When the genuineness of handwriting is to be proven by comparison expert
evidence is necessary. Whether or not the handwriting in questions is
similar to other writings of the same person is a matter which requires the
testimony of a man who has been trained, or has actual skill or knowledge
on the same. (U.S. vs. Santiago, 41 Phil. 793,802)
Q – WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE NECESSARYTO PROVE MENTAL

INSANITY?
A – Mental insanity may be proven by the opinion of ordinary witnesses, but
when the mental disease is to be inferred from an examination and
observation of its symptoms, the opinion of an expert is necessary. (Torres
vs. Lopex, 48 Phil. 772)
Q – IS EXPERT EVIDENCE NECESSSARY IN THE IDENTIFICAITON OF

FINGERPRINTS?
A – Yes, because it is a science requiring close study. (People vs. Medina, 59
Phil. 330)
8. Character Evidence
Q – GIVE THE RULES GOVERNING CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL

CASES.
a) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to
the moral involved in the offense charged.
b) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.

c) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if
it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged. (Sec. 51, Rule 130).
Q – DEFINE CHARACTER
A – Character is defined s that “combination of properties, qualities or
peculiarities which distinguishes one person from others.” (Martin, Ibid., p.
420 citing The Cmaberlayne Trial Evidence, p. 578)
Q – IS EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF THE ACCUSED ADMISSIBLE

IN CRIMINAL CASES?
A – The good character of an accused is admissible in evidence to show that
improbability of his doing the act charged. The principle upon which good
character may be proven is, that it affords a presumption against the
commission of crime. This presumption arises from the improbability, as a
general rule, as proven by common observation and experience, that a
person who has uniformly pursued an honest and upright course of conduct
will depart from it and do an ct so inconsistent with it. Such a person may
be overcome by temptation and fall into crime, and cases of that kind often
occur, but they are exceptions; the general rule is otherwise. (Moran, p.
656 citing Cancemi vs. People, 16 N.Y. 501)
Q – MAY THE PROSECUTION PROVE THE BAD MORAL CHARACTER OF

THE ACCUSED?
A – The prosecution is not permitted to impeach the character of an accused, if
the latter does not put it in issue by giving evidence in his support. (People
vs. Hodges, 48 Phil. 592). The reason for the rule is that evidence of bad
character may create an unfair prejudice against the acused who may be
convicted not because he is guilty of the crime charged, but because of his
being a crooked man. (Moran, Ibid., p. 657 citing People vs. Shen, 147 N.
Y. 78, 41 N.E. 508)
RULE 131- BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTION
Q – WHAT IS BURDEN OF PROOF?

A – 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)
Q – DEFINE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE.
A – “Burden of Evidence” is defined as “that logical necessity which rests on a
party at any particular time during a trial to create a prima facie case in his
own favor, or to overthrow one when created against him. The burden of
evidence is determined by the progress of the trial, and shifts to one party
when the other party has produced sufficient evidence to be entitled as a
matter of law to a ruling in his favor. (R. Martin, Ibid, p. 431 citing 2 Jones
on Evidence. 2nd Ed., 355)
Q – WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES? WHY?

A – In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the
prosecution (People vs. De Reyes, 82 Phil. 130), because the accused has
in his favor the presumption of innocence.
Q – WHAT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF

CRIMINAL INTENT?
A – When it has been proven that the accused committed the unlawful acts
alleged, it is properly presumed that they were committed with full
knowledge and with criminal intent, and it is incumbent upon them to rebut

such presumption. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 441 citing State vs. Sullivan, 34
Idaho 68, 199 p. 647, 17 A.L.R. 902)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION.

A – The following are instances of conclusive presumptions.
a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true
and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of
such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it;
b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
the commencement of the relation of the landlord and tenant between
them. (Sec. 2 Rule 131)
Q – WHAT IS A PRESUMPTION?
A – A presumption is an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually
known, arising from its usual connection with another which is known.
(Jaime Nuevas, Ibid., p. 602 citing III C.R. Co. vs. Interstate Co., 206)
Q – WHAT ARE THE CLASSES OF PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW?

A – There are two classes of presumptions of law: (a) conclusive presumptions
or presumptions juris et de jure and (b) disputable presumption or
presumption juris tantum. Conclusive presumptions are inferences which
the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by
any contrary proof however strong. (Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil. 216)
Disputable presumptions are those presumptions which may be disputed,
opposed, refuted or rebutted. Such presumptions continue until overcome
by proof to the contrary or by some stronger presumption. (R. Martin, Ibid.,
p 447 citing Annotation: Ann. Cas. 1917 E. 11221).
Q – IS PRESUMPTION AN EVIDENCE?
A – No. The effect of a presumption is to do away with evidence. It is not
evidence, even though it takes the place of it in the trial of causes. (R.
Martin, Ibid., p. 448 citing The Chamberlayne Trial Evidence, p. 732)
Q – WHAT IS ESTOPPEL IN PAIS?

A – Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally
and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act
upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration,
act or omission, be permitted to falsify it. (Sec. 2, par. (a)Rule 131)
Q – WHAT IS THEREASON FOR THE RULE ON ESTOPPEL IN PAIS?

A – The doctrine of estoppel in pais or equitable estoppel is said to be dictated
by the principles of morality and fair dealing and it intended to subserve the
ends of justice. It concludes the truth in order to prevent fraud and
falsehood and imposes silence on a party only when in conscience and
honesty he should not be allowed to speak. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 449 citing
19 Am. Jur. 641). Through estoppel an admission or presentation is
rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or
disproved as against the person relying thereon. (Art. 1431, New Civil Code
of the Philippines)
Q – WHO MAY INVOKE ESTOPPEL?

A – An equitable estoppel can only be invoked by one who is in a position to be
misled by the misrepresentation with respect to which the estopped is
invoked; and under circumstances where damage would result to him from
the adoption by the person estopped of a position different from that which
has been held out to be true. (Cristobal vs. Gomez, 50 Phil 810)

Q – GIVE THE INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS DISPUTABLE
PRESUMPTIONS.
A – The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the
latter ones is produced;
j) That a person found in possession of a thing in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whoe act; otherwise, that
things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over,
are owned by him;
k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of
the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid, the money, or the
delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly;
l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected
to it;
m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or
elsewhere was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
o) That 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) The private transactions have been fair and regular;
q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient
consideration;
t) That an endorsement of a negotiable instrument was made before the
instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;
u) That a writing is truly dated;
v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular
course of the mail;
w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not
the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except
for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his
succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of
seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his
succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of
the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft

which is missing , who has not been heard for four years since the lost
of the vessel or aircraft;

(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities,
and has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances
and whose existence has not been known for four years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the
house present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a
well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. In case of
disappearance, where there is danger of death under the
circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years
shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent
marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse
present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in the
Family Code and in the rules of a declaration of presumptive death of
the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the
absent spouse.
x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in

was conformable to the law or fact;
y) That things have happened according to the ordinary, course of nature
and the ordinary habits of life;
z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of
copartnerhsip;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as

husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb) That properly acquired by a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry 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) That 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) t if the marriage is terminated and the mother
contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such
termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the
absence of proof to the contrary;
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have
been conceived during the former marriage, provided it be born
within the three hundred days after the termination of the
marriage;
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the
celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have
been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born
within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as
is usual with things of that nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be
printed or published by public authority, was so printed or
published;

(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting to contain
reports o cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book
is published, contains correct reports of such cases;
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to
convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it
to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of
such person or his successor in interest.
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two

person perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no
particular circumstances from which it can be inferred the
survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the
strength and age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
(1) If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed
to have survived;
(2) If both were abovethe age of sixty, the younger is deemed to
have survived;
(3) If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is
deemed to have survived;
(4) If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different,
the male is deemed to have survived; if the sex be the same,
the older;
(5) If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between
those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
(kk) That if there is doubt, as between two or more persons

who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died
first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall
proved the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered
to have died at the same time. (Sec. 3, Rule 131)
Q – WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?

A – A person accused of crime is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is
proved and this presumption remains with him throughout the trial until it is
overcome by proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of
innocence is founded upon the first principles of justice and is not a mere
form, but a substantial part of the law.
The presumption of innocence is a conclusion of law in favor of the
accused, whereby his innocence is not only established but continues until
sufficient evidence is introduced to overcome the proof which the law has
created – namely, his innocence. When a doubt is created, it is the result of
proof, and not the proof itself. The courts will not impute a guilty
construction or inference compatible with innocence arises therefrom with
equal force and fairness. In fact, it si always the duty of the court to resolve
the circumstances of evidence upon a theory of innocence rather than upon
a theory of guilt where it is possible to do so. The accused is not to be
presumed guilty because the facts are consistent with his guilt; this will be
done where the facts are inconsistent with his innocence. (Vicente J.
Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines (Evidence), Vol,
VII, Part I, 1990 Ed., p. 79-80 citing Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 11 th Ed.,
Sec. 72).

Q – DISTINGUISH PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE FROM REASONABLE
DOUBT.
A – In making the distinction between the terms “presumption of innocence” and
of “reasonable doubt”, it has been stated that “presumption of innocence” is
a conclusion drawn by law in favor of a citizen , while “reasonable” doubt” is
a condition of mind produced by proof resulting from evidence in the case.
The former is regarded as evidence, introduced by the law to be considered
by the court, while the latter is the result of insufficient proof. (Vicente J.
Francisco, Ibid., 81 citing 10 Encyclopedia of Evidence, 625).
Q – EXPLAIN THE PRESUMPTION “THAT AN UNLAWFUL ACT WAS DONE

WITH AN UNLAWFUL INTENT.”
A – The general rule is that, if it is proved that the accused committed a the
unlawful act charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with a
criminal intention, and it is for the accused to rebut this presumption. The
act in itself is evidence of the intent. (Vicente J. Francisco, Ibid., p. 82 citing
16 C.J. 81)
Q – EXPLAINT EH PRESUMTION “THAT A PERSON INTENDS THE

ORDINARY CONSEQUENCES OF HIS VOLUNTARY ACT.”
A – Though it is maxim of law, as well as the dictate of charity, that every person
is to be presumed innocent until he is proved to be guilty, yet it is a rule
equally sound that every sane person must be supposed to intended that
which is the ordinary and natural consequences of his own purposed act.
(V.J. Francisco, Ibid., p. 84 citing 3 Green Evidence, 15 th ed., 13)
Q – EXPLAIN THE PRESUMPTION “THAT A PERSON INTENDS THE

ORDINARY CONSEQUENCES OF HIS VOLUNTARY ACT”.
A – Men of sound mind are presumed to intend the natural and necessary
consequences of acts which they intentionally perform. (Ruperto G. Martin,
Revised Rules on Evidence, Vol. IV 1989 ed., p. 465 citing 1 Jones on
Evidence, 2nd Ed., 210). It is said that man intends that consequence which
he contemplates and which he expects to result from his act, and he,
therefore, must be taken to intend every consequence which is the natural
and immediate result of any act which he voluntarily does. (Ibid).
Q – IN ORDER THAT THE ADVERSE PRESUMPTION FROM SUPPRESSION

OF EVIDENCE MAY ARISE, WHAT ARE THERE REQUISITES?
A – The following must concur:
a) The suppression is willful; (Sec. 3, Rule 131)
b) The suppression is not in the exervcise of a privilege;
(U.S. vs. Melchir, 2 Phil. 588)
c) The evidence suppressed is not merely corroborative or
cumulative; (People vs. Tuazon, 56 Phil. 649) and
d) The evidence is at the disposal only of the suppressing
party. (People vs. Otero, 51 Phil 201)
Q – WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF NON-PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL

EVIDENCE BY A PARTY?
A – Non-production of evidence that would naturally have been produced by an
honest and, therefore,, fearless claimant permits the inference that its tenor
is unfavorable to the party’s cause. (Marvel Corp. vs. David, 94 Phil. 376)

Q – IN ORDER THAT THE ADVERSE PRESUMPTION FROM POSSESSION
OF STOLEN GOODS MAY ARISE, WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES?
A – The following must concur:
a) The crime of theft or robbery was committed; (U.S. vs.
Carreon, 12 Phil.) 51).
b) It was committed recently; (U.S. VS. Carlipio,, 18 Phil.
421)
c) The property object ofthecrime was found in accused’s
possession; (U.S. vs. Ungal, 37 Phil. 835) and
d) The accccused is unable to explain his possession
satisfactorily; (U.S. vs. Espia, 16 Phil. 506) anmd, or for the application of
the presumption of doer of the whole act.
e) It must be shown that the goods were looted at the
same time, in the ssame place and on the same occasion. (People vs. De
Jose, CA-G-R. No. 02352- CR, Jan. 31, 1963)
Q – WHAT PRESUMPTION ARISES FROM FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE?

A – The presumption arises that the case is groundless and affects the whole
mass of evidence presented by the party. (De Leon vs. Layco, 73 Phil. 588)
Q – WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF

OFFICAL ACTS?
A – It includes regularity of appointment and performance of duty (Tolentino vs
Catoy, 82 Phil. 300) and applies to corporate officers. (J. Nuevas, Remedial
Law Reviewer, 1971 ed., p. 605)
Q – IN THOSE CASES WHERE DEATH MAY BE PRESUMED, IS THERE A

PRESUMPTION AS TO THE EXACT DATE OF DEATH?
A – None; the exact date of death is a matter of proof. (J. Nuevas, Ibid., p 607
citing Davis vs. Briggs, 97 U.S. 628)
Q – WHEN ARE PRESUMPTIONS ADMISSIBLE?

A – The are admissible when the facts from which they may be deduced are fully
proven; a presumption cannot be made to rest on another presumption.
(Cuaycong vs. Rius, 86 Phil. 170)
Q – WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF PRESUMPTIONS?

A – Presumptions do not constitute evidence and have no weight as such, but
only determined the party who has the duty of presenting evidence, and
when that duty is met, presumptions recede. (Nuevas, Ibd., p. 608 citing
Anno. 15 A.L.R. 881) In other words, presumptions merely aid in
establishing a prima facie case and have no probative effect when
countervailing proof is offered. (J. Nuevas, Ibid., p. 608 citing 20 Am. Jur.
171)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY OR

ILLEGITIMACY OF A CHILD.
A – There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after
three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage of the
separation of the spouses. Whoever alleged the legitimacy or illegitimacy of
such child must prove his allegation. (Sec. 4, Rule 131)

RULE 132 - PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
A. Examination of Witness
Q – HOW MAY THE EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS BE DONE?

A – The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in
open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer,
the answers of the witnesses shall be given orally. (Sec. 1)
Q – MUST A WITNESS ANSWER ANY QUESTION ASKED?

A – Yes, a witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him (Sec. 3)
Q – WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF A WITNESS?

A – The rights of a witness are:
a) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and
from harsh or insulting demeanor;
b) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
c) Not to be examined exception as to matters pertinent to the issue;
d) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an
offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
e) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it
be to the very fact at issued to a fact from which the fact in issue would
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for offenses. (Sec. 3)
Q – STATE THE ORDER OF EXAMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL WITNESS

A – The order in which individual witnesses may be examined is as follows:
a) Direct examination by the proponent;
b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
d) Re-cross-examination by the opponents. (Sec. 4)
Q – GIVE THE CONCEPTS AND PURPOSES OF DIRECT EXAMINATION;

CROSS EXAMINATION; REDIRECT EXAMINATION AND RE-CROSS-
EXAMINATION.
A – Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. (Sec. 5)
Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. Upon the termination of
the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse
party as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or connected
therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit
all important facts bearing upon the issue. (Sec. 6)
Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. – After the cross-
examination pf the witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by
the party calling him, to explain or supplement his answers given during the
cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (Sec. 7)
Re-cross-examination. – Upon the conclusion of the re-direct
examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on
matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on such other matters
as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (Sec. 8)

Q – WHEN MAY A WITNESS BE RECALLED?
A – After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the
witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or
withhold leave in its discretion, as the interest of justice may require.
Q – WHAT IS A LEADING QUESTION?

A – A leading question is one which suggest to the witness the answer which the
examining party desires. (Sec. 10)
Q – ARE LEADING QUESTIONS ALLOWED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION?

A – As a general rule, they are not allowed, except in the following cases
a) On cross examination;
b) On preliminary matters;
c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a
witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind or
a deaf-mute;
d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
e) Of a witness who is an adverse party, or an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party. (Sec. 10)
Q – WHAT IS A MISLEADING QUESTION?

A – A misleading question is one which assumed as true a fact not yet testified
to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is
not allowed (Sec. 10)
Q – HOW MAY THE ADVERSE PARTY’S WITNESS BE IMPEACHED?

A – A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by
contradictory evidence,by evidence that his general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony, but not by evidence of
particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of
the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an
offense. (Sec. 11)
Q – WHAT IS IMPEACHMENT OF A WITNESS?

A – it is simply an attack on the credibility of a witness. (J. Nuevas, Remedial
Law Reviewer, 1971 Ed., P. 611 citing Ballentines’s Law Dict. 2 nd Ed., p.
610)
Q – MAY A PARTY IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS?

A – As a rule, no, except, if the witness is an unwilling or hostile witness or if the
witness is an adverse party of an officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation or a partnership or association which is an
adverse party. (Sec. 12)
Q – WHEN MAY A WITNESS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS UNWILLING OR

HOSTILE?
A – A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by
the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified
reluctance to testify of his having misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand. (Sec. 12)

Q – HOW MAY A WITNESS BE IMPEACED BY EVIDENCE OF
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS?
A – Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other
times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements
must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and
the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in
writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him
concerning them. (Sec. 13)
Q – MAY EVIDENCE OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER OF AN ACCUSED BE

PRESENTED?
A – As a rule, no. Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible
until such character has been impeached. (Sec. 14)
Q – STATE THE RULES ON THE EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF

WITNESSES:
A – On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude from the court any witness not
at the time under examination sot that he may not hear the testimony of
other witnesses. The judge any also cause witnesses to be kept separate
and to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have
been examined. (Sec. 15)
Q – WHEN MAY A WITNESS REFER TO A MEMORADUM AND STATE THE

PROCEDURE?
A – A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by
anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time
when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when
the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly
written or recorded; but in such case the writing or record must be produced
and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross-
examined the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence. So, also, a
witness may testify from such a writing or record, though he retain no
recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or
record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must
be received with caution. (Sec. 16)
Q – STATE THE RULE WHEN PART OF AN ACT, DECLARATION OR

WRITING IS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE BY ONE PARTY.
A – When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in
evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into
by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or
record is given in evidence, any other ct declaration, conversation, writing or
record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. (Sec.
17).
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON THE RIGHT TO INSPECT WRITING SHOWN TO

WITNESS.
A – Whenever a writing is shown to witness, it may be inspected by the adverse
party. (Sec. 18)
B. Authentication and Proof of Documents
Q – DEFINE AND CLASSIFY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

A – Documentary evidence refers to any tangible object capable of expressing a
fact, or which tend to establish the truth or untruth of matters at issue, and
includes all kinds of documents, records and writings. (Nuevas, Ibid., p 614

citing Curtis vs. Bradley, 65 Conn 99) It may be classified into public and
private documents. (Sec. 19).
Q –WHAT ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS? PRIVATE DOCUMENTS?

A – Public documents are:
a) The written official acts, or records of official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country.
b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by
law to be entered therein.
Q – WHAT IS THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A PRIVATE

DOCUMENT?
A – It must be authenticated, which means that its due execution and authenticity
must first be proved. (Sec. 20)
Q – HOW MAY A PRIVATE DOCUMENT BE AUTHENTICATED?

A – In any of the following modes:
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker. (Sec. 20)
Q – WHAT IS AN ANCIENT DOCUMENT?

A – A document is ancient if the following requisites concur:
a) The document is more than thirty years old;
b) It is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuine; and
c) It is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicioin.(Sec.
21).
Q – HOW MAY THE HANDWRITING OF A PERSON PROVED?

A – The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to
be the handwriting of such person because he ahs seen the person write or
has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or
ben charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (Sec. 22)
Q – WHAT DOES A PUBLIC DOCUMENT PROVE?

A – Document consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of
a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the
fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (Sec.
23)
Q – HOW MAY AN OFFICIAL RECORD BE PROVED?

A – The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,
when admissible for any purpose may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof of by a coyp attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record or by his deputy and accompanied if the record is not
kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If
the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, 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 thePhilippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept
and authenticated by the seal of his office (Sec. 24)
Q – WHEN A COPY OF A WRITING IS ATTESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF

EVIDENCE, WHAT MUST THE ATTESTATION STATE?
A – Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, insubstance, that the copy is a correct
copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be
any, or if he be theclerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such
court. (Sec. 25)
Q – WHAT IS MEANT BY IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD?

A – It means that any public record an official copy of which is admissible in
evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept except
upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the
just determination of a pending case. (Sec. 26)
Q – HOW MAY THE AUTHORIZED PUBLIC RECORD OF A PRIVATE

DOCUMENT BE PROVED?
A – An authorized public record of a private document may be proved.
a) By the original record; or
b) By a coy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (Sec. 27)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD.

A – A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official
record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a
specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by
a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records
of his office contain no such records or entry. (Sec. 28).
Q – HOW MAY A JUDICIAL RECORD BE IMPEACHED?

A – Any judicial record may be impeached be impeached by evidence of:
a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
b) collusion between the parties or
c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
(Sec. 29)
Q – STATE THE RULE ON PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS.

A – Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved an certified as provided by
law, may be presented in evidence without further proof the certificate of
acknowledgement being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument of document involved. (Sec. 30)
Q – HOW MAY THE ALTERATIONS IN A DOCUMENT BE EXPLAINED BY

THE PARTY PRODUCING IT?
A – The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and
appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the
question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may show that the
alteration was made by another without his concurrence, or was made with
the consent of the parties affected by it or was otherwise properly or
innocently made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or
language of the instrument. If he fails to do that, the document shall not be
admissible in evidence. (Sec. 31)

Q –GIVE THE RULE ON SEALED AND UNSEALED PRIVATE DOCUMENTS.
A – There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private
documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (Sec.
32).
Q – WHEN MAY DOCUMENTS WRITTEN IN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE BE

ADMISSIBLE?
A – Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as
evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. To
avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to
have such translation prepared before trial. (Sec. 33)
C. Offer and Objection
Q – WHAT IS THE REASON AND PURPOSE FOR THE OFFER OF

EVIDENCE?
A – The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purposes for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (Sec. 34)
Q – WHEN SHALL OFFER OF EVIDENCE BE MADE?

A – As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the
witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of

a party’s testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless
allowed by the court to be done in writing. (Sec. 35)
Q – WHEN SHALL OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BE MADE?

A – Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the
offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the coursed of the oral examination

of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become
reasonably apparent.
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.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (Sec.
36)
Q – WHEN IS OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE UNNECESSARY?

A – When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a
witness that the questions being propounded are of the same class as
those to which objection has been made, whether such objection was
sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it
being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to
such class of questions. (Sec. 37)
Q – DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTION.

A – An objection is general when the grounds thereof are not stated, or are
generally stated. An objection that the evidence offered is irrelevant,
incompetent, or inadmissible is a general one. (Moran, Remedial Law
Reviewer, p. 690 citing Rush vs. French, 1 Ariz., 99, 25 Pac. 819) An
objection is specific where it states wherein or how or why the evidence is

irrelevant or incompetent. (Moran, Ibid., Rush vs. French, supra) The
general rule is that an objection must be specified. (Sec. 36)
Q – WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF A GENERAL OBJECTION?

A – A general objection is sufficient, if on the face of the evidence objected to
units relation to the rest of the case, there appears no purpose whatever for
which it would have been admissible. Thus, it has been held that where
there is a general objection to evidence and it is overruled, and the evidence
is received, the ruling will not be held erroneous unless the evidence, in its
essential nature, is inadmissible. Where the general objection is sustained,
and the evidence excluded, the ruling will not be upheld, unless any ground
in fact existed for the exclusion (6 Moran, Comments, p. 128, 1963 ed.)
Q – WHENSHALL THE COURT RULE ON THE OBJECTIONS TO THE OFFER

OF EVIDENCE?
A – The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made,
unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the
question presented by the ruling (Sec. 38)
Q – SHOULD THE COURT STATE THE REASON FOR ITS RULING IN CASE
OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE?
A – The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.
However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling
sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or
grounds relied upon. (Sec. 38)
Q – WHEN MAY THE COURT STRIKE OUT AN ANSWER OF A WITNESS

DURING THE TRIAL?
A – Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the
opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is
found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the
answer given to be striken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers
which are incompetent, irrelevant or otherwise improper. (Sec. 39)
Q – STATE THE PROCEDURE IF THE COURT EXCLUDES DOCUMENTS OR

THINGS OFFERED IN EVIDENCE.
A – If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the
offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the
evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name
and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
proposed testimony. (Sec. 40)
RULE 133 - WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Q – WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES?

A – In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt. (Sec. 2, Rule 133)
Q – WHAT IS PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?

A – 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
uprejudiced mind. (Sec. 2)

Q – WHAT DEGREE OF PROOF IS NECESSARY FOR CONVICTION IN
CRIMINAL CASES?
A – A defendant in a criminal action shall be presumed to be innocent until the
contrary is proved, and in case of reasonable doubt that his guilt is
satisfactorily shown, he shall be entitle to an acquittal. (People vs. Bequino,
77 Phil. 629) Therefore, the guilt of the accused must be established by the
prosecution by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Q – WHAT ARE THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE WEIGHT AND

SUFFICIENCY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE?
A – In determining where the superior weight of evidence on the issues involved
lies the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case
including the following:
a) the witness’ manner of testifying;
b) the intelligence of the witnesses, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they are testifying;
c) the nature of the facts to which the witnesses testify;
d) the probability or improbability of the testimony of witnesses;
e) the interest or want of interest of the witnesses;
f) the personal credibility of the witnesses so far as the same may
legitimately appear upon the trial, and
g) the number of witnesses. (U.S. vs. Lasada, 18 Phil. 90)
Q – WHEN IS THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF AN ACCUSED

SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT?
A – An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient
ground fro conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
(Sec. 3)
Q – WHAT IS THE CORPUS DELICTI?

A – It is the fact of specific loss or injury. In homicide, the fact of death, whether
or not feloniously caused is the corpus delicti (Cortez vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-32246, June 2, 1988)
Q – WHAT MANNER OF PROOF IS REQUIRED IN SELF-DEFENSE?

A – Accused who claims self-defense has the burden to prove its elements by
clear and convincing evidence. That evidence must be clear, satisfactory
and convincing. (People vs. Macariola, 120 SCRA 92)
Q – WHEN IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT FOR

CONVICTION?
A – Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if;
a) There is more than one circumstance;
b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (Sec. 4)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

A – In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion. (Sec. 5)

Q – WHAT IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?
A – Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidenced as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
(Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-60287, Aug. 17, 1988)
Q – WHEN MAY THE COURT STOP THE PRESENTATION OF FURTHER

EVIDENCE?
A – The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular
point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the
same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive.
But this power should be exercised with caution. (Sec. 6)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON THE EVIDENCE ON MOTION.

A – When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear
the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties,
but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
testimony or depositions. (Sec. 7)
RULE 134 - PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY
Q – HOW MAY A PERSON PERPETUATE HIS OWN TESTIMONY?

A – A person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of another
person regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the
Philippines, may file a verified petition in the court of the province of the
residence of any expected adverse party. (Sec. 1)
Q – WHAT SHALL BE ALLEGED IN THE PETITION?

A – The petition shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall show (a)
that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of the
Philippines but is presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought; (b)
the subject matter of the expected action and his interest therein; (c) the
facts which is he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his
reasons for desiring to perpetuate it; (d) the names or a description of the
persons he expects will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as
known; and (e) the names and addresses of the persons to be examined
and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each,
and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions
of the persons to be examined named in the petition for the purpose of
perpetuating their testimony. (Sec. 2)
Q – WHAT SHALL THE NOTICE OF PETITION CONTAIN, AND UPON WHOM,

WHEN AND HOW SHALL IT BE SERVED?
A – The petitioner shall thereafter serve a notice upon each person named in the
petition as an expected adverse party, together with a copy of the petition,
stating that the petitioner will apply to the court, at a time and place named
therein, for the order described in the petition. At least twenty (20) days
before the date of hearing the notice shall be served in the manner provided
for service of summons. (Sec. 3)
Q – WHAT SHALL THE COURT DO IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THE

PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY MAY PREVENT A FAILURE OR
DELAY OF JUSTICE?
A – If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may prevent a
failure or delay of justice, it shall make an order designating or describing
the persons whose deposition may be taken and specifying the subject
matter of the examination, and whether the deposition shall be taken upon

oral examination or written interrogatories. The depositions may then be
taken in accordance with Rule 24 before the hearing (Sec. 4)
For the purpose of applying Rule 24 to depositions for perpetuating

testimony, each reference therein to the court in which the action is pending
shall be deemed to refer to the court in which the petition for such
deposition was filed. (Sec. 5)
Q – GIVE THE RULE ON THE USE OF DEPOSITION.

A – If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this rule, or if,
although not so taken, it would be admissible in evidence, it may be used in
any action involving the same subject matter subsequently brought in
accordance with the provision of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 24. (Sec. 6)
Q – IN SUCH A CASE, HOW AND WHERE SHALL THE PETITION BE FILED?

A – If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of the Regional Trial Court or
before the taking of an appeal if the time therefore has not expired, the
Regional Trial Court in which the judgment was rendered may allow the
taking of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in
the event of further proceedings in the said court. In such case the party
who desires to perpetuate the testimony may make a motion in the said
Regional Trial Court for leave to take the depositions, upon the same notice
and service thereof as if the action was pending therein. (Sec. 7)
Q – WHAT SHALL THE MOTION SHOW?

A – The motion shall show (a) the names and addresses of the persons to be
examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from
each; and (b) the reason for perpetuating their testimony. (Sec. 7)
Q – WHAT SHALL BE ORDERED BY THE COURT?

A – If the court finds that the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a
failure or delay of justice, it may make an order allowing is proper to avoid a
failure or delay of justice, it may make an order allowing the depositions to
be taken, and thereupon the depositions may be taken and used in the
same manner and under the same conditions as are prescribed in these
rules for depositions taken in actions pending in the Regional Trial Court.
(Sec. 7)


Criminal Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Criminal Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Criminal Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POINTERS TO REVIEW IN

RULE 128 - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Q – DEFINE THE FOLLOWING TERM:

a) Rule of Evidence – expresses the mode of manner of proving the facts

m) Conclusive evidence – evidence which is inconvertible ( Nuevas, citing

Q – WHERE ARE OUR RULES OF EVIDENCE FOUND?

Q – DISTINGUISH EVIDEMNCE FROM PROOF

Q – WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE RULES OR LAW OF EVIDENCE/

Q – WHAT IS THE OBJECT OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE?

Atty. Juvy R. Manwong 2

Q – ARE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE THE SAME, IN CRIMINAL AS WELL

Q – WHEN IS EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE?

Q – WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE/

Q – WHEN IS EVIDENCE RELEVANT?

Q – WHEN IS EVIDENCE COMPETENT?

Q- IS EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED ADMISSIBLE? WHY?

Q – WHAT ARE THE TWO AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY WHICH

Atty. Juvy R. Manwong 3

Q – WHAT IS MEANT BY MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

Q – WHAT IS MEANT BY CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

Q – WHAT IS MEANT BY CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

Q - STATE THE RULE OF RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE

Q – WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE ON RELEVANCY?

Q- WHAT ARE COLLATERAL MATTERS?

Q – WHEN MAY THE COURT ALLOW EVIDENCE ON COLLATERAL

Atty. Juvy R. Manwong 4

Q – WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE?

RULE 129 - WHAT NEED TO BE PROVED?

Q – DEFINE JUDICIAL NOTICE

Q – WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF JUDICIAL NOTICE?

Q – STATE THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH JUDICIAL NOTICE IS BASED?

Q- WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE MANDATORY?

Atty. Juvy R. Manwong 5

Q – WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY?

Q – WHEN IS HEARING NECESSARY IN JUDICIAL NOTICE?

Q – IS THERE ANY NEED TO PROVE ADMISSIONS IN THE COURT OF

Q – HOW MAY AN ADMISSION BE CONTRADICTED?

RULE 130 - RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

Q – WHAT ARE THE OBJECTS AS EVIDENCE?

Q – WHAT IS THE PRO BATIVE VALUE OF OBJECT AS EVIDENCE?

Q – WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT

Atty. Juvy R. Manwong 6

Q – WHAT IS THE SCOPE OB OBJECT OF EVIDENCE?

Q – WHAT IS THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE

Q – WHAT ARE DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE?

Q – STATE THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Q – THE RULE IS THAT, NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE OTHER

Q – WHAT ARE CONSIDERED ORIGINALS OF A DOCUMENT?

Atty. Juvy R. Manwong 7

Q – HOW MAY THE ORIGINAL OF A LOST OR DESTROYED DOCUMENT

Q – WHEN MAY SECONDARY EVIDENCE BE SHOWN IF THE ORIGINAL

Q – HOW MAY A PUBLIC DOCUMENT BE PROVED?

Q – IS THE PARTY WHO CALLS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Q – WHAT IS PAROL EVIDENCE?

Q – STATE THE RULE WHEN THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT ARE PUT TO

Q – UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES MAY A PARTY PRESENT

Atty. Juvy R. Manwong 8